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.
The point was pretty much that the dirt poor people are the ones the anti-Maidan folks expect to fight/fend for themselves to your west (would you support Europe arming anti-fascists in the US like Ukrainians?). I could be wrong, but I doubt many (I'm sure some are) of Ukrainians on the front lines to your east are more affluent than you, and that's who you expect to protect you (not all flee West like you would) until you're forced to fight/join the fascists yourself. Which with AfD being the most popular faction nowadays, probably isn't as far off as you'd like to imagine.
On September 30 2025 21:12 Ryzel wrote: He’s just trying to light a fire under y’all collective asses to engage meaningfully with your individual political beliefs, see how they track with what’s currently being represented by the Democratic Party, and normalize change. Because if you believe “wow, the way the world works right now sucks”, you can’t then argue “you can’t do that, that’s not the way the world works”, because the logical conclusion of meshing those two is “the world sucks and will keep on sucking until hopefully it stops sucking anymore on its own.”
At that point you’re at best (if you have hope for it to stop sucking) ideologically similar to Nazi Germany citizens who “had to go along with all the bad stuff until hopefully things get better” (but instead internalized all the bad shit they had to do until it didn’t seem so bad anymore), OR at worst (if you’ve lost hope for it to stop sucking) ideologically similar to 647 / No Lives Matter nihilists who say “fuck this fucking sucky world that sucks and everyone in it, even me” (until their rage pushes them to shoot up a public place).
One additional thing I'm pointing out is that oppressed people are being described sorta like canaries in the fascism mine for those people who plan on leaving when the oppressed people around them die/get abused at an uncomfortable enough rate.
I'm not leaving those less fortunate than myself to face the fascists alone and I'm certainly not going to join the fascists. That's just not something the rest of you will commit to.
Ok, you've quoted that post a couple times now, so let's address it.
I take it you liked the opening statement "He’s just trying to light a fire under y’all collective asses to engage meaningfully with your individual political beliefs, see how they track with what’s currently being represented by the Democratic Party, and normalize change."
engaging meaningfully is a vague term, similar to what you get when you ask ChatGPT to write for you. You can project that to cover pretty much any discussion about politics. What does this mean to you?
Harris's domestic platform was similar to Biden's on most issues.[15] She supported national abortion protections, LGBT+ rights, stricter gun control, and legislation to address climate change.[16] She also supported federal cannabis legalization, strengthening voting rights, strengthening the Affordable Care Act, and federal funding of housing. Harris departed from Biden on some economic issues, initially proposing what some described as a "populist" economic agenda. Harris advocated for limited anti-price-gouging laws for grocery and food prices, a cap on prescription drug costs, and expansion of the child tax credit.[17][18] On immigration, Harris supported increasing the number of Border Patrol agents and reforming the immigration system. On foreign policy, she supported continued military aid to Ukraine and Israel in their respective wars, but insisted that Israel should agree to a ceasefire and hostage deal and work towards a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[19]
So, Harris hit most of the issues we agree are important, from taxing richer folks more to extending healthcare and adding protections for LGBT+ people. She had concrete plans to do these things. Are you going to argue that these don't track with what progressives want? Before you start with the genocide enablers thing again, I know that you disagree with her foreign policy, no need to go there.
Maybe something for you think about: were we closer to implementing a socialist system before or after Harris lost the election?
Although you directed your question at GH, I'd like to also chime in. In my book Harris is sufficiently socialist/progressive to make some positive change domestically. A good plus, although I'd be curious about the rest of her policies such as homelessness, police and police brutality, punitive justice, rehabiliation/reintegration, etc. Regarding Israel I think her promises are completely insufficient. A full stop on weapon aid is the only proposal I find ethically tolerable.
In short, given the choice I'd have voted for Harris not because she's great, but because there was no one better (as a realistic choice for voters) and because she has some of the right ideas. I'm curious to hear GH's breakdown of her policies.
