You're viewing a single thread.
They are both awful, yes, but one side is distinctly worse than the other
The problem is the less awful side's awfulness is what lead to the growth of the scary-aweful side.
Pretty sure it's the fault of the scary awful side for being scary and awful.
Yeah, a slow decline of the US empire is preferable for the third world, China, and Russia than to have to deal with Trump's weird international politics. With Joe you get a predictable further collapse of US power.
What a weird and terrible take. Kudos for saying something so stupid that I've never heard it before.
It’s not a perfect take, but I’ve seen so many takes insanely worse than this one that I am genuinely unsure what evoked such a strong reaction to it. (Particularly since you provided no explanation.)
Most USians don't like being reminded that the empire they live in and have internalized belonging to is in terminal decline, and the options are a drawn out slow collapse and a "really flinging shit around" collapse
I didn't say it was the worst take. I said it was the dumbest.
If you want to be pedantic, I also didn’t say it was the worst take, and you didn’t actually say it was the dumbest
so many takes insanely worse
what does this imply? almost as if you were saying its not the worst take?
Well that plus my last comment where I straight up said “I didn’t say it was the worst take”. I feel like you’ve gotten totally confused
You never scored well in reading comprehension, did you?
Re-read the thread. CAREFULLY.
ME:implied it was a dumb take.
YOU:wasn't the worst, why so agro?
ME:wasn't trying to say it was the worst, was trying to say it was dumb
YOU:doesn't understand what implications are
ME:tries to lead horse to water
YOU:doesn't drink
did I miss anything?
Sorry, do you prefer the US to collapse in, idk, a flurry of proxy wars with the potential for the use of nuclear weapons? I much prefer the slow decline with limited proxy wars.
But having to vote for 100% hitler or 99% hitler means the current form of our electoral system should be dismantled (at the very least) no?
Joe Biden is a far fucking cry from 99% Hitler. Come back to reality, we need you here.
Do we really need them here though? Do we even want them here?
Yeah... actually. I know, craziness. But its true. Everyone drinks from the wrong cup of kool aid at the party eventually. We need to have empathy and sympathy for those led astray.
That was answering the first question, anyway. For the second, id say a resound, "fuck no!" but that unfortunately doesnt negate the answer to the first question :(
The Palestinians would liken him at least to the Emperor of Japan in WWII. Not quite Hitler levels but still supporting the guy
hitler could never imagine having the power of the presidency under pax americana, but he would have loved to translate the "racial jungle" speech. the supreme irony of biden's dog literally attacking federal law enforcement while people are in prison for the same thing is palpable. kids in cages, building a border wall, and supplying arms to the middle east to prop up an ethnostate. look... how much hitler are you willing to tolerate?
Gaza only has 2 million people so Biden is just 33% Hitler.
Joe Biden, who is the President of a country that has been trying to negotiate a cease fire, and is sending aid to Gaza is responsible for the actions of a completely separate and sovereign nation?
1
I didn't realize this until a sticker on a gas pump educated me. Stay woke friends
"Hey calm down do a ceasefire"
"No. May I please have more ordnance so I can keep doing my genocide?"
"Fine"
The one secretly sending israel weapons to commit Genocide with, and the only reason israel is able to continue their Genocide?
The Joe Biden blocking ceasefire resolutions at the UN?
Genocide Joe?
Yeah that one.
To your point, 33% Hitler is still better than 99% Hitler. Trump will bring this world into World War 3 by destabilizing Europe.
I forgot, which two countries just vetoed a US resolution for a ceasefire in Gaza linked to a hostage deal?
Maybe it was a bullshit resolution. Time will tell as analysts review its text.
I forget, which country gives Israel the tools it needs to kill hundreds of thousands of children and maintain an apartheid state?
1
Israel wouldn't be able to exist without the sponsorship of the US, that's where it gets most of its shit from. Also wow, almost all those countries are subordinates to the US. How coincidental.
So you're saying Israel shouldn't be allowed to exist?
If Israel wants to be a functioning player on the international level they need to play by international rules.
What they are doing to Gaza is no better than what Russia is doing to Ukraine.
Yes, Israel shouldn't be allowed to exist. Israel is an affront to and attack on all Jews, perpetrated by Christian zionists, including Nazi Germany.
