It's the tragedy of our times that advocating for basic human rights is somehow "leftist"
"A society with healthcare paid by taxes? That's communism!" - american one hospital visit away from bankruptcy.
Has there ever been a time when basic human rights were pushed for and fought for by non-leftists?
...is left of the president on health care
She's taken more liberal positions on health care
"More liberal" means "less leftist." You don't get to have it both ways, article writer!
I think the gen pop doesn't appreciate the distinction between liberal and left.
Mainstream America defines liberal as left and conservative as right. They are absolutely not familiar with neo liberalism, classic liberalism, or liberalism as a 1700's era political philosophical conversation.
To be fair, the idea that "the left" can't be liberal is itself pretty complicated.
I'll make it easy for everyone, the left starts at anticapitalism.
No, this seems a useful point to make. The rightward unforgivable sin that liberals make is their commitment to capitalism. It's like vegetarians and vegans would seem to be bedfellows but vegans can not forgive vegetarians for not going the full rational distance.
It's a little bit more like saying I'm a vegan too because I like almond milk on my milk steak.
No, vegans and vegetarians do have some things in common. Leftists or socialists and communists have absolutely nothing in common with Democrats or Republicans. Democrats would rather punch left to preserve capitalism
Veganism is a philosophy, vegetarianism is a diet. They are nothing alike.
The terms "left" and "right" are meaningless anyway and should be aboloshied. It just entrenches thoughtless "us versus them" tribalism instead of making politics about actual policies and issues and how people are affected.
A rational voice, quick everyone downvote him!
it's just enlightened centrism, makes no sense if you think about it. left and right are positions in policy.
Look, the American press struggles with these abstract political concepts. The words like liberalism, socialism, etc have lost all meaning.
But to some it up, her position in the 2019 primaries was somewhere in between Biden's and Sander's position. Basically a Medicare advantage for all (with straight public option included and available to all but private insurers not excluded just strictly regulated). I'm interested in what she comes out actually proposing now that she's most likely the candidate.
Look, the main stream American press struggles with these abstract political concepts. The words like liberalism, socialism, etc have lost all meaning.
What you mean is that the Republicans have spent decades on Red Scare bullshit trying to conflate Democrats with commies, and the media has been complicit in it.
Yeah that's pretty much it, I agree with you.
Harris's healthcare plans were less liberal in the economic sense of the word, as it'd involve more government control. But they were more progressive or socialist (like Medicare, social security, etc all of which are somewhat socialist as the name social security implies). Not quite as much as Sander's though, who was pushing a true single payer system. More than just a public option though. I am really interested how much she sticks with the current plans or stakes out her own policies. Somewhat encouraged that many dems from the progressive caucus quickly endorsed her.
“Liberal” has a very different connotation in the context of US politics than it does pretty much anywhere else.
I agree that that’s confusing and dumb. But this is America, so “confusing and dumb” is very often par for the course.
Social Democrats are liberals that support universal healthcare, as a tax supported welfare program.
Socialism is the workers owning the means of production. Welfare programs are just how that has to work if the actual owner of the means is the state.
That's a shitty play on words I assume. Socially liberal is typical leftist, economically liberal is usually right wing. So, left of the president on healthcare is good if it's socially speaking, bad if it's in the economic sense.
If it were intentional that'd be one thing, but the author isn't contrasting economic and social policy (health care is just economic) so I'm pretty sure he's just confused.
They're just using the words in the United States context because they're talking about United States politics. This dumb "liberal isn't left" semantic argument isn't a US thing. It's not using the word wrong if they and their audience use a word differently than you'd like.
"Liberal" is opposed to "Authoritarian" and just means a person who favors democracy and personal freedom. Or it should, but in America our fascist conservative party has convinced people that "liberal" is a slur and also means "progressive," which is the actual opposite of conservative. But liberals aren't always progressive, which is why actual American leftists, who are progressives, use the term "liberal" to derisively refer to centrists. American centrists are politically conservative but hold some socially progressive values.
The wake-up occurs when you realize that politically/economically conservative policies lead to and support socially conservative ones. One can't actually be socially progressive but economically conservative, it's an incoherent ideology. Americans are raised to be good at double-think and distracting ourselves so we're able to cope with the contradiction.
The large emphasis on protection of property from the government in classical liberalism directly led to the slave trade getting as bad as it did. And still contributes to free market ideology and corporate right to make a profit on anything. There's definitely more to liberalism than taking down monarchies.