The point was pretty much that the dirt poor people are the ones the anti-Maidan folks expect to fight/fend for themselves to your west (would you support Europe arming anti-fascists in the US like Ukrainians?). I could be wrong, but I doubt many (I'm sure some are) of Ukrainians on the front lines to your east are more affluent than you, and that's who you expect to protect you (not all flee West like you would) until you're forced to fight/join the fascists yourself. Which with AfD being the most popular faction nowadays, probably isn't as far off as you'd like to imagine.
On September 30 2025 21:12 Ryzel wrote: He’s just trying to light a fire under y’all collective asses to engage meaningfully with your individual political beliefs, see how they track with what’s currently being represented by the Democratic Party, and normalize change. Because if you believe “wow, the way the world works right now sucks”, you can’t then argue “you can’t do that, that’s not the way the world works”, because the logical conclusion of meshing those two is “the world sucks and will keep on sucking until hopefully it stops sucking anymore on its own.”
At that point you’re at best (if you have hope for it to stop sucking) ideologically similar to Nazi Germany citizens who “had to go along with all the bad stuff until hopefully things get better” (but instead internalized all the bad shit they had to do until it didn’t seem so bad anymore), OR at worst (if you’ve lost hope for it to stop sucking) ideologically similar to 647 / No Lives Matter nihilists who say “fuck this fucking sucky world that sucks and everyone in it, even me” (until their rage pushes them to shoot up a public place).
One additional thing I'm pointing out is that oppressed people are being described sorta like canaries in the fascism mine for those people who plan on leaving when the oppressed people around them die/get abused at an uncomfortable enough rate.
I'm not leaving those less fortunate than myself to face the fascists alone and I'm certainly not going to join the fascists. That's just not something the rest of you will commit to.
Ok, you've quoted that post a couple times now, so let's address it.
I take it you liked the opening statement "He’s just trying to light a fire under y’all collective asses to engage meaningfully with your individual political beliefs, see how they track with what’s currently being represented by the Democratic Party, and normalize change."
engaging meaningfully is a vague term, similar to what you get when you ask ChatGPT to write for you. You can project that to cover pretty much any discussion about politics. What does this mean to you?
Harris's domestic platform was similar to Biden's on most issues.[15] She supported national abortion protections, LGBT+ rights, stricter gun control, and legislation to address climate change.[16] She also supported federal cannabis legalization, strengthening voting rights, strengthening the Affordable Care Act, and federal funding of housing. Harris departed from Biden on some economic issues, initially proposing what some described as a "populist" economic agenda. Harris advocated for limited anti-price-gouging laws for grocery and food prices, a cap on prescription drug costs, and expansion of the child tax credit.[17][18] On immigration, Harris supported increasing the number of Border Patrol agents and reforming the immigration system. On foreign policy, she supported continued military aid to Ukraine and Israel in their respective wars, but insisted that Israel should agree to a ceasefire and hostage deal and work towards a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[19]
So, Harris hit most of the issues we agree are important, from taxing richer folks more to extending healthcare and adding protections for LGBT+ people. She had concrete plans to do these things. Are you going to argue that these don't track with what progressives want? Before you start with the genocide enablers thing again, I know that you disagree with her foreign policy, no need to go there.
Maybe something for you think about: were we closer to implementing a socialist system before or after Harris lost the election?
☐ The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them ☐ The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative ☐ The US has no viable path forward, but to try to protect our loved ones from the worst of it ☐ I don't know how to get to a socialist future, but that's what I want
Generally speaking, my vote was not counted before the election result was announced. There's no reason for me to have voted for Harris. That said, I didn't want Trump to win. The way the US electoral system is set up though, there's not really much I could do about that.
If I tell you which poll option will you tailor your response? Are we back to cosplaying different characters depending on who you're talking to? That got old fast the first time around , can we not do that again?
On October 05 2025 17:20 GreenHorizons wrote: Generally speaking, my vote was not counted before the election result was announced. There's no reason for me to have voted for Harris. That said, I didn't want Trump to win. The way the US electoral system is set up though, there's not really much I could do about that.
