That's the problem: you don't need a 1-to-1 parity in order for something to be identified in the same group. That's why you can't remove center-left people from the left.
You can't exclude tigers from the feline family just because they're a bigger kind of cat.
You can't say I'm not African-American because I wasn't born in Africa.
You can't say that a gay man isn't a man because they're attracted to their own sex.
And you can't say center-left people aren't a part of the left just because they're closer to the right than the Far Left are.
As for my definition of someone being "on the left", someone on the left (notice I didn't say a Leftist?) is someone who has a set of political beliefs and policy positions that are promoted by any number of political groups that are left of Center. From Center-Left all the way to Tankie. Not all of these political beliefs need to be held, and some political beliefs would be contrary to others.
I'll do the diagram again, but with the actual different groups instead of just numbers, maybe that'll help.
3-Far Left.....2-Left....1-Center Left.......0-Center......1-Center Right......2-Right......3-Far Right
3-Commies, Tankies
2-Demsocs, Socdems,Socialists
1-Dems
0-Centrists, Independents, supposedly Libertarians 1-Republicans (this kind of Republican hardly exists anymore. Hell they might not exist anymore)
2-Christian Nationalists, White Nationalists, MAGA
3-Straight up Nazis and admitted Fascists
But you also cannot say that a Tiger is a Dog just because they both have teeth. The question of such a definition is usually what are meaningful points of difference between two things. Just because they both eat meat and are mammals is not enough to say they are in the same group.
Your definition is also a tautology, as you define being on the left by support from people who are on the left. That does not say what "on the left" actually means, as you define it by using the definition.
For example, how exactly is a tankie more left than I am? A tankie is pro dictatorship (cherishing Mao and the UDSSR). They embrace authoritarianism, just like many right extremists do. They usually embrace nationalization, but so did the actual nazis and they were not on the left, either. These people are not "more leftist" just because they embrace some insane stances like being pro violence, pro Mao, pro Hamas or pro Putin. They are laying themselves in bad with imperalists and authoritarians and that goes against the very core belief of leftist (the very term having been born after the french revolution with the loyalists of the King sitting on the right and the anti-royal pro democracy forces sitting on the left.).
If politics is a spectrum, then certainly it is not a one dimensional scale. And there are very meaningful differences between some political groups that often align in their demands.
To me, a person on the left is someone who demands to live in a safe and democratic world for everybody (including not only his own country) and is ready to support deep systemic change in order to accomplish that change, even if the cost of his own groups power. Everybody who fits into that definition, no matter what actions he does or doesnt accept in the fight for it, is a leftist in my book. Tankies and Centrists do not fit that simple definition. Neither Kamala Harris nor Hasan pass that test. Kamala Harris could never shout "Nobody is free until we are all free" and mean it. Neither could Joe Biden. And a Tankie thinks putting people into working camps is Freedom, so his rants should be taken with a grain of salt.
I found it weird how 2 weeks before the election Trump is suddenly leading Harris in the battlestates when she was ahead of him for a long time. Added to that all the weird stuff Trump said like talking about a dead golfers big schlong or closing down a McDonalds to give hand-picked supporters fries made not by him but the McD workers and Harris having over 100 Republicans come out for her besides Liz Cheney, it just feels weird.
Is it true, that you can just throw poll after poll after poll into the whole poll (lol) to skew the looks of who is ahead? Are there no rules to prevent that from happening?
Personally, I think this might be the hardest to poll election ever. Only a handful of voters will decide it (even more than before) and it is very, very close. And the groups that might decide it the most are pretty hard to poll (young people and maga heads). So I really wouldnt stress the little changes, right now there is only hoping and/or campaigning.
But you also cannot say that a Tiger is a Dog just because they both have teeth. The question of such a definition is usually what are meaningful points of difference between two things. Just because they both eat meat and are mammals is not enough to say they are in the same group.
Sure, but that's because the most defining characteristic of a dog or a cat is their species. Just like the most defining characteristic of Democrat or Socialist is what side of the center they're on.