Liberalism developed the theory of inalienable rights that showed that slave trade, non-democratic constitution, coverture marriage, later capitalist property relations, and later non-democratic firms are invalid. Inalienable rights theory rules out the application of property rights to persons or their actions. Inalienable means consent is not a sufficient condition to transfer or extinguish the right. This is especially important for criticizing voluntary self-sale and employment @politics
It certainly developed that way, but it did not start there. And neo liberalism is an attempt to roll back quite a bit of that progress.
What are you talking about.....saying more left and more liberal is the same thing????
Yeah, damning how she locked up fewer people than her predecessors and how the “she locked up 1500 people for weed” thing is a blatant lie?
She locked people up for weed period. Fuck that shit. Unelectable.
Oh sugar...
Amidst the dichtomous choice that presents itself, I'm going to go out on a limb and say if you don't like that, then you certainly won't like what Trump has in store for you.
It's not about my vote. She's unelectable. Putting her in as the nominae would be handing it to Trump. Same way the DNC handed it to him in 2016 by putting in Hillary.
Right, the most progressive candidate we've ever had is unelectable. For a thing the administration she was part of decriminalized.
That doesn't make sense.
Right, the most progressive candidate
Exactly. She has to win not just in the deep blue progressive states. She also has to win the competitive states. She can't just coast to a victory; She has to actually compete against Trump. ~~~~
If "most progressive" was something that the swing states voted for, they wouldn't be swing states; they would be blue. "Most progressive" will win her the popular vote, and lose the election. Just like it did with Hillary.
Contrast with Mark Kelly, a solid blue candidate with a known record of being able to win in red states. Kelly would poach votes from Trump, turning the competitive states blue, and some of the red states competitive.
You're confusing "most progressive candidate" we've ever had with "democratic socialist".
Mark Kelly is a great politician but he would be starting from behind her on this. Newsome who was already prepping for a 2028 run would be the more logical choice if you want to replace Harris.
Harris is a lawyer turned politician. Kelly is a fighter pilot turned test pilot turned Navy Captain turned Astronaut turned Senator, with an identical twin brother with a nearly identical career, and a wife who survived an assassination attempt.
You can't swing a dead catTrump's toupee in DC without hitting a dozen lawyer-turned-politican Democrats.
Tell me you don't remember Swift Boating without telling me you don't remember it. The playbook on kneecapping anyone who leans on their service is already written. Mark Kelly was successful in Arizona because he kept his composure against Martha McSally and advocated common sense policies.
But he doesn't have the funding, donors, or national ground game he would need for a presidential campaign. That, along with her record, is why Harris is getting the nod.
But they didn't though? Gonna vote for Kamala either way but you don't have to lie. At best the administration she was part of nicely suggested that we should reschedule it to a lower but still very criminal schedule 3. Please don't give them credit for shit they didn't even do, or promise to do.
I did think they got it lower than that. But schedule 3 can be prescribed and some are available behind the counter at the pharmacy. So it's a way better position than it was.
I'm glad you're getting upvoted for a blatant lie while my correction of that lie is getting downvoted, and now that you're admitting it was bullshit all along you leave it there unedited to mislead more people. Great job. Look, I hate Trump as much as the next guy, but you don't see making up reasons to lick boot.
I don't think it is a blatant lie. It's a huge improvement. There's obviously more work to be done to get it to recreational status. But schedule 3 reduces tax burden and opens up banking options for dispensaries. If a grower wanted to get their product nation wide they can apply to the FDA for a license now. Could you imagine buying concentrate from the counter at Walgreens 2 years ago?
Framing this as an all or nothing thing really misses the point in my opinion.
Worse, they did promise it, but then didn't follow through.
And somehow I'm getting down voted for refuting it with reality lmfao
It's because people really need to believe she'll beat Trump. It's the same wishful unrealistic thinking that led the same folks to assume Hillary would just beat him. Dangerous, lazy, hopeful complacency.
It's the tragedy of our times that advocating for basic human rights is somehow "leftist"
"A society with healthcare paid by taxes? That's communism!" - american one hospital visit away from bankruptcy.
Has there ever been a time when basic human rights were pushed for and fought for by non-leftists?
"More liberal" means "less leftist." You don't get to have it both ways, article writer!