You don't want Trump to win but you spend every single day attacking the only alternative.
You have a very weird way of showing your opposition.
On October 05 2025 09:11 KwarK wrote: Pay no mind to the hundreds of billions they’re spending on a private army that they’re deploying to Democratic voting strongholds.
The private armies of ICE and the FBI are actually deployed everywhere in the US. Here's ICE: + Show Spoiler +
On October 05 2025 09:11 KwarK wrote: Pay no mind to the hundreds of billions they’re spending on a private army that they’re deploying to Democratic voting strongholds.
The private armies of ICE and the FBI are actually deployed everywhere in the US. Here's ICE: + Show Spoiler +
"US President Donald Trump has ordered an expansion of the detention and deportation of migrants across the country as protests against his policies continue." https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crk2kpk817vo
"The so-called One Big Beautiful Act allocates more than $170 billion over four years for border and interior enforcement, with a stated goal of deporting 1 million immigrants each year. That is more than the yearly budget for all local and state law enforcement agencies combined across the entire United States. The bill adds billions of dollars to border enforcement, but the largest percentage increase goes to finding, arresting, detaining, and deporting immigrants already living in the U.S., most of whom have not committed a crime and many of whom have had lawful status." https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/big-budget-act-creates-deportation-industrial-complex
"The biggest piece of the pie for enforcement operations in the United States will go to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to arrest, detain, and deport immigrants. Congress gave ICE $75 billion over four years, approximately $18.7 billion each year. Added to the $10 billion Congress already appropriated ICE for fiscal year 2025 in March, ICE now has $28.7 billion at its disposal this year. That $28.7 billion figure is nearly triple ICE’s entire budget for FY24." https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/big-budget-act-creates-deportation-industrial-complex
On October 05 2025 09:11 KwarK wrote: Pay no mind to the hundreds of billions they’re spending on a private army that they’re deploying to Democratic voting strongholds.
The private armies of ICE and the FBI are actually deployed everywhere in the US. Here's ICE: + Show Spoiler +
I think the argument is rather that ICE has received previously unseen levels of funding. In the years prior it was an average of $18.7 billion annually. This has increased by $10 billion in 2025, making it $28.7 billion.
Generally anti-immigration funding has gone up very dramatically. Private detention companies are also making big bucks (in my view this is completely unethical. Private prisons are immoral).
We're seeing the biggest changes under Trump and more big changes are planned by his administration. Sure there was already an expansion previously, but the proportions are way bigger under Trump.
On October 05 2025 01:13 pmh wrote: Things will be ok for the democrats i think. They can get it done. Not because they are so great but because support for this administration is collapsing completely atm. They dont realy dare to push further anymore either i think , there is not enough public support for where they want to go not even close.
Its a very early call but its seems like an easy call. The democrats gonna crush the midterms and 2028. I dont think this can be stopped. Its at the point where anything the administration tries will only make it worse for them.
Its mostly a feeling but i think its pretty much done. 1 year till midterm and then 2 years of lame duck. Even in this one year they wont be able to change much. The minimum support amongst the population is not there as i see it.
I wonder when they will realize this meme stuff is not helping them. Its way to crazy at this point.
First of all it is way to early to call anything, as there is too much that can happen. Even if they were to happen now, not sure what you basing your call on?
The point was pretty much that the dirt poor people are the ones the anti-Maidan folks expect to fight/fend for themselves to your west (would you support Europe arming anti-fascists in the US like Ukrainians?). I could be wrong, but I doubt many (I'm sure some are) of Ukrainians on the front lines to your east are more affluent than you, and that's who you expect to protect you (not all flee West like you would) until you're forced to fight/join the fascists yourself. Which with AfD being the most popular faction nowadays, probably isn't as far off as you'd like to imagine.