Your definition is also a tautology, as you define being on the left by support from people who are on the left. That does not say what "on the left" actually means, as you define it by using the definition.
Well, that was just me mixing things up. I thought you asked what it means for a PERSON to be on the Left, not what does the Left mean. That's a different definition:
Left-wing politics describes the range of political ideologies that support and seek to achieve social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy as a whole[1][2][3][4] or certain social hierarchies.[5] Left-wing politics typically involve a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished[1] through radical means that change the nature of the society they are implemented in.[5] According to emeritus professor of economics Barry Clark, supporters of left-wing politics "claim that human development flourishes when individuals engage in cooperative, mutually respectful relations that can thrive only when excessive differences in status, power, and wealth are eliminated."[6]
For example, how exactly is a tankie more left than I am? A tankie is pro dictatorship (cherishing Mao and the UDSSR). They embrace authoritarianism, just like many right extremists do. They usually embrace nationalization, but so did the actual nazis and they were not on the left, either. These people are not "more leftist" just because they embrace some insane stances like being pro violence, pro Mao, pro Hamas or pro Putin. They are laying themselves in bad with imperalists and authoritarians and that goes against the very core belief of leftist (the very term having been born after the french revolution with the loyalists of the King sitting on the right and the anti-royal pro democracy forces sitting on the left.).
Because Tankies want the same thing everyone else on the left wants: egalitarianism and social equality. It's just they have a different way of accomplishing it: ways that typically the Far Right rely on. Though admittedly, the Left promotes change through radical means, and you don't get much more radical than a Tankie.
If politics is a spectrum, then certainly it is not a one dimensional scale. And there are very meaningful differences between some political groups that often align in their demands.
Of course there are differences, that's why I took the opportunity to clarify where these differences put each group compared to each other on the Left. To emphasize that the differences don't matter if they're not counter-productive to the main core beliefs of the Left.
To me, a person on the left is someone who demands to live in a safe and democratic world for everybody (including not only his own country) and is ready to support deep systemic change in order to accomplish that change, even if the cost of his own groups power. Everybody who fits into that definition, no matter what actions he does or doesnt accept in the fight for it, is a leftist in my book. Tankies and Centrists do not fit that simple definition. Neither Kamala Harris nor Hasan pass that test. Kamala Harris could never shout "Nobody is free until we are all free" and mean it. Neither could Joe Biden. And a Tankie thinks putting people into working camps is Freedom, so his rants should be taken with a grain of salt.
Well, there's your problem then. It brings us back to the idea of the No True Scotsman. Of all the defining characteristics, the only way for your definition to be correct, is if you cut out one or more defining characteristics that certain groups have from the original definition, so that you can ostracize that group from the whole. Because Tankies and Centrists will tell you they want equality too, but a Tankie wants it through a radical, bloody revolution, and a Centrist wants it through incremental, slow as molasses "don't rock the boat" style change.
In order for them to not be on the Left, they would have to claim that they DON'T want systemic change leading to equality and egalitarianism. That's the only way. I'll agree with you, none of those politicians are Leftists, but they are on the Left, simple as.
To me, a person on the left is someone who demands to live in a safe and democratic world for everybody (including not only his own country) and is ready to support deep systemic change in order to accomplish that change, even if the cost of his own groups power. Everybody who fits into that definition, no matter what actions he does or doesnt accept in the fight for it, is a leftist in my book. Tankies and Centrists do not fit that simple definition. Neither Kamala Harris nor Hasan pass that test. Kamala Harris could never shout "Nobody is free until we are all free" and mean it. Neither could Joe Biden. And a Tankie thinks putting people into working camps is Freedom, so his rants should be taken with a grain of salt.
If that's your definition of left and that is what you use as a reference when talking to people then there's a 99% chance that when you talk about left no one will have a clue of what you are talking about. The left-right debate at its core is about the size and role of the government.
You literally asked me if I denounced the rapes committed by the IDF months ago, and I said yes. And then you continued claiming that Hamas doesn't commit rapes until I posted youtube videos of released hostages recounting rapes and you said "if they're committing rapes then I denounce it."
