It’s a lot more than an oversimplification. I’d put it somewhere between “taking a statement out of context to put it in the worst possible light” and “blatant misrepresentation.”
There are reasonable questions about how far to trust El-Sayed, how to talk about imperial blowback to mass audience, etc. Jumping on any statement short of “death to amerikka, unlimited genocide on the first world” doesn’t get us closer to any answers.
Even when I was lib, I despised the Yankee electoral system for reasons like this. Much of it is candidates paying lip service to sectioned out demographics as a marketing campaign and opposing interests paying to find whatever dirt, real or slander, that they can to make the person look as bad as possible. It has almost nothing to do with finding people who are qualified to implement actually good policy and everything to do with filtering out anyone who will challenge capital or empire.
There is no reason to ever apologize to Zionists under any circumstance. Give them an inch and they take a mile. They can never be appeased and any apology will be seen as weakness and opportunity to extract further and further concessions. What will he apologize for next?
I’m not saying this was a good statement – you’re right, it wasn’t. I’m saying that’s a reasonable criticism of him, but blatantly misrepresenting his statement is not.
death to amerikkka, unlimited genocide on the first world.
but seriously why the fuck are you an electoralist? it can literally never get anywhere in amerikkka?
When something better comes along, I’ll support that. Until then, “a guy who calls a genocide a genocide is preferable to a Republican” is a good take.
It’s a lot more than an oversimplification. I’d put it somewhere between “taking a statement out of context to put it in the worst possible light” and “blatant misrepresentation.”
There are reasonable questions about how far to trust El-Sayed, how to talk about imperial blowback to mass audience, etc. Jumping on any statement short of “death to amerikka, unlimited genocide on the first world” doesn’t get us closer to any answers.
Even when I was lib, I despised the Yankee electoral system for reasons like this. Much of it is candidates paying lip service to sectioned out demographics as a marketing campaign and opposing interests paying to find whatever dirt, real or slander, that they can to make the person look as bad as possible. It has almost nothing to do with finding people who are qualified to implement actually good policy and everything to do with filtering out anyone who will challenge capital or empire.
There is no reason to ever apologize to Zionists under any circumstance. Give them an inch and they take a mile. They can never be appeased and any apology will be seen as weakness and opportunity to extract further and further concessions. What will he apologize for next?
I’m not saying this was a good statement – you’re right, it wasn’t. I’m saying that’s a reasonable criticism of him, but blatantly misrepresenting his statement is not.
And he has answered them very clearly with this, his second round of kowtowing to the zionists who run his party!
death to amerikkka, unlimited genocide on the first world.
but seriously why the fuck are you an electoralist? it can literally never get anywhere in amerikkka?
When something better comes along, I’ll support that. Until then, “a guy who calls a genocide a genocide is preferable to a Republican” is a good take.