On September 30 2025 21:12 Ryzel wrote: He’s just trying to light a fire under y’all collective asses to engage meaningfully with your individual political beliefs, see how they track with what’s currently being represented by the Democratic Party, and normalize change. Because if you believe “wow, the way the world works right now sucks”, you can’t then argue “you can’t do that, that’s not the way the world works”, because the logical conclusion of meshing those two is “the world sucks and will keep on sucking until hopefully it stops sucking anymore on its own.”
At that point you’re at best (if you have hope for it to stop sucking) ideologically similar to Nazi Germany citizens who “had to go along with all the bad stuff until hopefully things get better” (but instead internalized all the bad shit they had to do until it didn’t seem so bad anymore), OR at worst (if you’ve lost hope for it to stop sucking) ideologically similar to 647 / No Lives Matter nihilists who say “fuck this fucking sucky world that sucks and everyone in it, even me” (until their rage pushes them to shoot up a public place).
One additional thing I'm pointing out is that oppressed people are being described sorta like canaries in the fascism mine for those people who plan on leaving when the oppressed people around them die/get abused at an uncomfortable enough rate.
I'm not leaving those less fortunate than myself to face the fascists alone and I'm certainly not going to join the fascists. That's just not something the rest of you will commit to.
Ok, you've quoted that post a couple times now, so let's address it.
I take it you liked the opening statement "He’s just trying to light a fire under y’all collective asses to engage meaningfully with your individual political beliefs, see how they track with what’s currently being represented by the Democratic Party, and normalize change."
engaging meaningfully is a vague term, similar to what you get when you ask ChatGPT to write for you. You can project that to cover pretty much any discussion about politics. What does this mean to you?
Harris's domestic platform was similar to Biden's on most issues.[15] She supported national abortion protections, LGBT+ rights, stricter gun control, and legislation to address climate change.[16] She also supported federal cannabis legalization, strengthening voting rights, strengthening the Affordable Care Act, and federal funding of housing. Harris departed from Biden on some economic issues, initially proposing what some described as a "populist" economic agenda. Harris advocated for limited anti-price-gouging laws for grocery and food prices, a cap on prescription drug costs, and expansion of the child tax credit.[17][18] On immigration, Harris supported increasing the number of Border Patrol agents and reforming the immigration system. On foreign policy, she supported continued military aid to Ukraine and Israel in their respective wars, but insisted that Israel should agree to a ceasefire and hostage deal and work towards a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[19]
So, Harris hit most of the issues we agree are important, from taxing richer folks more to extending healthcare and adding protections for LGBT+ people. She had concrete plans to do these things. Are you going to argue that these don't track with what progressives want? Before you start with the genocide enablers thing again, I know that you disagree with her foreign policy, no need to go there.
Maybe something for you think about: were we closer to implementing a socialist system before or after Harris lost the election?
☐ The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them ☐ The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative ☐ The US has no viable path forward, but to try to protect our loved ones from the worst of it ☐ I don't know how to get to a socialist future, but that's what I want
Generally speaking, my vote was not counted before the election result was announced. There's no reason for me to have voted for Harris. That said, I didn't want Trump to win. The way the US electoral system is set up though, there's not really much I could do about that.
If I tell you which poll option will you tailor your response? Are we back to cosplaying different characters depending on who you're talking to? That got old fast the first time around , can we not do that again?
I put the link so that hopefully you'd see I mean that:
One frustration the poll shows that confirms my personal experience is that when I'm arguing in favor of socialism I'm arguing against some people that believe each answer (and some unlisted ones) and they each need to be convinced of different things.
For the plurality of people here that ostensibly want a socialist future, I recommend dropping in my Blog to discuss our ideas of how to get there.
On October 05 2025 17:20 GreenHorizons wrote: Generally speaking, my vote was not counted before the election result was announced. There's no reason for me to have voted for Harris. That said, I didn't want Trump to win. The way the US electoral system is set up though, there's not really much I could do about that.
You don't want Trump to win but you spend every single day attacking the only alternative.
You have a very weird way of showing your opposition.
Between the "spam mock and gawking Trump/Republicans for years" and "stop aiding and abetting genocide" advice, Democrats went with what you guys prefer.
The point was pretty much that the dirt poor people are the ones the anti-Maidan folks expect to fight/fend for themselves to your west (would you support Europe arming anti-fascists in the US like Ukrainians?). I could be wrong, but I doubt many (I'm sure some are) of Ukrainians on the front lines to your east are more affluent than you, and that's who you expect to protect you (not all flee West like you would) until you're forced to fight/join the fascists yourself. Which with AfD being the most popular faction nowadays, probably isn't as far off as you'd like to imagine.
On September 30 2025 21:12 Ryzel wrote: He’s just trying to light a fire under y’all collective asses to engage meaningfully with your individual political beliefs, see how they track with what’s currently being represented by the Democratic Party, and normalize change. Because if you believe “wow, the way the world works right now sucks”, you can’t then argue “you can’t do that, that’s not the way the world works”, because the logical conclusion of meshing those two is “the world sucks and will keep on sucking until hopefully it stops sucking anymore on its own.”
At that point you’re at best (if you have hope for it to stop sucking) ideologically similar to Nazi Germany citizens who “had to go along with all the bad stuff until hopefully things get better” (but instead internalized all the bad shit they had to do until it didn’t seem so bad anymore), OR at worst (if you’ve lost hope for it to stop sucking) ideologically similar to 647 / No Lives Matter nihilists who say “fuck this fucking sucky world that sucks and everyone in it, even me” (until their rage pushes them to shoot up a public place).
One additional thing I'm pointing out is that oppressed people are being described sorta like canaries in the fascism mine for those people who plan on leaving when the oppressed people around them die/get abused at an uncomfortable enough rate.
I'm not leaving those less fortunate than myself to face the fascists alone and I'm certainly not going to join the fascists. That's just not something the rest of you will commit to.
Ok, you've quoted that post a couple times now, so let's address it.
I take it you liked the opening statement "He’s just trying to light a fire under y’all collective asses to engage meaningfully with your individual political beliefs, see how they track with what’s currently being represented by the Democratic Party, and normalize change."
engaging meaningfully is a vague term, similar to what you get when you ask ChatGPT to write for you. You can project that to cover pretty much any discussion about politics. What does this mean to you?
Harris's domestic platform was similar to Biden's on most issues.[15] She supported national abortion protections, LGBT+ rights, stricter gun control, and legislation to address climate change.[16] She also supported federal cannabis legalization, strengthening voting rights, strengthening the Affordable Care Act, and federal funding of housing. Harris departed from Biden on some economic issues, initially proposing what some described as a "populist" economic agenda. Harris advocated for limited anti-price-gouging laws for grocery and food prices, a cap on prescription drug costs, and expansion of the child tax credit.[17][18] On immigration, Harris supported increasing the number of Border Patrol agents and reforming the immigration system. On foreign policy, she supported continued military aid to Ukraine and Israel in their respective wars, but insisted that Israel should agree to a ceasefire and hostage deal and work towards a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[19]
So, Harris hit most of the issues we agree are important, from taxing richer folks more to extending healthcare and adding protections for LGBT+ people. She had concrete plans to do these things. Are you going to argue that these don't track with what progressives want? Before you start with the genocide enablers thing again, I know that you disagree with her foreign policy, no need to go there.
Maybe something for you think about: were we closer to implementing a socialist system before or after Harris lost the election?
☐ The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them ☐ The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative ☐ The US has no viable path forward, but to try to protect our loved ones from the worst of it ☐ I don't know how to get to a socialist future, but that's what I want
Generally speaking, my vote was not counted before the election result was announced. There's no reason for me to have voted for Harris. That said, I didn't want Trump to win. The way the US electoral system is set up though, there's not really much I could do about that.
If I tell you which poll option will you tailor your response? Are we back to cosplaying different characters depending on who you're talking to? That got old fast the first time around , can we not do that again?
I put the link so that hopefully you'd see I mean that:
One frustration the poll shows that confirms my personal experience is that when I'm arguing in favor of socialism I'm arguing against some people that believe each answer (and some unlisted ones) and they each need to be convinced of different things.
For the plurality of people here that ostensibly want a socialist future, I recommend dropping in my Blog to discuss our ideas of how to get there.
Ok, I went with option number 3. Now, your turn. I got these two for you:
So, Harris hit most of the issues we agree are important, from taxing richer folks more to extending healthcare and adding protections for LGBT+ people. She had concrete plans to do these things. Are you going to argue that these don't track with what progressives want?
Are we closer to implementing a socialist system before or after Harris lost the election?
The point was pretty much that the dirt poor people are the ones the anti-Maidan folks expect to fight/fend for themselves to your west (would you support Europe arming anti-fascists in the US like Ukrainians?). I could be wrong, but I doubt many (I'm sure some are) of Ukrainians on the front lines to your east are more affluent than you, and that's who you expect to protect you (not all flee West like you would) until you're forced to fight/join the fascists yourself. Which with AfD being the most popular faction nowadays, probably isn't as far off as you'd like to imagine.
On September 30 2025 21:12 Ryzel wrote: He’s just trying to light a fire under y’all collective asses to engage meaningfully with your individual political beliefs, see how they track with what’s currently being represented by the Democratic Party, and normalize change. Because if you believe “wow, the way the world works right now sucks”, you can’t then argue “you can’t do that, that’s not the way the world works”, because the logical conclusion of meshing those two is “the world sucks and will keep on sucking until hopefully it stops sucking anymore on its own.”
At that point you’re at best (if you have hope for it to stop sucking) ideologically similar to Nazi Germany citizens who “had to go along with all the bad stuff until hopefully things get better” (but instead internalized all the bad shit they had to do until it didn’t seem so bad anymore), OR at worst (if you’ve lost hope for it to stop sucking) ideologically similar to 647 / No Lives Matter nihilists who say “fuck this fucking sucky world that sucks and everyone in it, even me” (until their rage pushes them to shoot up a public place).
One additional thing I'm pointing out is that oppressed people are being described sorta like canaries in the fascism mine for those people who plan on leaving when the oppressed people around them die/get abused at an uncomfortable enough rate.
I'm not leaving those less fortunate than myself to face the fascists alone and I'm certainly not going to join the fascists. That's just not something the rest of you will commit to.
Ok, you've quoted that post a couple times now, so let's address it.
I take it you liked the opening statement "He’s just trying to light a fire under y’all collective asses to engage meaningfully with your individual political beliefs, see how they track with what’s currently being represented by the Democratic Party, and normalize change."
engaging meaningfully is a vague term, similar to what you get when you ask ChatGPT to write for you. You can project that to cover pretty much any discussion about politics. What does this mean to you?
Harris's domestic platform was similar to Biden's on most issues.[15] She supported national abortion protections, LGBT+ rights, stricter gun control, and legislation to address climate change.[16] She also supported federal cannabis legalization, strengthening voting rights, strengthening the Affordable Care Act, and federal funding of housing. Harris departed from Biden on some economic issues, initially proposing what some described as a "populist" economic agenda. Harris advocated for limited anti-price-gouging laws for grocery and food prices, a cap on prescription drug costs, and expansion of the child tax credit.[17][18] On immigration, Harris supported increasing the number of Border Patrol agents and reforming the immigration system. On foreign policy, she supported continued military aid to Ukraine and Israel in their respective wars, but insisted that Israel should agree to a ceasefire and hostage deal and work towards a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[19]
So, Harris hit most of the issues we agree are important, from taxing richer folks more to extending healthcare and adding protections for LGBT+ people. She had concrete plans to do these things. Are you going to argue that these don't track with what progressives want? Before you start with the genocide enablers thing again, I know that you disagree with her foreign policy, no need to go there.
Maybe something for you think about: were we closer to implementing a socialist system before or after Harris lost the election?
Although you directed your question at GH, I'd like to also chime in. In my book Harris is sufficiently socialist/progressive to make some positive change domestically. A good plus, although I'd be curious about the rest of her policies such as homelessness, police and police brutality, punitive justice, rehabiliation/reintegration, etc. Regarding Israel I think her promises are completely insufficient. A full stop on weapon aid is the only proposal I find ethically tolerable.
In short, given the choice I'd have voted for Harris not because she's great, but because there was no one better (as a realistic choice for voters) and because she has some of the right ideas. I'm curious to hear GH's breakdown of her policies.
I agree with most of that. Was she a progressive champion? No, but, like you said, it'd have made a positive change. I would have preferred a socialist candidate, but that isn't in the cards. It's just not the American way.
I think we are all curious about GH's breakdown of her policies.
The point was pretty much that the dirt poor people are the ones the anti-Maidan folks expect to fight/fend for themselves to your west (would you support Europe arming anti-fascists in the US like Ukrainians?). I could be wrong, but I doubt many (I'm sure some are) of Ukrainians on the front lines to your east are more affluent than you, and that's who you expect to protect you (not all flee West like you would) until you're forced to fight/join the fascists yourself. Which with AfD being the most popular faction nowadays, probably isn't as far off as you'd like to imagine.
On September 30 2025 21:12 Ryzel wrote: He’s just trying to light a fire under y’all collective asses to engage meaningfully with your individual political beliefs, see how they track with what’s currently being represented by the Democratic Party, and normalize change. Because if you believe “wow, the way the world works right now sucks”, you can’t then argue “you can’t do that, that’s not the way the world works”, because the logical conclusion of meshing those two is “the world sucks and will keep on sucking until hopefully it stops sucking anymore on its own.”
At that point you’re at best (if you have hope for it to stop sucking) ideologically similar to Nazi Germany citizens who “had to go along with all the bad stuff until hopefully things get better” (but instead internalized all the bad shit they had to do until it didn’t seem so bad anymore), OR at worst (if you’ve lost hope for it to stop sucking) ideologically similar to 647 / No Lives Matter nihilists who say “fuck this fucking sucky world that sucks and everyone in it, even me” (until their rage pushes them to shoot up a public place).
One additional thing I'm pointing out is that oppressed people are being described sorta like canaries in the fascism mine for those people who plan on leaving when the oppressed people around them die/get abused at an uncomfortable enough rate.
I'm not leaving those less fortunate than myself to face the fascists alone and I'm certainly not going to join the fascists. That's just not something the rest of you will commit to.
Ok, you've quoted that post a couple times now, so let's address it.
I take it you liked the opening statement "He’s just trying to light a fire under y’all collective asses to engage meaningfully with your individual political beliefs, see how they track with what’s currently being represented by the Democratic Party, and normalize change."
engaging meaningfully is a vague term, similar to what you get when you ask ChatGPT to write for you. You can project that to cover pretty much any discussion about politics. What does this mean to you?
Harris's domestic platform was similar to Biden's on most issues.[15] She supported national abortion protections, LGBT+ rights, stricter gun control, and legislation to address climate change.[16] She also supported federal cannabis legalization, strengthening voting rights, strengthening the Affordable Care Act, and federal funding of housing. Harris departed from Biden on some economic issues, initially proposing what some described as a "populist" economic agenda. Harris advocated for limited anti-price-gouging laws for grocery and food prices, a cap on prescription drug costs, and expansion of the child tax credit.[17][18] On immigration, Harris supported increasing the number of Border Patrol agents and reforming the immigration system. On foreign policy, she supported continued military aid to Ukraine and Israel in their respective wars, but insisted that Israel should agree to a ceasefire and hostage deal and work towards a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[19]
So, Harris hit most of the issues we agree are important, from taxing richer folks more to extending healthcare and adding protections for LGBT+ people. She had concrete plans to do these things. Are you going to argue that these don't track with what progressives want? Before you start with the genocide enablers thing again, I know that you disagree with her foreign policy, no need to go there.