There should be a secular democracy without a tiered citizenship system that respects the rights of local jews, Muslims, and Christians, as much as it respects the rights of European immigrants.
Welp, thanks for making your position clear.
One of those countries would definitely be the US.
None because what you are talking about doesn't exist. There was no ceasefire resolution only an American endorsement for israel to use starvation as a weapon of war.
https://twitter.com/CraigMokhiber/status/1770933406806782071
Can you direct link a screenshot as I have Twitter blocked.
Twitter and screenshots of Twitter are not credible sources from which to form your opinions.
It would give me a starting point to look into what they are arguing since there are no other details in their comment.
True
Here is the text of the tweet and the text of the tweet quoted in it:
A draft that does not demand an immediate ceasefire, but instead suggests one might be negotiated if certain conditions are met, and that genocidal attacks can otherwise continue, is not a ceasefire resolution. It is a ransom note.
It quotes the following by Al Jazeera English:
The US has drafted a new UN Security Council resolution that appears to support a ceasefire in Gaza, after blocking several other attempts at achieving a truce. Al Jazeera’s @baysontheroad looks at what the new US document says.
The quoted aje tweet is in reference to this video and the video is embedded in the tweet.
E: what do you do when you don’t have someone around to copy and paste shit from twitter? It seems absurd to block twitter but not have any way of accessing information that’s distributed on that website…
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Thank you.
I usually hope the original poster will post it and not give them any more views ad if they don't I just move on.
He's a far cry from it for certain, but he shares a considerable amount of responsibility for what is occurring in Gaza that a lot of people feel uncomfortable with that.
I'm sure some people have already forgotten because China and Russia recently vetoed the last conflict resolution proposed in the U.N. but don't let that stop you from remembering that our U.N. ambassador, appointed by the President who can revoke that appointment, issued multiple vetoes against multiple Gaza conflict resolution proposals previously.
Every president since Eisenhower shares responsibility for what is happening in Gaza, but that doesn’t mean we vote for the end of democracy in the US.
Biden calls for ceasefire while still supplying Israel = bad
Trump says Israel would finish the job under his administration = magnitudes worse, the fucker is a few syllables away from literally saying final solution
It's not an accident that people suddenly care so much about US foreign policy when it's convenient to bash Biden before an election. It's a very concerted propaganda effort on social media that you're either intentionally or unintentionally a part of.
Before the last election Trump tried to extort Ukraine by withholding military aid unless Ukraine helped investigate his political opponent, Biden.
I don't agree with what's happening in Israel/Palestine either, but I'm more concerned at how often it's being used as this "trump card" to lower Biden to Trump's level. It's still not remotely close.
I really dislike how this always comes down to whataboutism.
I already consider Biden to be the lesser of the two evils here. That doesn't mean I have to look away from his actions though, nor does it mean I have to support them.
The Gaza example was already whataboutism. I only bring up the Trump example to emphasize that we already have historical evidence that he won't handle Ukraine or Gaza any better than Biden has. He only uses those situations to benefit himself.
I agree that being the lesser of two evils doesn't absolve Biden's part in it, but I hope you reconsider supporting him. As frustrating as it is that neither is perfect, it doesn't help anyone to allow an even worse candidate to win in protest.
How was it whataboutism? I didn't see anyone comparing him to Trump when I was replying. Hitler is absolutely not the any kind of standard that we should be comparing most politicians to hopefully. I'm also painfully aware that Trump is far worse in regards to foreign policy. I can imagine him offering further support to Israel even.
Look. I've already resolved to vote for Biden. There really isn't much choice, but that doesn't mean I have to ignore what he's responsible for. Nor should history forget it either. If that somehow hinders his campaign, then so be it. Anyone who votes for Biden without these considerations is an accessory to the genocide though.
You can have genocide in Gaza, or you can have genocide in Gaza and ("stepping-stone") Ukraine. Its an unfortunate choice, but an important one nonetheless. If im harping on a moot point to you bc you already know this, rest assured i say this for all other readers as well. Your votes down ballot are also extremely valuable. This primary there was a referendum in my county that I was in favor of that passed by less than 100 votes.
I don’t agree with what’s happening in Israel/Palestine either, but I’m more concerned at how often it’s being used as this “trump card” to lower Biden to Trump’s level. It’s still not remotely close.
