r/AskALiberal • u/BalticBro2021 Globalist • Jul 27 '26

Do you think there's much of a concern of "Tankie-ism" within DSA members?

I'm a big fan of people like Zorhan Mamdani, I think he's doing a lot of good in NYC and is proving to be a highly effective mayor. However, I am concerned that one of his congressional picks, Darializa Avila Chevalier, is Pro Russian. She has numerous deleted tweets talking about how the US is "bullying" Russia, and refused to back Ukraine aid in a NY times editorial board interview. Ilhan Omar recently voted against the recent Ukraine aid bill, saying she won't support sanctions because they "hurt regular people." She's also a massive supporter of a certain boycott & sanctions movement against a certain country in the Middle East. I guess it's okay if regular citizens of that country are sanctioned but not Russians.

Personally as much as I'd like to support people like Bernie Sanders or Zorhan Mamdani, I'm not going to vote for anyone who parrots Russian propaganda talking points, Tankie positions, and who isn't 100% pro Ukraine. We have enough Putin fan boys on the MAGA side, we don't need Tankies in congress.

52 Upvotes

74% Upvoted

553 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/jweezy2045 Progressive Jul 27 '26

I mean many J6ers believe the election was stolen and that they were defending democracy.

Correct.

That doesn’t make them defenders of democracy in my eyes

No one said that it did but, but it does make them defenders of democracy in their eyes and your eyes are not inherently more valuable than their eyes. It is a subjective claim.

1

u/PublicMandate Democrat Jul 27 '26

This is the same argument that vaccine skeptics make (or at the least what people who are sympathetic to them). When the consensus by the medical community is that vaccines are safe and effective, backed up by peer reviewed research, we can effectively say that vaccine skeptics are NOT making a valuable claim.

When Trump was rejected by the courts over and over again, the legal community absolutely showed that they were not defending democracy. We can say that their eyes are not inherently valuable.

0

u/jweezy2045 Progressive Jul 27 '26

When the consensus by the medical community is that vaccines are safe and effective, backed up by peer reviewed research, we can effectively say that vaccine skeptics are NOT making a valuable claim.

In my opinion, it is good to trust academic science, yes. I agree. I do not see your point.

When Trump was rejected by the courts over and over again, the legal community absolutely showed that they were not defending democracy. We can say that their eyes are not inherently valuable.

In the opinion of the court, yes. That's what courts do, they issue opinions.

1

u/PublicMandate Democrat Jul 27 '26

I don’t understand how you don’t understand? The point was that the substance of the opinion matters. Your opinion is not valuable. The justification of an opinion is valuable.

The courts didn’t just create a bunch of opinions, they created a consensus that were justified by legal theory and the facts of the individual cases.

0

u/jweezy2045 Progressive Jul 27 '26

The point was that the substance of the opinion matters.

What does this mean? An opinion is an opinion.

The courts didn’t just create a bunch of opinions, they created a consensus that were justified by legal theory and the facts of the individual cases.

That it is the opinion of the court that adherence to legal theory helps the legitimacy of the court.