I think the gen pop doesn't appreciate the distinction between liberal and left.
Mainstream America defines liberal as left and conservative as right. They are absolutely not familiar with neo liberalism, classic liberalism, or liberalism as a 1700's era political philosophical conversation.
To be fair, the idea that "the left" can't be liberal is itself pretty complicated.
I'll make it easy for everyone, the left starts at anticapitalism.
No, this seems a useful point to make. The rightward unforgivable sin that liberals make is their commitment to capitalism. It's like vegetarians and vegans would seem to be bedfellows but vegans can not forgive vegetarians for not going the full rational distance.
It's a little bit more like saying I'm a vegan too because I like almond milk on my milk steak.
No, vegans and vegetarians do have some things in common. Leftists or socialists and communists have absolutely nothing in common with Democrats or Republicans. Democrats would rather punch left to preserve capitalism
Veganism is a philosophy, vegetarianism is a diet. They are nothing alike.
Here is a good explanation:
https://youtu.be/gZDPrMp8yf8
https://piped.video/watch?v=gZDPrMp8yf8
The terms "left" and "right" are meaningless anyway and should be aboloshied. It just entrenches thoughtless "us versus them" tribalism instead of making politics about actual policies and issues and how people are affected.
A rational voice, quick everyone downvote him!
it's just enlightened centrism, makes no sense if you think about it. left and right are positions in policy.
Look, the American press struggles with these abstract political concepts. The words like liberalism, socialism, etc have lost all meaning.
But to some it up, her position in the 2019 primaries was somewhere in between Biden's and Sander's position. Basically a Medicare advantage for all (with straight public option included and available to all but private insurers not excluded just strictly regulated). I'm interested in what she comes out actually proposing now that she's most likely the candidate.
What you mean is that the Republicans have spent decades on Red Scare bullshit trying to conflate Democrats with commies, and the media has been complicit in it.
Yeah that's pretty much it, I agree with you.
Harris's healthcare plans were less liberal in the economic sense of the word, as it'd involve more government control. But they were more progressive or socialist (like Medicare, social security, etc all of which are somewhat socialist as the name social security implies). Not quite as much as Sander's though, who was pushing a true single payer system. More than just a public option though. I am really interested how much she sticks with the current plans or stakes out her own policies. Somewhat encouraged that many dems from the progressive caucus quickly endorsed her.
“Liberal” has a very different connotation in the context of US politics than it does pretty much anywhere else.
I agree that that’s confusing and dumb. But this is America, so “confusing and dumb” is very often par for the course.
Social Democrats are liberals that support universal healthcare, as a tax supported welfare program.
Socialism is the workers owning the means of production. Welfare programs are just how that has to work if the actual owner of the means is the state.
That's a shitty play on words I assume. Socially liberal is typical leftist, economically liberal is usually right wing. So, left of the president on healthcare is good if it's socially speaking, bad if it's in the economic sense.
If it were intentional that'd be one thing, but the author isn't contrasting economic and social policy (health care is just economic) so I'm pretty sure he's just confused.
They're just using the words in the United States context because they're talking about United States politics. This dumb "liberal isn't left" semantic argument isn't a US thing. It's not using the word wrong if they and their audience use a word differently than you'd like.
"Liberal" is opposed to "Authoritarian" and just means a person who favors democracy and personal freedom. Or it should, but in America our fascist conservative party has convinced people that "liberal" is a slur and also means "progressive," which is the actual opposite of conservative. But liberals aren't always progressive, which is why actual American leftists, who are progressives, use the term "liberal" to derisively refer to centrists. American centrists are politically conservative but hold some socially progressive values.
The wake-up occurs when you realize that politically/economically conservative policies lead to and support socially conservative ones. One can't actually be socially progressive but economically conservative, it's an incoherent ideology. Americans are raised to be good at double-think and distracting ourselves so we're able to cope with the contradiction.
The large emphasis on protection of property from the government in classical liberalism directly led to the slave trade getting as bad as it did. And still contributes to free market ideology and corporate right to make a profit on anything. There's definitely more to liberalism than taking down monarchies.
Liberalism developed the theory of inalienable rights that showed that slave trade, non-democratic constitution, coverture marriage, later capitalist property relations, and later non-democratic firms are invalid. Inalienable rights theory rules out the application of property rights to persons or their actions. Inalienable means consent is not a sufficient condition to transfer or extinguish the right. This is especially important for criticizing voluntary self-sale and employment @politics
It certainly developed that way, but it did not start there. And neo liberalism is an attempt to roll back quite a bit of that progress.