(Holds up mirror)
There probably isn't a single politician that I fully agree with.
There are different levels of disagreement and what I'm pointing out is people trying to use Gaza as a way to fully discredit Biden as a candidate because they have no other scandals to use against him.
You're more concerned with how this will affect Biden than the actual genocide itself? That's what I'm pointing out you saying in your comment.
No, I'm more concerned with how the entire world will be impacted by electing Trump again. What's happening in Gaza will continue to happen whether we elect Biden or Trump.
“You’ve got to finish the problem,” Trump said on Fox News on Tuesday when asked about the war. “You had a horrible invasion that took place that would have never happened if I was president.”
He said on Oct. 11 that a future Trump administration would “fully support Israel defeating, dismantling, and permanently destroying the terrorist group Hamas,”
That month, his campaign also said that, if elected again, he would bar Gaza residents from entering the U.S. as part of an expanded travel ban.
Suggesting that the Gaza situation is a dealbreaker for Biden is trying to hold him to a higher standard than anyone holds Trump, and that higher standard by itself tells you who the better candidate is.
You're right, that is terrible, Biden isn't so uncouth while fully materially supporting the genocide.
yea but unless you think you can convince half the population to chop every billionaire's head off we'll just have to deal with it until we die of climate change
That is essentially the goal, i do think that is possible, and i am attempting to do that.
Godspeed
o7
Same
I wholeheartedly support your efforts.
Yeah dude, let me just dismantle America rn. In the meantime, fuck anyone on the Republican shit list. They should of focused on dismantling america rather than transing their genders or whatever. Don't worry, after this revolution I'm gonna do they totally will be accepted and not targeted. But until then, doing minor actions that in no way hinder the progress towards dismantling america but do make the life's of queer folk maybe less concentration campy is pointless because thats only 1% less Hitler to me, and why would I care about that? A worthy sacrifice. I mean if I took the day to go vote, my whole socialist output, organizing and networking collapses! They are a sacrifice that I am willing to make. Thank you for opening my eyes.
If Joe Biden wants me to vote for him, maybe he should use his executive powers to help my trans comrades facing persecution in red states
Liberals act like democrats are the only thing standing between us and Republicans, and that if Republicans win it'll be the end of the world, so why aren't they out there standing between? Why aren't they willing to actually use force against the fascists?
If democrats think Trump is literally Hitler, the jackass obviously stole nuclear secrets, put him on trial and execute him for treason when he is found guilty.
But the democrats obviously won't do this. Because they're not on your side. They're the good cop to the republican bad cop.
Dawg have you met communists??? A large portion of us are queer, i'm queer. Are you suggesting that i should vote for genocide Joe out of fear of being persecuted? I can accomplish a lot through literally every political avenue other than voting
And what does voting do to hinder those things? We both communists but you act like if you vote everything you else do doesn't matter. You act like if you dare vote in favor of any kind of harm reduction that you somehow ain't a communist or you somehow are contributing. That's not how that works. One of these two options will happen. The least you can do is take half a second to pick the one that will kill less people in the meantime while we keep working.
If your complaint is that "I don't wanna contribute to the system" then the fuck are you doing here? Go to the woods and punch trees like the libertarians. You live and participate in capitalism weather you like it or not, and in the meantime you play games, watch movies and pay rent. You already prop up genocide Joe with your taxes I'm sure you pay. Drawing the line at voting is just silly
I won't take a second to vote for him in part because it makes me stomach churn but also because without the threat of losing voters democrats literally have no incentive to impliment leftist policies. As a communist i'd expect you to be aware of that? I'm not a reformist and I don't believe that socialism can be voted into existence but I definitely see how voting blue no matter who is incredibly short sighted.
Why should our "left" political party do anything that benefits the proletariat if they will still be voted into office if they don't. Ultimately the democratic party is a bourgeoisie organization that serves its own interests which directly conflict with the interests of the prole. They will not offer us the slightest concession if they do not stand to lose something by not doing so.
Because the other option is more people suffer and I am not an accelerationist willing to hold my comrades lives hostage to prove a point to liberals. There are other means and methods. We can't vote socialism in but that doesn't mean we ignore it. It serves another purpose if not the one you want it to.
It seems pretty clear that queer people would be persecuted a hell of a lot more under Trump than Biden.
Woman here.
I lost my reproductive rights under Biden and a democratic house and senate. They did nothing to save Roe other than howl at the moon and write strongly worded letters.
Fuck both parties. Fuck electorial politics. We COULD elect a green party president but people like you swallow the party line and spend your time yelling at us to vote for your shit candidates who don’t want to work for us instead of actually working to put people in power who want to protect AND expand rights.
I’ve been in this game a long ass time. The two party system will lead us to fascism eventually. The only way to win is to refuse to play their game.
Roe getting gutted was the result of conservative judges that got appointed to the supreme court and the states that have taken further steps to restrict are republican run states. The majority that the Dems had was very slim not enough to get a lot passed especially when the "majority" included "moderates" like Manchin and Sinema.
I agree the Dems and libs suck. If they werent so smugly sure that clinton would win 2016 they would have not played politics and forced in their supreme court pick and we would have less of a minority.
Roe getting gutted is the result of a decades long plan by the republican party and letting them them win a majority again will only make things worse.
And yet Biden refused to stack the court when he had the power too. And his party refused to codify roe into law since the supreme court decided the case in the 70’s. Obama even ran on codification in his first campaign and started out with a super majority.
It’s the fault of republican assholery and democratic lazyness.
people like you
I'm not even American. I don't think I was "shouting" or "pushing" anything. Was just commenting my opinion, for as little as that's worth.
It seems pretty clear that queer people would be persecuted a hell of a lot more under Trump than Biden.
from what i can tell, it's getting wors, not better, in the last 5 years. i have no reason to believe it would get better with either of them.
Do you actually care about queer people? Because it is obvious that the democrats as a national party will do nothing to protect us, let alone build bulwarks against the next time Republicans take power nationally.
"Vote to get sent to a camp four years later" is what I hear the democrats trying to sell. Sorry but that isn't a very compelling sales pitch, because you're out here admitting "we are going to kill you"
Backing up your point. Biden just agreed to ban the flying of pride flags at international embassays in order to get a budget passed. Democrats will happily sell out their voters once in office in the effort to be “bipartisan”. https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoniopequenoiv/2024/03/21/white-house-agrees-to-ban-pride-flags-at-us-embassies-in-spending-bill-deal/
Wow. The blue no matter who liberals are downvoting a queer person now. It’s almost like they don’t give a shit about your needs as a person and only want to campaign on an abstract that is LGBTQ rights.
Solidarity with you, comrade.
Yes, but wisely by evolving beyond it, not by trying to fight a Goliath directly in their strongest areas. We're smart, we should be able to come up with real solutions.
Here's weird thought experiment
Think of our current government as scaffolding that we're all standing on 100 floors high, that is right on top of a slave/homeless/refugee camp/zoo (i.e. vulnerable populations). This scaffolding must be replaced because it's made out of rotting wood without sending us all crashing down on the camp and zoo killing billions of people and animals.
How do we do it?
The right wing position is to tear down the scaffolding by getting positions in site management and ordering replacing the rotting wood with broken plastic while kicking everyone they don't like, sometimes pushing them off the scaffolding. Of course, they don't care about any what the scaffolding is holding up or what's below, they just realized they can use this scaffold system to gain power and money.
The tankie position is to get your rotten wood hating friends together with their hammers and torches and start bashing. I guess they are either 1) seemingly unaware this will cause us all to fall, or 2) remember when it worked 100 years ago with the scaffolding was only 1 floor high and only a few people underneath and think it will be the same this time, or 3) are effectively right wingers on a different team in that they don't care about collateral damage as long as their team can rise from the ashes into power.
The liberal position is to put some polish on the wood and some rainbow and recycling stickers on some poles and send a few TV dinners below while we dump our trash down there and not admit that there are slaves down there making our stuff. The long-term problem of scaffold failure is talked about at various conferences and people donate millions to the "Replace the Rot" foundation.
I say the best way to go about it is to replace it part by part as it stands. Depend less and less on the bits of rotting wood and more on the strong sustainable replacements we build. Don't replace the very high bits that were built for ego by weak men, instead lift those underneath up onto the strong bits of the scaffold. Eventually we might realize that all that's left of the old rotting scaffold is that weak bit holding on at the end, might as well lop that off now that it's not critical to our survival anymore.
Now imagine we have an election between two site managers. Neither of them has any real plans to replace this scaffolding, in fact both have plans to expand it. Both candidates support the genocide in the neighboring scaffold.
Primary differences between candidates
Candidate #1 is going to criminalize talking about the scaffolding, ban encryption to ensure you don't talk about it, and start a new program to push more people off the scaffold.
Candidate #2 is going to do too little too late when it comes to truly solving the rotting scaffold problem or stopping people from falling off the scaffold.
Now ask yourself, under which candidate can I do more to solve the rotting scaffold problem directly? Under which candidate can I do my little part to solve the problem without falling or being pushed off the scaffold or being arrested? Under which candidate are fewer people going to be pushed off while me and my team go about fixing the scaffold ourselves because the leaders are unwilling or unable?
Voting is not about putting your support behind a candidate or identifying with them, it's a strategic decision taken to advance your goals.
Oh my sweet uninformed reformest, my undying love 😘Sorry i shouldn't be too sarcastic, but really you're so close. I've been where you are. If you're interest in learning why I changed my views I'd recommend reading Reform or Revolution by Rosa Luxembourg. In short, while unions, reformists, and the expansion of social democracy are important to the development of clsss consciousess, they alone cannot create a socialist society. Revolution is required.
I'm almost as enlightened as you are huh? lol
Who said I want a socialist society? I'm an anarcho-communist, I have never seen positions of authority, left or right, not abuse the position. A society that can function without some subset claiming authority and using violence to coerce others to gain and maintain power is what we should be striving for.
Anarcho-communism is by definition socialist. It's also far left wing. Be careful who you are criticising.
I suppose, these words are so nebulous. I understand socialism as needing a state and (real, not authoritarian) communism as being incompatible with a state.
Then you understand it wrong. Communism is socialism by definition. Maybe try actually looking up the definition of socialism that marxists and anarchists actually use. It's a broad term but not a nebulous one as it has a concrete definition: a society where the working class own/control the means of production.
Ancom fits yeah, and i dont entirely disagree with you. I just dont see how that can be accomplished without revolution. Those in power don't typically give up that power without violence. I don't see how infiltrating a system run by and for the ruling class, designed specifically to benefit them, and attempting to make it better is supposed to work. The ruling class could just get rid of you no?
I think I wasn't clear in my language as multiple people didn't get what I was intending to say. When I talked of replacing rotting wood part by part but not the high parts, depending less on the rotting parts and lifting people onto the strong parts of the scaffold I wasn't talking about getting better people into office (though that can be part of making your job as a leftist easier and safer). I was talking about dual power and degrowth.
I think it's not radical communist to take a position that would likely lead to billions of people of dying from famine and lack of medicine etc only to put your favorite authoritarian into power to become corrupted itself over the following decades. All positions of power become corrupted, no exceptions. We need to move towards degrowth and decentralization of everything, especially power.
The only reason 8 billion + people can live on this planet is because of the Green Revolution, i.e. nitrogen that comes from our oil industry. If we actually had the kind of revolution that could lead to a socialist system the delicate supply chains of oil and food globally would almost certainly be interrupted. This could lead to crop failures and famine, massive inflation and probably end up in more places going fascist than moving left. Unless you can teach enough people about socialism before the revolution, they're going to look for safety and find a false sense of it in fascist authoritarians.
Remember, the revolutions of the early 20th were before the Green Revolution, there were 2 billion people on the planet and a much larger percentage than today knew how to support themselves by growing food and hunting, protect themselves etc. Today a revolution like that would look more like Gaza is looking right now with an entire population on the brink of starving to death.
If we actually want a better future, we need to build it, and not wait to start building until after some revolution that might never come. What does that look like? It looks like communities growing food together, protecting themselves without police, dropping out of popular culture, changing culture to not value what capitalists are selling us. We need cultural evolution, not war.
A reformist Anarchist? I have legitimately never heard of that kind of combination, lmao. You cannot achieve an ancom society via reform, that's utter utopianism. Anarcho-communism can only be achieved via revolution, and not even the whole pitchforks and torches kind.
Check Anarcho-Syndicalism if you want an actual, practical plan for achieving an Anarchist society, or read modern AnCom theory.
If these ideas are the only workable ideas, why have they failed for the last century?
We need new ideas that are built on the understanding of our current world. Even places where "leftists" got to power they just turned into capitalist dictatorships or cruel experiments in how far propaganda can be pushed and how much populations can endure suffering and helplessness.
You're believing in silliness if you think violent revolution in 2024 will end up in anything but massive death and fascism. We don't have the numbers to win, all we'd end up doing is scaring voters into putting people into power that will put you in prison and become dictators.
They haven't failed, I even suggested reading modern theory. Reform has never worked, and never gotten off the ground.
I didn't suggest violent revolution, that's why I'm suggesting you read modern Anarchist theory, like Anarcho-Syndicalist theory.
It's like you read only keywords and answered off of vibes.
I guess we have a different definition of failure, at least when it comes to "socialist" states like China, Russia, and N. Korea.
Anarcho-syndicalism has some good things going for it, it could be part of a solution. I don't know why everyone assumes I am naive to all these ideas, I just don't fit in the little leftist boxes people made for us last century that the right already has formulas to defeat.
I love seeing incredibly uniformed opinions around Marxist leninist positions.
Have you ever read like, anything a serious marxist leninist theorist and organizer wrote about conditions in the United States?
I have read some, but I don't need to read deep republican theory to see why their ideas are fundamentally wrong any more than I need to "read theory" to see fundamental issues with "Marxist" positions.
I've read "On Authority" and see it's obvious flaws.
I mean, you obviously have not read enough if you think MLs are "burn it all down, don't worry about the consequences" you understand Republicans because you've been exposed to them throughout your life, how many times have you had a long conversation with a communist?
I am not surprised someone linked you to "on authority" but reading a brief retort to anarchists is not the same as understanding dialectical materialism, scientific socialism, the business cycle, the tendency or rate of profit to fall, uneven development theory, marxist feminism, marxist anticolonialism, proletarian democracy, prefigurative politics, etc
Why do you assume I don't know these ideas just because I don't agree with you? I am familiar with all of that, maybe not at your level, but enough to know I disagree fundamentally with the methods even if our compassion may be in common. I've talked with enough tankies that "burning it all down" is an apt enough description. War tends to do that.
There is nothing I could read that would convince me that massive authoritarian power structures put in place by war are the way to a stable sustainable peaceful future, the same way nothing I could read would make me believe in santa claus.
Why do you assume I don’t know these ideas just because I don’t agree with you?
Because you straight up said you've avoided looking into it in detail, your previous words:
I have read some, but I don’t need to read deep republican theory to see why their ideas are fundamentally wrong any more than I need to “read theory” to see fundamental issues with “Marxist” positions.
Also because from what I've read, you take a fundamentally reformist position which Marx painstakingly disproved the viability of over 150 years ago. If you've read capital to completion, or hell, just understood some of their short texts very well and extrapolated things yourself, you'd know a reformist position is unviable, and even if it were viable, would be magnitudes more violent than the worst mistakes and excesses of any ML movement.
I disagree fundamentally with the methods even if our compassion may be in common.
What methods do you disagree were inappropriate for the situations they occurred in? Because marxist leninists will probably agree that there was a mistake there to learn from, or will point out factors that might you might be uniformed or misinformed about.
I looked into it in detail enough to know what I need to know. I also didn't read Mein Kampf, should I read that before deciding I don't agree with fascism or is it enough to know that fascism fundamentally harms people and it doesn't matter what Mein Kampf says?
... reformist position Marx painstakingly disproved the viability of over 150 years ago
Disproved to you maybe, these are not facts. The bible proves things to Christians, they are wrong too.
I looked into it in detail enough to know what I need to know. I also didn’t read Mein Kampf, should I read that before deciding I don’t agree with fascism or is it enough to know that fascism fundamentally harms people and it doesn’t matter what Mein Kampf says?
Wait, you don't want to understand the ideology that saved the world from German fascism, the ideology that supported and enabled liberation movements worldwide, the ideology that took Russia from a feudal backwater to space in 40 years, that advanced woman's rights in that time frame past women's rights in modern western countries? Why don't you want to understand the ideology of the most lgbt friendly government in the world, Cuba? Why don't you want to understand the ideology of countries that were historically much less violent than bourgeois 'democracies'?
Disproved to you maybe, these are not facts. The bible proves things to Christians, they are wrong too.
This is a flawed analogy because the Bible expects you to take things on faith, and Marx expects to have to thoroughly defend his position as it is a position contrary to the interests of capital. i love how you're arguing "well I'm not convinced" while refusing to even engage with basic ideas.
Some real taught to be afraid of shadows shit if you ask me.
Voting is not about putting your support behind a candidate or identifying with them, it’s a strategic decision taken to advance your goals.
maybe for you, but your values aren't universal.
I suppose I should've said it shouldn't be, people can and do of course think all kinds of silly and illogical things. It's a poor strategic choice at the individual and group level to identify with a candidate but to each their own. Propaganda gets us all.
Voting is not about putting your support behind a candidate
this is the bit that i found most objectionable. almost all the rhetoric around an election talks about support: financial, popular, or political.
voting is definitely supporting a candidate, pretty much any way you slice it.
almost all the rhetoric around an election talks about support: financial, popular, or political
Yes, it's to the candidtates benefit for voters to identify with candidates, it's not generally in the voters interest.
, it’s a strategic decision taken to advance your goals.
this part also assumed universal goals. one of my goals is to smash capital and the state. the democrat party will most definitely be part of that. voting for them doesn't advance my goals.
And I suppose Roe v. Wade doesn't factor into your goals then either?
i don't want the government involved in anything. why would i want them deciding the degree to which they should be involved in someone's healthcare?
Well, they're already doing it.
Unless you're planning the coup tomorrow, I don't know how this is supposed to help me.
unless the Democrats want to give up one of their main vote-driving issues, voting for them isn't going to solve it either.
that's been overturned. you cant get it reinstated without an act of congress.
The funny part as a third party voter, I think we would think different ones are distinctly worse.
Trump not fashy enough for you?
I am not going to vote for trump, but I can see which party is using the government to attack him and how terrible the current admin has been doing.
Yes, holding a person accountable for their crimes (maybe, jury is still out) is attacking them...
Unless you're talking media coverage. Cause we all know that the media is an arm of the government...
maybe, jury is still out
Actually, for the New York civil fraud suit, Trump forgot to ask for a jury trial. But the judge very much found him guilty. In the E Jean Carol case, he was found guilty by not cooperating with discovery, and the jury was pretty clear on the 92m damages.
So nah, the jury has made up their minds.
Fair, I intended that more as an idiom really. I mean whether or not the punishment goes through. He's so damned slippery I'm not taking anything as truth until the buildings have been seized/ he's in jail.
But yeah, they did make up their minds there.
Yes I am aware of the line "TRUMP BAD CRIMINAL!!!!!" so you guys cant see when malicious prosecution is happening. The facts are right in front of you, you can either follow your team to the countries destruction, or call out injustices. I already know you are going to just be a team player.
what was malicious about it?
It's terribly rude to force rich white people to deal with the consequences of their illegal actions.
I suppose I might have used the word malicious wrongly because I am not a lawyer, but what i was referring to was all of the cases. I am in real estate and know the real estate one very well, and that is absolute bullshit, and he did nothing wrong. That is what I meant by the words malicous prosecution.
Is this not the point of a trial? To ascertain fact and adjudicate appropriately? Hell, this is explicitly the point of a grand jury, to determine if a trial is merited in the first place. And they've found, several times, that taking the charges to trial is justified. Not even that he's guilty, but that it's worth looking into.
Additionally, what facts am I missing? He wasn't exactly subtle with seeking to commit crimes ("Only stupid people pay taxes" comes to mind as a softball, but the fact that he was never held to the emoluments clause also stands out. Plus all the fraud and rape). Where is the misunderstanding in all this? He was found to be a rapist by a judge. He was found to have committed fraud by a different judge.
The misunderstanding isn't yours, it's the general publics understanding of the legal system and it's processes. Which has been misinformed by decades of American criminal dramas like Law and Order, CSI, and NCIS. No one in this thread will go to rich people court like Trump gets to, we all get regular court if we get the privileged right to a court date. So when misinformed Trump supporters hear the judge ruled from the bench they see an overreach. When Trump's legal team presented such a bad defense and showed a complete disregard for the court and it's ruling in their opinion it wasn't his team who did a bad job, but a judge who never gave him a chance.
I imagine the mental gymnastics are way easier if you're uninformed about how things work.
Does it qualify as bad faith if I ask my previous questions knowing that he had nothing and/or complete unhinged nonsense?
You aren't fooling anyone.
Please, tell me how the current admin is doing terribly.
I'm no trump supporter but
💀
The only things that the Biden administration has done that's bad is genocide obviously, but a little genocide never hurt anybody... I guess you could try blaming him for inflation or gas prices, or the fallout of COVID-19, but that would be kind of dumb
You can, of course, say he hasn't done enough, which wouldn't be wrong, but the things he's done have had a pretty positive effect on the country and have brought us at least a little closer to the left – even with an opposing congress. I can't say I like how he treats, say, nationalism and the Middle East, but he's at least somewhat redeemed himself from just being a "moderate Republican" I would say. At least his administration has brought in officials who are tougher on corporations, even if he's still a corporate Democrat.
See the problem I have with the Israel argument is that a Trump admin would go even harder on supporting Israel, soooo
The Biden regime still routinely kidnaps immigrant children from their families and puts them all in concentration camps.
"A little bit left" my whole ass.
I don't remember a time where kidnapping people and putting them into concentration camps away from their families made something not left, actually it seems pretty common in former and current communist countries lol...
but actually i meant "slightly more left" in the sense of economic-social matters, not... killing or kidnapping people matters. he has done quite a lot to improve social services and lessen the financial fuckedness of many government programs, for example.
I don’t remember a time where kidnapping people and putting them into concentration camps away from their families wasn’t left, actually it seems pretty common in former and current communist countries lol…
The funniest part of this shitty rhetoric is you thinking that former communist countries are left wing. No, when the US overthrows your left wing government and installs a right wing dictatorship/psuedodemocracy thats actually a right wing system now.
What an incredible admission to not knowing shit about dick and still being ignorant enough to think your opinion matters.
Could you give me a recent source about these kidnappings? And if it's the unaccompanied immigrant children which haven't been kidnapped, then please don't even bother.
https://prismreports.org/2024/02/29/biden-family-separations-atrocities-continue/
Here is a source on the Biden regime's genocidal actions, feel free to follow the links on the family seperation case.
"The Supreme Court ordered Abbott to let Border Patrol remove the razor wire barriers. Instead—acting in defiance of the president, the Supreme Court, and federal authorities—Abbott installed more." ... Then some stuff about congress blocking decisions.. dunno... Doesn't sound like it's all on Biden. Especially since, like most of the stuff that people are complaining about, it stated with Trump. And it's been getting better just not fast enough. Which, again, not saying Biden is doing his best, but it doesn't sound like it's all his fault, does it?
Do you have any particular policies or are you just going to make claims? Trump’s policies were not good for the American working class, which is the vast majority of Americans.
His landmark legislation, the 2017 tax cuts, gave temporary marginal cuts to working people while giving substantial permanent cuts to corporations. He promised to fix healthcare. He didn’t. He promised to stop jobs from going overseas. He didn’t and, in fact, more jobs went overseas under him than Obama. He promised to fix the national debt. He increased it. He made a terrible deal with OPEC to cut oil production, which led to short term gains but eventually caused oil prices to skyrocket when economies recovered from Covid. His trade war with China hurt the US economy (for example, farmers who he had to bail out).
These are just some examples. There are many Biden policies that I am against but if you’re going to claim this admin has been worse for Americans than Trump’s admin, you need to provide examples.
I never said I like trump or all the things he did, but I do think its obvious he was/is better. Most presidents make lots of promises they intentioanlly or unintentionally dont follow through with. I can see you disagree with many of his policies, that is completely fair. But lets discuss what was wrong with Biden.
Without looking at policies I dont like here are the things off the top of my head that are/were objective failures. Afghanistan withdrawl was one of the worst failures n american history; people were hoarding baby food due to handling of that issue, the illegal migration issue that is currently happening that were directly due to his repealing of trump rules, insane spending that exasperates the inflation issue. This doesnt even get into the foolish policies that we could argue about, but are failures.
I think this comment has the most downvotes I've ever seen on Lemmy...
Thats mean I hit a chord.