That SHOULD have been the end of the conversation, but here you are sweeping for rapists again.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
This really is a prevalent problem amongst a lot of vocal pro-Palestine leftists. You think that pointing out the evils of Palestinians is condoning the evils of Israelis. That's why you can never answer a Yes or No question with a Yes or No, and why you can't empathize with Israelis.
And I know enough about the Israel/Palestine conflict to know what the correct end to the conflict is, and the unlikelihood of getting it. I also know you're unaware of what "debunked" means. Debunked means a claim has been disproven. And now we're all the way back to "sexual assault isn't rape so it's not so bad" bullshit.
It's called new information. Likely back then, Israel wasn't exposed, and it wasn't proven that Hamas actually did not rape the prisoners. Now we learn that it's a hoax, but that hasn't stopped Biden and Harris from doubling down on it and hurting Harris's chances.
No. The prevalent problem amongst liberals, again, is that Israel can literally admit to lying and making up stories about Palestinians and Hamas, and liberals will still keep bringing up the "evils" of Palestinians. Distracting from the evils of Israel is condoning their evils, especially when still believing in fake news or not understanding the fact that Palestinians are defending themselves, or they're too busy surviving a fucking genocide to be condemning a group of people trying to protect them.
Would you tell anyone to sympathize with Nazis? If Jewish people killed Nazis, would you tell them to condemn these murderers or would you support the Jews for defending themselves and other Jews? Would you empathize with the Nazis and say them committing genocide is okay because Jews caused Germany's loss in WWI and their economic woes? You might be able to relate to murderers to be able to empathize with them, but I certainly cannot and will not empathize with people who choose to murder innocent and defenseless people and sexually assault them to the point of killing them.
No you clearly do not know jackshit about the conflict, you have proven that from the start. ANd yes, hence why I said the claim that Palestinians/Hamas were raping Israelis were debunked, because it's been disproven while at the same time, it's been proven that IOF soldiers are actually raping Palestinians.
In any case, there's no point in discussing this when you know almost nothing about the conflict, and you seem to have not really bothered to stay up to date with anything. You can believe whatever lies Israel wants to peddle, that's a you issue, but don't whine if Harris loses because Muslims, Palestinians, and the left aren't voting for her because of her continuing to support genocide and Israel's violence.
To me, a person on the left is someone who demands to live in a safe and democratic world for everybody (including not only his own country) and is ready to support deep systemic change in order to accomplish that change, even if the cost of his own groups power. Everybody who fits into that definition, no matter what actions he does or doesnt accept in the fight for it, is a leftist in my book. Tankies and Centrists do not fit that simple definition. Neither Kamala Harris nor Hasan pass that test. Kamala Harris could never shout "Nobody is free until we are all free" and mean it. Neither could Joe Biden. And a Tankie thinks putting people into working camps is Freedom, so his rants should be taken with a grain of salt.
Dunno about that, since many on the left are apparently misogynistic.
That aside though, I'm not a fan of how the left are willing to risk republicans making things worse, from the Supreme Court to removing protections and whatnot to benefit businesses. We're seeing the effects of republicans having power right now with just illness breakouts due to bad quality alone, and it may get even worse. Conservatives having any kind of power is proving to be disastrous, but the fact that many left are loud about being okay with Trump winning.... just doesn't sit well with me.
In any case, there's no point in discussing this when you know almost nothing about the conflict, and you seem to have not really bothered to stay up to date with anything. You can believe whatever lies Israel wants to peddle, that's a you issue, but don't whine if Harris loses because Muslims, Palestinians, and the left aren't voting for her because of her continuing to support genocide and Israel's violence.
Again, this is yet another sticking point over terms that I don't care about. An unhinged former participant of this thread on this topic that ended up banned tried to take me to task for not referring to Gaza a concentration camp. The term used changes nothing about Gazan's material conditions, it's not something I care to spend energy debating.
So like that argument, let me be clear - whether an international governmental body wants to refer to what's happening as a genocide or not, what Israel is doing is essentially genocidal, as are their aims. And the US government is complicit in it. Apologies if you have to take your "bonus points" back.
From the point of someone who has a brain, yeah. From the point of his cult, it just makes him more relatable. I don't know how independents and centrists/moderates feel though, but even if they learn that the restaurant was actually closed, it still might help him. Trump did get more votes in 2016 by appealing to workers, and he might be doing the same thing again.
Again, this is yet another sticking point over terms that I don't care about. An unhinged former participant of this thread on this topic that ended up banned tried to take me to task for not referring to Gaza a concentration camp.
But how can they moralize if they don't use the most emotionally-charged language? Otherwise it's super hard to ward off criticism of Palestine. Besides that though, I didn't think we were arguing the material conditions of Gaza. I thought we were arguing whether or not it was worth clarifying that sexual assault wasn't full-on rape. That was MY gripe.
So like that argument, let me be clear - whether an international governmental body wants to refer to what's happening as a genocide or not, what Israel is doing is essentially genocidal, as are their aims. Apologies if you have to take your "bonus points" back.
To be clear: I wasn't saying "don't call it a genocide because it's not a genocide". I'm saying "Don't try to derail the argument at hand by throwing the G word around to cut off criticism" That's what you got points for: not being a rhetorical rat.
Hillary lost Michigan by less than half a point. Biden won it by 3 points. But neither had to deal with being re-elected after the October 7th fiasco (Biden would have but he dropped).
And with it being this close even with her October 7th rhetoric , I'm not ready to count her out just yet.
If that's your definition of left and that is what you use as a reference when talking to people then there's a 99% chance that when you talk about left no one will have a clue of what you are talking about. The left-right debate at its core is about the size and role of the government.
So what is the actual one if it isn't the same as mine? Certainly, quite a lot of people do understand that there is a meaningful difference between Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton that is not just gradual.
Sure, but that's because the most defining characteristic of a dog or a cat is their species. Just like the most defining characteristic of Democrat or Socialist is what side of the center they're on.
Left-wing politics describes the range of political ideologies that support and seek to achieve social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy as a whole[1][2][3][4] or certain social hierarchies.[5] Left-wing politics typically involve a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others as well as a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished[1] through radical means that change the nature of the society they are implemented in.[5] According to emeritus professor of economics Barry Clark, supporters of left-wing politics "claim that human development flourishes when individuals engage in cooperative, mutually respectful relations that can thrive only when excessive differences in status, power, and wealth are eliminated."[6]
Kamala Harris definitely does not fit that definition. And it fits mine. At least I wouldnt know which Policies that Kamala Harris supports are meant to change the nature of society to help the disadvantaged. Bernie sanders would fit throught he wealth Tax, other leftists would fit through Housing first or defund the Police. but Harris? Biden? Radical means? Your definition only includes those that, so far, you renderes as left wing radicals. but the left wing politics definition you gave only starts with those that are perceived as radicals by centrists.
Because Tankies want the same thing everyone else on the left wants: egalitarianism and social equality. It's just they have a different way of accomplishing it: ways that typically the Far Right rely on. Though admittedly, the Left promotes change through radical means, and you don't get much more radical than a Tankie.
A Tankie does not want the same things as I do or as people like Bernie Sanders does. A Tankie thinks a society such as Venezuela is a good one. That is a very different goal than what leftists have in mind for society, even if both might like similar talking points. So the question is always "radical for what"? I find Kamala Harris radical in her centrism (which puts the status quo above everything else), I find a tankie radical in his aggressive rhetoric. But none of the two are radical pro democracy.
In order for them to not be on the Left, they would have to claim that they DON'T want systemic change leading to equality and egalitarianism. That's the only way. I'll agree with you, none of those politicians are Leftists, but they are on the Left, simple as.
No, that is exactly the point. They do not want systemic change. Their actions show they do not want that. Not even slowly. They do not want it and they fight against it. And that is the difference. Kamala Harris would never in her wildrest dreams fight for America to lose its military leading role, for example. She never never fight for a reformed UN that decides geopolitical problems more democratically. She would also never fight for a proper wealth tax. And she would only fight for housing first if that talking point got so insanely popular that it wins her the election, but certainly not if it could cost her votes. She is not for these things, not even hidden, not even a little. Kamala Harris will always try to protect that status quo and her own, her parties and her countries power over others. We can see that with border politics, with geopolitics and with social politics in the democratic party.
For most of the democratic party, social reforms are not an ideological goal they want to pursue out of ethical considerations, but they are the way they think the status quo and their own control can be kept best. And if an ethical policy is unpopular, they are not going fight for it. And if an unethical policy like the handling of the border or fracking is popular,t hey will do it. And they will not do it because they have different ideological goals that make this tough decision worth it for them, they are going to do it ebcause their only ideology is keeping the status quo while making it a little nicer, but fight meaningful change. And that differentiates them from leftists in your own definition.
That aside though, I'm not a fan of how the left are willing to risk republicans making things worse, from the Supreme Court to removing protections and whatnot to benefit businesses. We're seeing the effects of republicans having power right now with just illness breakouts due to bad quality alone, and it may get even worse. Conservatives having any kind of power is proving to be disastrous, but the fact that many left are loud about being okay with Trump winning.... just doesn't sit well with me.
Does not sit right with me either. Personally, I event hink that is Russian propaganda at work. Lots of Russian bots back in 2016 touted tankie talking points and told people not go vote. I absolutely agree that every person who calls themselves a leftist should vote for Harris right now. Just not because Harris is an ally to leftist causes, but because democrats are less hostile towards leftist ideas.
I do think tho that telling the people who are on the fence right now that they HAVE TO vote for Harris no matter whether they see the value in that or not is counterproductive and not democratic either. 2016 and 2020, most Bernie Pros votes Clinton or Biden and i do not doubt that most pro Gaza people will vote Harris because they understand what is at stake.
So what is the actual one if it isn't the same as mine? Certainly, quite a lot of people do understand that there is a meaningful difference between Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton that is not just gradual.
Kamala Harris definitely does not fit that definition. And it fits mine. At least I wouldnt know which Policies that Kamala Harris supports are meant to change the nature of society to help the disadvantaged. Bernie sanders would fit throught he wealth Tax, other leftists would fit through Housing first or defund the Police. but Harris? Biden? Radical means? Your definition only includes those that, so far, you renderes as left wing radicals. but the left wing politics definition you gave only starts with those that are perceived as radicals by centrists.
As long as she's a Democrat, even if you don't know what policies she's promoted, you gotta know that the Democratic party is on the left based on what they stand for as a whole:
Democrats focus on lowering costs, improving healthcare, creating jobs, ending corruption, and protecting democracy. Learn about our vision.
democrats.org
And I will say, literally EVERY DEMOCRATIC presidential candidate repeats the same "The richest top 1% should pay their fair share" policy. I find it odd you'd use something that EVERY DEMOCRAT says to try to prove Bernie was on the left and Democrats aren't. He didn't invent the idea of taxing rich people more.
A Tankie does not want the same things as I do or as people like Bernie Sanders does. A Tankie thinks a society such as Venezuela is a good one. That is a very different goal than what leftists have in mind for society, even if both might like similar talking points. So the question is always "radical for what"? I find Kamala Harris radical in her centrism (which puts the status quo above everything else), I find a tankie radical in his aggressive rhetoric. But none of the two are radical pro democracy.
No, that is exactly the point. They do not want systemic change. Their actions show they do not want that. Not even slowly. They do not want it and they fight against it. And that is the difference. Kamala Harris would never in her wildrest dreams fight for America to lose its military leading role, for example. She never never fight for a reformed UN that decides geopolitical problems more democratically. She would also never fight for a proper wealth tax. And she would only fight for housing first if that talking point got so insanely popular that it wins her the election, but certainly not if it could cost her votes. She is not for these things, not even hidden, not even a little. Kamala Harris will always try to protect that status quo and her own, her parties and her countries power over others. We can see that with border politics, with geopolitics and with social politics in the democratic party.
For most of the democratic party, social reforms are not an ideological goal they want to pursue out of ethical considerations, but they are the way they think the status quo and their own control can be kept best. And if an ethical policy is unpopular, they are not going fight for it. And if an unethical policy like the handling of the border or fracking is popular,t hey will do it. And they will not do it because they have different ideological goals that make this tough decision worth it for them, they are going to do it ebcause their only ideology is keeping the status quo while making it a little nicer, but fight meaningful change. And that differentiates them from leftists in your own definition.
No, they would do it because the purpose of a president is to govern ALL of America, not just their own party. This requires compromise losing in some places in order to win in others. Likewise, Democrats aren't against meaningful change, they just don't want to accomplish it through means that will ruin the nation while trying to pursue it. Not to mention some of your assertions about Harris are just not demonstrable, and part of Democrats not pursuing more distinct change while in the party is through trying to unravel choices and roadblocks left by previous administrations. It's not as simple as "this is what people want, so I'm going to do this". From the sound of things, it sounds like if she gets in the white house and tries to codify Roe v. Wade, but it takes a long time to accomplish it, then she doesn't REALLY care about women.
That is not always the case. It is not like a centrist necessarily wants less state than a leftist does. A lot of leftists want more community based work in which state structures are defunded in favor of giving resources to civillians directly (defund the police is a prominent example). Being a leftist is at core about democracy and its principles, egalite, fraternite and egalite. That is where that term came from and that is true today, too. Whether you want to achieve that via anarchy or via reforms of the state is a different question.
And I will say, literally EVERY DEMOCRATIC presidential candidate repeats the same "The richest top 1% should pay their fair share" policy. I find it odd you'd use something that EVERY DEMOCRAT says to try to prove Bernie was on the left and Democrats aren't. He didn't invent the idea of taxing rich people more.
And which democratic candidate stands for a wealth tax? Certainly not Kamala Harris or Joe Biden. "They gotta pay their fair share" is a talking point. Whether you actually stand for significant taxation of wealth is a different question and most democrats answer it with no.
Centrist politics. A democrat that endorses the party line generally thinks that the status quo is good. Capitalism is good, the police just needs some reform, America and the West needs to keep its leadership role in the world and the GDP needs to go up. But a democrat, unlike a Republican, understands that the status quo is easier held if some changes are made. If too many people are poor and roam the streets, that makes it nasty for the middle class and so that is undesirable. So some social reform is committed to keep things from not being too ugly for the middle class and to make the injustice in society easier to swallow. That is why Kamala Harris commits to make housing cheaper and some democrat states have a lot of aid for the homeless, but also why the democrat party itself does not endorse housing first policies outside of model projects. Their reforms always aim to keep things in place without changing them structurally (in the democrat party line, there is no consensus that every person has a right to safe housing). It just understands that things are kept in place best if you do some nicety adjustments.
Every politics that democrats wholeheartedly fought for that i can remember was like that. Democrats only act when something is so fundamentally wrong that it makes the middle class angry. And THEN they might endorse soft structural change (like Obamacare), but they do it in order to keep the status quo from breaking. They will never commit to structural change if they feel it might be hard and there is no strong pressure on them to do it (like a wealth tax, which even HAS some pressure from the public on it).
No, they would do it because the purpose of a president is to govern ALL of America, not just their own party. This requires compromise losing in some places in order to win in others. Likewise, Democrats aren't against meaningful change, they just don't want to accomplish it through means that will ruin the nation while trying to pursue it. Not to mention some of your assertions about Harris are just not demonstrable, and part of Democrats not pursuing more distinct change while in the party is through trying to unravel choices and roadblocks left by previous administrations. It's not as simple as "this is what people want, so I'm going to do this". From the sound of things, it sounds like if she gets in the white house and tries to codify Roe v. Wade, but it takes a long time to accomplish it, then she doesn't REALLY care about women.
A moderate wealth tax for the top 0.1% would ruin the nation how? And what kind of compromise had obama (who ran on taxing the fat cats) to accept when he had the majority (almost supermajority) in all chambers? Which meaningful systemic change did Obama apply then? There was none, and there was none because democrats dont want it.
Obama did what every centrist who runs on justice does: He acted as if he did something by passing a weak law. https://apnews.com/article/87553d69f3294e1fb3d0a5912f2e6e31 Everybody understands that to reduce inequality, you need to tax wealth, not income. But Obama, like Clinton wanted after him, just increased the income tax, which couldnt and didnt change anything systemically. Instead, the rich increased their share of wealth. Let's not act like democrats want meaningful change (and a popular one at that, most americans are fine with a wealth tax) if they do not do it with a comfortable majority.
That is not always the case. It is not like a centrist necessarily wants less state than a leftist does. A lot of leftists want more community based work in which state structures are defunded in favor of giving resources to civilians directly (defund the police is a prominent example). Being a leftist is at core about democracy and its principles, egalite, fraternite and egalite. That is where that term came from and that is true today, too. Whether you want to achieve that via anarchy or via reforms of the state is a different question.
Generally a centrist would want less government than someone further left. That's almost literally what that means (though sure, there can be some wiggle room or debate of what less government even means). According to your definition folk on the right wouldn't have democratic principles which is patently absurd. Let alone that there's no place on earth where the left is immune to authoritarianism. Your definition of left is entirely made up by you and you shouldn't expect others to understand what it means without providing context.
Agreed. But that wouldn't mean they're not on the left. Center-left, specifically. Which would only mean they want less government than someone further left than them, but MORE government than someone further right than them.
Does not sit right with me either. Personally, I event hink that is Russian propaganda at work. Lots of Russian bots back in 2016 touted tankie talking points and told people not go vote. I absolutely agree that every person who calls themselves a leftist should vote for Harris right now. Just not because Harris is an ally to leftist causes, but because democrats are less hostile towards leftist ideas.
I do think tho that telling the people who are on the fence right now that they HAVE TO vote for Harris no matter whether they see the value in that or not is counterproductive and not democratic either. 2016 and 2020, most Bernie Pros votes Clinton or Biden and i do not doubt that most pro Gaza people will vote Harris because they understand what is at stake.
I don't think that's really Russian bots, but I've never met some of the people that I follow that are against Harris.
But also, it should be up to Harris and Dems to convince people why they should vote for her. Voters are even worse than Harris, Clinton, and Biden at convincing others why they should vote Dems, as ninjabot has shown in the last year or so.
EDIT: I apologize. I didn't mean to immediately assume you were going to claim foul play.
What it means is that there are more people than ever worried about the state of the nation, and using their vote to make their voice heard. They're doing their due diligence as a civilian. It's a good thing.
Here's hoping conservatives are still against mail-in ballots, amirite?
Generally a centrist would want less government than someone further left. That's almost literally what that means (though sure, there can be some wiggle room or debate of what less government even means). According to your definition folk on the right wouldn't have democratic principles which is patently absurd. Let alone that there's no place on earth where the left is immune to authoritarianism. Your definition of left is entirely made up by you and you shouldn't expect others to understand what it means without providing context.
That is not in the definition of centrism or leftism. An anarchist who wants no state at all can be (and often is) a leftist. Hillary clinton or Biden did not want "less state" than Bernie Sanders. On what margin? Are you aware of the abolotionist movement?
And yes, the right generally does not have an emphasis on democratic principles and often is hostile towards it. Which is why you can see that there is an effort on the right to deny voting rights to groups they find undesirable or at least to ensure elitism in other ways. People who are on the right want to have the "normal people" call the shots and generally are not open to have perceived outsiders gain influence. But democracy is exactly about giving every group the right to partake in designing society. This is not just about voting rights but also about underfunding schools in districts with a high minority rate. Generally, people on the right try to have the poor stay among themselves and outside mainstream society, which goes against the democratic idea.
The definition on leftism we can absolutely use is the one ninjabot quotes, and according to that, kamala harris is definitely not on the left. It is pretty much identical to the one I gave.
