but you can simultaneously hate Maduro, etc. and nonetheless strongly assert that murdering fishermen is wrong and invading VZ would be a catastrophe.
True technically, but functionally all it does is manufacture consent for murdering the fishermen anyway. He’s a politician with a public platform, it’s a different standard than a private conversation or debate/discussion. All he’s done by taking the gusano line on this is make it likely that it will be used as an example that even “the left” thinks Maduro is bad and has to go.
It’s also part of the long tradition of American leftists talking down to more radical leftists in the rest of the world. It’s the same chauvinism that led some DSA delegated to snub the Cuban government and visit opposition groups that one time.
I think his past statements were bad, but I think his overall line on Hamas would be tolerable if not for things like knowingly and openly hiring Zionists, and I think it’s like that. He’s good at pivoting, and I don’t think whatever kowtowing to orthodoxy is hugely concerning (even if we should condemn it) so long as he is using it as a means to pivot to condemning the military aggression of the US toward VZ and threats to others.
It would be bad, it’s just not something to put as your top concern.
That’s fair, I just don’t think the condemning he did of military intervention was strong or effective enough to counterbalance the damage he did by accepting the gusano premise in the first place. And the fact that he was talked around by gusanos to a worse position after the fact makes me not confident in his commitment to even bare-minimum anti-imperialism. Only time will tell, I suppose.
he really didn’t have to phrase it the way he did but it’s probably impossible not to be hiring zionists considering every liberal in the country is a zionist.
True technically, but functionally all it does is manufacture consent for murdering the fishermen anyway. He’s a politician with a public platform, it’s a different standard than a private conversation or debate/discussion. All he’s done by taking the gusano line on this is make it likely that it will be used as an example that even “the left” thinks Maduro is bad and has to go.
It’s also part of the long tradition of American leftists talking down to more radical leftists in the rest of the world. It’s the same chauvinism that led some DSA delegated to snub the Cuban government and visit opposition groups that one time.
I think his past statements were bad, but I think his overall line on Hamas would be tolerable if not for things like knowingly and openly hiring Zionists, and I think it’s like that. He’s good at pivoting, and I don’t think whatever kowtowing to orthodoxy is hugely concerning (even if we should condemn it) so long as he is using it as a means to pivot to condemning the military aggression of the US toward VZ and threats to others.
It would be bad, it’s just not something to put as your top concern.
That’s fair, I just don’t think the condemning he did of military intervention was strong or effective enough to counterbalance the damage he did by accepting the gusano premise in the first place. And the fact that he was talked around by gusanos to a worse position after the fact makes me not confident in his commitment to even bare-minimum anti-imperialism. Only time will tell, I suppose.
he really didn’t have to phrase it the way he did but it’s probably impossible not to be hiring zionists considering every liberal in the country is a zionist.
True, I’d say him playing nice with arch Zionist tisch is more worrisome
I heard someone saying it’s kind of a glass cliff for her.
If there is some sort of big police dissatisfaction he can blame it on her.
OTOH she can direct police to do things he couldn’t per his base, he is separated from the decisions.