you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -45 points 4 months ago* (62 children)

It's interesting how there's no one socialist, left, or democrat enough. Like no matter who's there someone will argue they are a fake and a phony.

  • source
  • hideshow 62 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 4 months ago (18 children)
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago (17 children)

    There are literally people on this website who say he's a fake socialist

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 4 months ago* (13 children)

    E.g. me meow-anarchist , because he's a social democrat

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 4 months ago (7 children)

    Or, he's a real socialist working within the confines of social democracy.

    "Vote for me!" throws a molotov

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Well until he shows us otherwise, i.e. by working against the system to destroy it, he's a social democrat in practice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    Should he just destroy it in NY or run this fade as high as he can go and destroy it there?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    Moot point because he's not making progress towards either 😮‍💨

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Well... what would you do, if you were mayor?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 4 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    Just promise me you bring that same heat against anyone to his right (99.99% of US politicians) because otherwise you risk doing their work for them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 29 points 4 months ago (12 children)

    I think it’s quite possible your point is true, but making it in response to this image is implying something very reductive about how a lot of the left feel about her and why.

    Opposing genocide isn’t a purity test or a shibboleth. It is table stakes.

    Best wishes to Kamala, but all that’s happening is she is seeing all the voters who probably would have turned out for her if she’d actually represented their views - and they sure ain’t all of them socialist.

    So in a vacuum, your comment is quite fair and I think I agree. In the context of this thread, however, it just seems like you’re afraid of nuance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 16 points 4 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 21 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    You are.

    You have essentially repeated the same basic observation regardless of what I have said to you. It isn’t a point, it’s an observation whose implied point you almost seem to not want to own up to because you are beginning to realize how shallow it is:

    Opposing genocide = far left

    You repeated the same observation instead of engaging with what my first comment was saying, so the above is still all I really have from you, because of the context in which you made your otherwise completely unrelated observation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 11 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    You haven't disagreed with my view, you've evaded it and repeated yours.

    Maybe you should address the genocide because your use of 'left' in your incisive critique otherwise persistently nonsensical. I've done my best to assume earnest intent from you, but I have hit the limits of my tolerance for non-response responses.

    Enjoy your day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    But you are tying that toothless and abstract observation to a quite specific circumstance; a situation that very much was about genocide - something you are studiously avoiding hearing from pretty much this entire thread. This is the first time you have even explicitly disagreed that it was about genocide in our exchange.

    It seems like lots of people are trying to tell you that what would have been sufficient for many, many, many voters was turning our country away from the moral stain of genocide - something which, by the way, is not a political position. It is a moral one. So to the extent that you've articulated how this wasn't mostly about genocide, your refutation has been 'nuh uh'.

    Not compelling.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago*

    I already said it in another reply but I'll say it here too, all you're really saying in all your comments is "Can't please everyone" which is just a truism, and really falls flat when you're talking about Kamala Harris of all people, her dissenters are not a small group.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 72 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Are you... are you trying to imply Harris is left enough?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Ok, but you move left enough so those who say you're not left enough is a tiny fringe minority.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago*

    Yeah to a degree. The democratic or left vote isn't the only one that matters in elections. There's also the independent and people on the fence on the right vote which can be substantial in an election. In short you can make some people happy some of the time but no candidate can be the ideal candidate for everyone and generally speaking a candidate who wins elections is more useful than a candidate who doesn't win elections. It's a balancing act. Someone can swing really far left and not even have a united camp on that side and lose out on the more moderate left vote and right vote as well as the independent, libertarian and green vote.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (11 children)

    It's interesting how no matter how badly a politician fucks up, people are always ready to give them more and more chances. Absolutely zero accountability.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 9 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    So was it just a coincidence that you left your OP under a Kamala Harris post?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    Kamala Harris, obviously.

    Context is a thing that exists. If you want to play that game, technically I said "people" and not "you."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago* (4 children)

    Well, let's start by establishing the most basic and generous standard possible: that materially supporting the mass killing of an ethnic group is disqualifying for the highest office in government. If you can't agree with that, then you simply disagree with the idea of holding politicians to any standard whatsoever.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    What do you believe would be sufficient such that one doesn’t really hear the argument they’re a fake or phony?

    Nothing would be, and that's a good thing. You're saying you don't want to hear the argument that they're a fake or phony. In other words, everyone would have to be convinced of their authenticity. That's an impossible standard, and probably wouldn't even be a good thing. People should be skeptical of politicians, even when they're saying good things.

    Put left and right aside for a second. Let's assume that everyone is just evaluating a politician's character. Obviously, different people are going to have all kinds of different assessments of any person's character. Now, if we bring left and right back, then should we not evaluate people's character just because they're saying things we want to hear?

    In the US, we are so starved for anyone saying anything remotely good that there's this expectation that everyone should immediately rally around anybody who says anything good. But the goal isn't just to have people say good things, but to do them, and that means critically evaluating them. Not doing that is how you get Sinemas and Fettermans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago

    That's a really general question and I can't speak for anyone but myself. And if you're going to be so cagey about your own views then it seems strange to interrogate mine.

    I was happy to vote for Brandon Johnson for mayor of Chicago and he seems alright afaik. I would vote for Mamdani if I lived in New York. But even if my assessment is that they're worth voting for, it doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone questioning their authenticity or highlighting concerns about them.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 22 points 4 months ago (5 children)

    Weird defense of genocide, this comment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -13 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    I didn't say anything about genocide. What is happening in Gaza, Darfur, Burma, DRC, Xinjiang is horrific and should be stopped.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 4 months ago* (2 children)

    Your "no one is ever good enough for the left" bullshit was in direct defense of people not wanting to support someone who told them no in response to their desire for her to change the US stance on DIRECTLY SUPPORTING AN ACTIVE GENOCIDE.

    You didn't have to say it. It was implied via the context.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 8 points 4 months ago

    An adult can handle the word "bullshit" being used.

    Wasn't even directed at you. Grow up.

    When someone, like yourself, steps into argue against someone making a point insulting a genocide enabler, in the way that you did: implying that the exact person being talked about is a great choice and people who don't support that genocide enabler are somehow unable to be pleased...it very much aligns you with the thing your disagreement is countering the critique of. This is how communication works.

    If you want to make generic comments not aligned with defending a genocide enabler, there were more appropriate avenues to do that. This was not it.

    Context is important.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    I mean, there definitely are, but this is America and they have no serious power because the capitalist class supresses them. I don't typically see much hate for the Working Families Party, for instance, but I'm pretty sure the highest level of office anyone in that party holds is at a local level.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Because a rotten reactionary system in service of capital will only produce rotten reactionaries or rather only rotten reactionaries or at least opportunists are willing to enter it or genuine leftists have to compromise until they only help prolong the system further by reforming it...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments