|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 29 2024 04:11 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2024 04:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Is there any world in which a black woman could be running without you saying that she has been chosen to run because she is a black woman?
I don’t particularly like Harris but she seems to me like the most qualified candidate to run for office since Obama. Much, much better imo than Clinton, Biden or Trump. Was Mike Pence a DEI pick because he had cachet with evangelical Christian’s? If there’s any job going where meritocratic merits don’t apply, it’s political positions. I mean, I think they should but, they clearly don’t
The answer is the same as the last time you brought this up
On August 02 2024 13:50 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2024 09:37 WombaT wrote:On August 02 2024 08:01 BlackJack wrote:On August 02 2024 07:51 NewSunshine wrote:
It's not "promoting people for their skin color", and as long as you choose not to understand the difference, then yes, there's not much to discuss. When someone says, for example, they are going to nominate a black woman to a vacant position, then yes, skin color is quite literally a prerequisite for the promotion. You can dress it up with all the feel good buzz words like diversity and inclusivity to obfuscate that blunt reality but at the end of the day if your melanin isn't at the right level you're shit out of luck. What part of that do you disagree with? Why is that a problem but nominating a VP candidate who has a certain cachet with religious conservatives isn’t? You’re ultimately just nominating a candidate who plays well with certain demographics right? Yes, you are right. Pence was chosen by in part because he is an old white man to appeal to evangelical Christians. Kamala Harris was chosen in part because of her race and gender. I didn’t say one was okay and the other wasn’t. I’m just stating objectively true statements. If you’re looking for a double standard you should ask why one of those objectively true statements is considered racist and sexist and the other isn’t.
If Mike Pence was bumbling around on tv and unable to do an interview without looking foolish it would be perfectly reasonable to say “well what do you expect, he was picked to court evangelicals not for his ability to answer questions.” Again, the double standard is being triggered when it’s said about Harris but not about Pence.
|
On October 29 2024 04:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2024 04:10 oBlade wrote:Fortunately Oregon is not a swing state and I was told by reliable sources that hundreds of votes don't matter so nothing to worry about. I am aware that Oregon is not a swing state. Are you aware that cities have more than "hundreds of votes"?
Says here in my almanac Oregon and Washington are states, which are bigger than cities, and they only lost hundreds of votes in this rare and unfortunate circumstance. No reason to expect tiny drop boxes in cities can hold ballots at a tight enough density to exceed that. So no offense but you have no evidence to prove this could happen on a scale that would tip the election.
|
What are people's (both sides) take on the MSG rally?
Quite a few of articles seem to suggest it was kind of the opposite of what you'd want to do at this point so close to the election - as in it was essentially preaching too much to the choir, and if anything would most likely have the opposite effect on potential fence voters
|
On October 29 2024 04:19 Uldridge wrote:Hate to say it guys, but it sure does feel like a Trump win at the moment... it feels like the momentum is completely gone for Harris. How do they go up against Vance/Gabbard/Ramaswami/Musk? Saw Jordan Peteson's caricatural endorsement of these people, this feels legitimately insane to observe.
LOL I made it through the first minute of that video. 0/10 do not recommend.
|
On October 29 2024 04:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:LOL I made it through the first minute of that video. 0/10 do not recommend.
Dude it's completely unhinged. The word salad he vomits out, unparallelled.
|
On October 29 2024 04:29 blomsterjohn wrote:
What are people's (both sides) take on the MSG rally?
Quite a few of articles seem to suggest it was kind of the opposite of what you'd want to do at this point so close to the election - as in it was essentially preaching too much to the choir, and if anything would most likely have the opposite effect on potential fence voters
There was a ton of negative press and negative viral moments, from racist jokes to more Nazi moments, so I'm hoping it's a net-bad. I didn't watch the entire thing though.
|
On October 29 2024 04:25 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2024 04:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2024 04:10 oBlade wrote:Fortunately Oregon is not a swing state and I was told by reliable sources that hundreds of votes don't matter so nothing to worry about. I am aware that Oregon is not a swing state. Are you aware that cities have more than "hundreds of votes"? Says here in my almanac Oregon and Washington are states, which are bigger than cities, and they only lost hundreds of votes in this rare and unfortunate circumstance. No reason to expect tiny drop boxes in cities can hold ballots at a tight enough density to exceed that. So no offense but you have no evidence to prove this could happen on a scale that would tip the election.
I'm not attempting to prove that it's going to happen. I think you just saw that I posted again and you got really excited to respond, but didn't actually read what I wrote. It's okay though; there will be other posts!
|
On October 29 2024 04:17 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2024 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Then what? Just inaugurate him anyway? Apparently. Trump's already gotten to this point: twice impeached, indicted on some charges, convicted on other charges, particularly pertaining to election fraud, many cases pending in court, and he's just allowed to run for President again, no issues with that at all. I think we've already passed the point of no return, if there was going to be meaningful resistance we wouldn't be here now.
Sure seems that way.
If Republicans stole this election and permanently rigged US democracy Democrats would absolutely let them get away with it as long as they could vote for their lesser evil losers every election.
|
On October 29 2024 04:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2024 04:25 oBlade wrote:On October 29 2024 04:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2024 04:10 oBlade wrote:Fortunately Oregon is not a swing state and I was told by reliable sources that hundreds of votes don't matter so nothing to worry about. I am aware that Oregon is not a swing state. Are you aware that cities have more than "hundreds of votes"? Says here in my almanac Oregon and Washington are states, which are bigger than cities, and they only lost hundreds of votes in this rare and unfortunate circumstance. No reason to expect tiny drop boxes in cities can hold ballots at a tight enough density to exceed that. So no offense but you have no evidence to prove this could happen on a scale that would tip the election. I'm not attempting to prove that it's going to happen. I think you just saw that I posted again and you got really excited to respond, but didn't actually read what I wrote. It's okay though; there will be other posts!
I know you know what the word "could" means because I made sure it's the word you used before I used it myself.
I didn't say "going to." I didn't say you said "going to." You said "could." I said "could." I have emphasized them in the chain for the record.
You're trying to preemptively create an atmosphere for more election denialism in the case your pick loses, which is the same play from 2016, illegitimate this, usurper that. It's transparent.
|
On October 29 2024 04:39 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2024 04:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2024 04:25 oBlade wrote:On October 29 2024 04:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2024 04:10 oBlade wrote:Fortunately Oregon is not a swing state and I was told by reliable sources that hundreds of votes don't matter so nothing to worry about. I am aware that Oregon is not a swing state. Are you aware that cities have more than "hundreds of votes"? Says here in my almanac Oregon and Washington are states, which are bigger than cities, and they only lost hundreds of votes in this rare and unfortunate circumstance. No reason to expect tiny drop boxes in cities can hold ballots at a tight enough density to exceed that. So no offense but you have no evidence to prove this could happen on a scale that would tip the election. I'm not attempting to prove that it's going to happen. I think you just saw that I posted again and you got really excited to respond, but didn't actually read what I wrote. It's okay though; there will be other posts! I know you know what the word "could" means because I made sure it's the word you used before I used it myself. I didn't say "going to." I didn't say you said "going to." You said "could." I said "could." I have emphasized them in the chain for the record. You're trying to preemptively create an atmosphere for more election denialism in the case your pick loses, which is the same play from 2016, illegitimate this, usurper that. It's transparent.
I'm going to go ahead and say this is completely disingenuous, but also not wrong and pretty funny.
|
On October 29 2024 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2024 04:17 NewSunshine wrote:On October 29 2024 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Then what? Just inaugurate him anyway? Apparently. Trump's already gotten to this point: twice impeached, indicted on some charges, convicted on other charges, particularly pertaining to election fraud, many cases pending in court, and he's just allowed to run for President again, no issues with that at all. I think we've already passed the point of no return, if there was going to be meaningful resistance we wouldn't be here now. Sure seems that way. If Republicans stole this election and permanently rigged US democracy Democrats would absolutely let them get away with it as long as they could vote for their lesser evil losers every election.
How do you think Democrats ought to respond if it really does end up being the case that Republicans are transparently trying to rig the election again, and are successful this time in flipping enough states to change a Harris victory to a Trump victory?
|
On October 29 2024 04:39 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2024 04:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2024 04:25 oBlade wrote:On October 29 2024 04:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2024 04:10 oBlade wrote:Fortunately Oregon is not a swing state and I was told by reliable sources that hundreds of votes don't matter so nothing to worry about. I am aware that Oregon is not a swing state. Are you aware that cities have more than "hundreds of votes"? Says here in my almanac Oregon and Washington are states, which are bigger than cities, and they only lost hundreds of votes in this rare and unfortunate circumstance. No reason to expect tiny drop boxes in cities can hold ballots at a tight enough density to exceed that. So no offense but you have no evidence to prove this could happen on a scale that would tip the election. I'm not attempting to prove that it's going to happen. I think you just saw that I posted again and you got really excited to respond, but didn't actually read what I wrote. It's okay though; there will be other posts! I know you know what the word "could" means because I made sure it's the word you used before I used it myself. I didn't say "going to." I didn't say you said "going to." You said "could." I said "could." I have emphasized them in the chain for the record. You're trying to preemptively create an atmosphere for more election denialism in the case your pick loses, which is the same play from 2016, illegitimate this, usurper that. It's transparent.
You must have me mistaken for a Republican lmao. I reported on a thing that actually happened. If it happens again, I'll report it again. Hopefully, it doesn't happen again.
And for all the semantics you're trying to play with the word "could", you didn't even understand how I used it in my original post. A hypothetical removal of ballots doesn't necessarily flip a state or affect the election results. It probably wouldn't affect the results at all (but would still be immoral and illegal). However, if there were hypothetically enough votes deleted from one side, possibly across several key swing states, then of course it "could" change the election. If this were happening in densely-populated blue cities, for example, then it "could" be the difference between a Harris victory and a Trump victory, in the same way that if Trump had successfully rigged enough states last time, he "could" have stolen the 2020 election.
I'm not saying that Republicans are necessarily going to start setting swing states on fire just to delete votes - I don't even know who's responsible for the Oregon/Washington issue. It's just yet another thing that "could" be done to mess with election results - since it just happened on a (thankfully) small scale in two non-swing states - to add to the already-long list.
On October 29 2024 04:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2024 04:39 oBlade wrote:On October 29 2024 04:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2024 04:25 oBlade wrote:On October 29 2024 04:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2024 04:10 oBlade wrote:Fortunately Oregon is not a swing state and I was told by reliable sources that hundreds of votes don't matter so nothing to worry about. I am aware that Oregon is not a swing state. Are you aware that cities have more than "hundreds of votes"? Says here in my almanac Oregon and Washington are states, which are bigger than cities, and they only lost hundreds of votes in this rare and unfortunate circumstance. No reason to expect tiny drop boxes in cities can hold ballots at a tight enough density to exceed that. So no offense but you have no evidence to prove this could happen on a scale that would tip the election. I'm not attempting to prove that it's going to happen. I think you just saw that I posted again and you got really excited to respond, but didn't actually read what I wrote. It's okay though; there will be other posts! I know you know what the word "could" means because I made sure it's the word you used before I used it myself. I didn't say "going to." I didn't say you said "going to." You said "could." I said "could." I have emphasized them in the chain for the record. You're trying to preemptively create an atmosphere for more election denialism in the case your pick loses, which is the same play from 2016, illegitimate this, usurper that. It's transparent. I'm going to go ahead and say this is completely disingenuous, but also not wrong and pretty funny.
You're wrong about him being not wrong, as he misunderstood what I wrote and my intention, but I guess humor is subjective. You're obviously right about him being disingenuous. He won't even admit to being a conservative, despite promoting conservative ideals, being a fan of Trump's rhetoric and actions, and purposely refusing to engage every time he's asked what his political leanings are and why.
|
I hope the people are caught who burned the ballot boxes and are charged with terrorism
|
On October 29 2024 05:03 Sadist wrote:
I hope the people are caught who burned the ballot boxes and are charged with terrorism
Yeah I don't know what the name of the crime is (terrorism? arson? something else?) but I hope they're held accountable for their actions, regardless of their party affiliation.
|
On October 29 2024 04:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2024 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2024 04:17 NewSunshine wrote:On October 29 2024 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Then what? Just inaugurate him anyway? Apparently. Trump's already gotten to this point: twice impeached, indicted on some charges, convicted on other charges, particularly pertaining to election fraud, many cases pending in court, and he's just allowed to run for President again, no issues with that at all. I think we've already passed the point of no return, if there was going to be meaningful resistance we wouldn't be here now. Sure seems that way. If Republicans stole this election and permanently rigged US democracy Democrats would absolutely let them get away with it as long as they could vote for their lesser evil losers every election. How do you think Democrats ought to respond if it really does end up being the case that Republicans are transparently trying to rig the election again, and are successful this time in flipping enough states to change a Harris victory to a Trump victory?
Revolutionary socialism (preferably preemptively), but you knew that before you asked.
This is another example of something I pointed out Democrats/Republicans do almost a year ago:
This is a staple of US politics (climate change is one people are generally more familiar with) where after decades of shouting down the people (pretty much always socialists and whoever else they can get to come along) telling them not to stick their proverbial dicks in the bear trap, they turn — bloody member in hand — to ask what the socialists bright idea is to fix the fact that their dick was severed by a bear trap. Then once reattached, exclaim they have no good reason for them not to stick it in again. Then when they've ignored the warnings long enough and they've done it enough times that reattaching it isn't an option they look around and decide dicks are overrated and anyone that doesn't agree is the problem. + Show Spoiler +Apologies for the crudeness and gendered nature of the analogy.
First Democrats shout down everyone telling them Biden shouldn't be the nominee, then they shout down everyone saying he should stop supporting genocide, then shout down everyone saying he's going to lose, then shout down everyone saying Harris needs to stop supporting genocide, on and on, until finally they're completely fucked and then they turn and say "well what's your bright idea!?!?" as if they aren't just going to rationalize their complicity in abandoning democracy for personal security regardless.
|
How has revolutionary socialism done a better job at stopping Fascism than the democrats have done? At best for RS it would be a tie, but with so few members it appears to an outsider like it has been even less effective.
|
On October 29 2024 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2024 04:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2024 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2024 04:17 NewSunshine wrote:On October 29 2024 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Then what? Just inaugurate him anyway? Apparently. Trump's already gotten to this point: twice impeached, indicted on some charges, convicted on other charges, particularly pertaining to election fraud, many cases pending in court, and he's just allowed to run for President again, no issues with that at all. I think we've already passed the point of no return, if there was going to be meaningful resistance we wouldn't be here now. Sure seems that way. If Republicans stole this election and permanently rigged US democracy Democrats would absolutely let them get away with it as long as they could vote for their lesser evil losers every election. How do you think Democrats ought to respond if it really does end up being the case that Republicans are transparently trying to rig the election again, and are successful this time in flipping enough states to change a Harris victory to a Trump victory? Revolutionary socialism (preferably preemptively), but you knew that before you asked.
What would that look like, though? Let's suppose Harris won the fair election and is declared the winner after two days, then Trump steals it within a month, and now a sufficient number of Americans have responded that they want to engage in revolutionary socialism, in precisely the manner you'd want. What's step one? What's step two? What's step three? Where do the revolutionary socialists go, what do they do, how do they stop Trump before (or after, whichever you'd prefer) his illegitimate inauguration? How would you like it to play out?
|
On October 29 2024 05:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2024 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2024 04:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2024 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2024 04:17 NewSunshine wrote:On October 29 2024 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Then what? Just inaugurate him anyway? Apparently. Trump's already gotten to this point: twice impeached, indicted on some charges, convicted on other charges, particularly pertaining to election fraud, many cases pending in court, and he's just allowed to run for President again, no issues with that at all. I think we've already passed the point of no return, if there was going to be meaningful resistance we wouldn't be here now. Sure seems that way. If Republicans stole this election and permanently rigged US democracy Democrats would absolutely let them get away with it as long as they could vote for their lesser evil losers every election. How do you think Democrats ought to respond if it really does end up being the case that Republicans are transparently trying to rig the election again, and are successful this time in flipping enough states to change a Harris victory to a Trump victory? Revolutionary socialism (preferably preemptively), but you knew that before you asked. What would that look like, though? Let's suppose Harris won the fair election and is declared the winner after two days, then Trump steals it within a month, and now a sufficient number of Americans have responded that they want to engage in revolutionary socialism, in precisely the manner you'd want. What's step one? What's step two? What's step three? Where do the revolutionary socialists go, what do they do, how do they stop Trump before (or after, whichever you'd prefer) his illegitimate inauguration? How would you like it to play out?
The part of the post you edited out addresses this sort of engagement.
This is another example of something I pointed out Democrats/Republicans do almost a year ago: Show nested quote +This is a staple of US politics (climate change is one people are generally more familiar with) where after decades of shouting down the people (pretty much always socialists and whoever else they can get to come along) telling them not to stick their proverbial dicks in the bear trap, they turn — bloody member in hand — to ask what the socialists bright idea is to fix the fact that their dick was severed by a bear trap. Then once reattached, exclaim they have no good reason for them not to stick it in again. Then when they've ignored the warnings long enough and they've done it enough times that reattaching it isn't an option they look around and decide dicks are overrated and anyone that doesn't agree is the problem. + Show Spoiler +Apologies for the crudeness and gendered nature of the analogy. First Democrats shout down everyone telling them Biden shouldn't be the nominee, then they shout down everyone saying he should stop supporting genocide, then shout down everyone saying he's going to lose, then shout down everyone saying Harris needs to stop supporting genocide, on and on, until finally they're completely fucked and then they turn and say "well what's your bright idea!?!?" as if they aren't just going to rationalize their complicity in abandoning democracy for personal security regardless.
If you have any sincerity you should join a revolutionary socialist org in your area or online and discuss this stuff with your comrades.
The short answer is for Democrats to just STFU and fall in line behind the people that didn't wait until election day to join socialist orgs. Or they could do their "socialists being mean made me a Nazi" thing they constantly threaten implicitly by talking about the stuff they would accept Trump doing to oppressed peoples.
|
On October 29 2024 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2024 05:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2024 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2024 04:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2024 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2024 04:17 NewSunshine wrote:On October 29 2024 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Then what? Just inaugurate him anyway? Apparently. Trump's already gotten to this point: twice impeached, indicted on some charges, convicted on other charges, particularly pertaining to election fraud, many cases pending in court, and he's just allowed to run for President again, no issues with that at all. I think we've already passed the point of no return, if there was going to be meaningful resistance we wouldn't be here now. Sure seems that way. If Republicans stole this election and permanently rigged US democracy Democrats would absolutely let them get away with it as long as they could vote for their lesser evil losers every election. How do you think Democrats ought to respond if it really does end up being the case that Republicans are transparently trying to rig the election again, and are successful this time in flipping enough states to change a Harris victory to a Trump victory? Revolutionary socialism (preferably preemptively), but you knew that before you asked. What would that look like, though? Let's suppose Harris won the fair election and is declared the winner after two days, then Trump steals it within a month, and now a sufficient number of Americans have responded that they want to engage in revolutionary socialism, in precisely the manner you'd want. What's step one? What's step two? What's step three? Where do the revolutionary socialists go, what do they do, how do they stop Trump before (or after, whichever you'd prefer) his illegitimate inauguration? How would you like it to play out? The part of the post you edited out addresses this sort of engagement. Show nested quote +This is another example of something I pointed out Democrats/Republicans do almost a year ago: This is a staple of US politics (climate change is one people are generally more familiar with) where after decades of shouting down the people (pretty much always socialists and whoever else they can get to come along) telling them not to stick their proverbial dicks in the bear trap, they turn — bloody member in hand — to ask what the socialists bright idea is to fix the fact that their dick was severed by a bear trap. Then once reattached, exclaim they have no good reason for them not to stick it in again. Then when they've ignored the warnings long enough and they've done it enough times that reattaching it isn't an option they look around and decide dicks are overrated and anyone that doesn't agree is the problem. + Show Spoiler +Apologies for the crudeness and gendered nature of the analogy. First Democrats shout down everyone telling them Biden shouldn't be the nominee, then they shout down everyone saying he should stop supporting genocide, then shout down everyone saying he's going to lose, then shout down everyone saying Harris needs to stop supporting genocide, on and on, until finally they're completely fucked and then they turn and say "well what's your bright idea!?!?" as if they aren't just going to rationalize their complicity in abandoning democracy for personal security regardless. If you have any sincerity you should join a revolutionary socialist org in your area or online and discuss this stuff with your comrades. The short answer is for Democrats to just STFU and fall in line behind the people that didn't wait until election day to join socialist orgs. Or they could do their "socialists being mean made me a Nazi" thing they constantly threaten implicitly by talking about the stuff they would accept Trump doing to oppressed peoples.
I understood that extra part to be more of a scolding of what Democrats repeatedly do wrong, rather than how a socialist revolution would actually overthrow a hypothetically illegitimate president-elect or president. I just don't understand the steps between "we now have a sufficiently large group of revolutionary socialists to start completing our objectives" and "we have officially stopped Trump (or whoever) and now everything is in place for a socialist America".
I get that the short answer is for non-socialists to STFU and fall in line, but would you mind giving me a slightly longer answer as to what we're lining up to actually do and how we do it?
|
On October 29 2024 05:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2024 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2024 04:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 29 2024 04:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 29 2024 04:17 NewSunshine wrote:On October 29 2024 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Then what? Just inaugurate him anyway? Apparently. Trump's already gotten to this point: twice impeached, indicted on some charges, convicted on other charges, particularly pertaining to election fraud, many cases pending in court, and he's just allowed to run for President again, no issues with that at all. I think we've already passed the point of no return, if there was going to be meaningful resistance we wouldn't be here now. Sure seems that way. If Republicans stole this election and permanently rigged US democracy Democrats would absolutely let them get away with it as long as they could vote for their lesser evil losers every election. How do you think Democrats ought to respond if it really does end up being the case that Republicans are transparently trying to rig the election again, and are successful this time in flipping enough states to change a Harris victory to a Trump victory? Revolutionary socialism (preferably preemptively), but you knew that before you asked. What would that look like, though? Let's suppose Harris won the fair election and is declared the winner after two days, then Trump steals it within a month, and now a sufficient number of Americans have responded that they want to engage in revolutionary socialism, in precisely the manner you'd want. What's step one? What's step two? What's step three? Where do the revolutionary socialists go, what do they do, how do they stop Trump before (or after, whichever you'd prefer) his illegitimate inauguration? How would you like it to play out?
Are you expecting a different answer than the other 200 times this has been asked? 
On October 29 2024 06:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
If you have any sincerity you should join a revolutionary socialist org in your area or online and discuss this stuff with your comrades.
The short answer is for Democrats to just STFU and fall in line behind the people that didn't wait until election day to join socialist orgs. Or they could do their "socialists being mean made me a Nazi" thing they constantly threaten implicitly by talking about the stuff they would accept Trump doing to oppressed peoples.
Hey comrade, you're the one here constantly droning on and on and trying to sell everyone on the idea revolutionary socialism. Your response to DPB asking you to tell him more about it is to say STFU and go join a socialist org. Great pitch! You're like a mormon or Jehovah's witness that goes door-to-door haranguing people to join your religion except the difference is as soon as you get someone that doesn't slam the door on your face you decide to slam the door on theirs. Because you don't really care about people joining, you just care about giving a finger wagging lecture to people complicit in slavery/genocide while pretending that you're better because you know the good word.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