What are you talking about.....saying more left and more liberal is the same thing????
She put people in prison for weed, some of which are still serving their sentence. She ain't left of shit.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/09/11/kamala-harris-prosecuting-marijuana-cases/amp/
Yup, that's pretty damning.
Yeah, damning how she locked up fewer people than her predecessors and how the “she locked up 1500 people for weed” thing is a blatant lie?
She locked people up for weed period. Fuck that shit. Unelectable.
Oh sugar...
Amidst the dichtomous choice that presents itself, I'm going to go out on a limb and say if you don't like that, then you certainly won't like what Trump has in store for you.
It's not about my vote. She's unelectable. Putting her in as the nominae would be handing it to Trump. Same way the DNC handed it to him in 2016 by putting in Hillary.
Right, the most progressive candidate we've ever had is unelectable. For a thing the administration she was part of decriminalized.
That doesn't make sense.
Exactly. She has to win not just in the deep blue progressive states. She also has to win the competitive states. She can't just coast to a victory; She has to actually compete against Trump. ~~~~
If "most progressive" was something that the swing states voted for, they wouldn't be swing states; they would be blue. "Most progressive" will win her the popular vote, and lose the election. Just like it did with Hillary.
Contrast with Mark Kelly, a solid blue candidate with a known record of being able to win in red states. Kelly would poach votes from Trump, turning the competitive states blue, and some of the red states competitive.
You're confusing "most progressive candidate" we've ever had with "democratic socialist".
Mark Kelly is a great politician but he would be starting from behind her on this. Newsome who was already prepping for a 2028 run would be the more logical choice if you want to replace Harris.
Harris is a lawyer turned politician. Kelly is a fighter pilot turned test pilot turned Navy Captain turned Astronaut turned Senator, with an identical twin brother with a nearly identical career, and a wife who survived an assassination attempt.
You can't swing
a dead catTrump's toupee in DC without hitting a dozen lawyer-turned-politican Democrats.Kelly might be starting from behind but he has every advantage here.
Tell me you don't remember Swift Boating without telling me you don't remember it. The playbook on kneecapping anyone who leans on their service is already written. Mark Kelly was successful in Arizona because he kept his composure against Martha McSally and advocated common sense policies.
But he doesn't have the funding, donors, or national ground game he would need for a presidential campaign. That, along with her record, is why Harris is getting the nod.
But they didn't though? Gonna vote for Kamala either way but you don't have to lie. At best the administration she was part of nicely suggested that we should reschedule it to a lower but still very criminal schedule 3. Please don't give them credit for shit they didn't even do, or promise to do.
I did think they got it lower than that. But schedule 3 can be prescribed and some are available behind the counter at the pharmacy. So it's a way better position than it was.
I'm glad you're getting upvoted for a blatant lie while my correction of that lie is getting downvoted, and now that you're admitting it was bullshit all along you leave it there unedited to mislead more people. Great job. Look, I hate Trump as much as the next guy, but you don't see making up reasons to lick boot.
I don't think it is a blatant lie. It's a huge improvement. There's obviously more work to be done to get it to recreational status. But schedule 3 reduces tax burden and opens up banking options for dispensaries. If a grower wanted to get their product nation wide they can apply to the FDA for a license now. Could you imagine buying concentrate from the counter at Walgreens 2 years ago?
Framing this as an all or nothing thing really misses the point in my opinion.
Worse, they did promise it, but then didn't follow through.
And somehow I'm getting down voted for refuting it with reality lmfao
It's because people really need to believe she'll beat Trump. It's the same wishful unrealistic thinking that led the same folks to assume Hillary would just beat him. Dangerous, lazy, hopeful complacency.
Gulag. 🐀
The same person that claims she supported Medicare for all until we were in the middle of a pandemic is to the left of President on healthcare?
It's not difficult to be to the left of the guy who vowed to veto M4A if it got to his desk.
I'll give you that.
I like how the only thing positive thing the news can say about Kamala is she isn’t 80 years old.
Try harder. The headline literally says that she is left of the president on healthcare.
You're claiming the only positive thing they say is she isn't old on an article about a positive thing for her.
shit troll is shit.