Maybe something for you think about: were we closer to implementing a socialist system before or after Harris lost the election?
☐ The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them ☐ The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative ☐ The US has no viable path forward, but to try to protect our loved ones from the worst of it ☐ I don't know how to get to a socialist future, but that's what I want
Generally speaking, my vote was not counted before the election result was announced. There's no reason for me to have voted for Harris. That said, I didn't want Trump to win. The way the US electoral system is set up though, there's not really much I could do about that.
If I tell you which poll option will you tailor your response? Are we back to cosplaying different characters depending on who you're talking to? That got old fast the first time around , can we not do that again?
I put the link so that hopefully you'd see I mean that:
One frustration the poll shows that confirms my personal experience is that when I'm arguing in favor of socialism I'm arguing against some people that believe each answer (and some unlisted ones) and they each need to be convinced of different things.
For the plurality of people here that ostensibly want a socialist future, I recommend dropping in my Blog to discuss our ideas of how to get there.
Ok, I went with option number 3. Now, your turn. I got these two for you:
So, Harris hit most of the issues we agree are important, from taxing richer folks more to extending healthcare and adding protections for LGBT+ people. She had concrete plans to do these things. Are you going to argue that these don't track with what progressives want?
Are we closer to implementing a socialist system before or after Harris lost the election?
So you chose "The US has no viable path forward, but to try to protect our loved ones from the worst of it"
The idea was also for you to elaborate on it. Because as it is, there's not really any reason to discuss the socialism aspect. I don't know that we're any closer to socialism, but we're definitely closer to revolutionary change one way or the other (granted it's looking like Democrats will side with the fascist revolution over a socialist one atm).
But yes, as far as I understand, Harris said things progressives liked. She didn't have "concrete plans" though. That would have required a viable plan to pass/enforce them, which you recognize (in your answer) she (and no one else) didn't have.
It's like saying "I have a concrete plan for passing universal healthcare: Democrats win all the elections. Ta-da!"
A fascist revolution is Reactionary, its not really a revolution in any proper sense. Its just reestablishing the old order and killing a bunch of people in the process.
The point was pretty much that the dirt poor people are the ones the anti-Maidan folks expect to fight/fend for themselves to your west (would you support Europe arming anti-fascists in the US like Ukrainians?). I could be wrong, but I doubt many (I'm sure some are) of Ukrainians on the front lines to your east are more affluent than you, and that's who you expect to protect you (not all flee West like you would) until you're forced to fight/join the fascists yourself. Which with AfD being the most popular faction nowadays, probably isn't as far off as you'd like to imagine.
On September 30 2025 21:12 Ryzel wrote: He’s just trying to light a fire under y’all collective asses to engage meaningfully with your individual political beliefs, see how they track with what’s currently being represented by the Democratic Party, and normalize change. Because if you believe “wow, the way the world works right now sucks”, you can’t then argue “you can’t do that, that’s not the way the world works”, because the logical conclusion of meshing those two is “the world sucks and will keep on sucking until hopefully it stops sucking anymore on its own.”
At that point you’re at best (if you have hope for it to stop sucking) ideologically similar to Nazi Germany citizens who “had to go along with all the bad stuff until hopefully things get better” (but instead internalized all the bad shit they had to do until it didn’t seem so bad anymore), OR at worst (if you’ve lost hope for it to stop sucking) ideologically similar to 647 / No Lives Matter nihilists who say “fuck this fucking sucky world that sucks and everyone in it, even me” (until their rage pushes them to shoot up a public place).
One additional thing I'm pointing out is that oppressed people are being described sorta like canaries in the fascism mine for those people who plan on leaving when the oppressed people around them die/get abused at an uncomfortable enough rate.
I'm not leaving those less fortunate than myself to face the fascists alone and I'm certainly not going to join the fascists. That's just not something the rest of you will commit to.
Ok, you've quoted that post a couple times now, so let's address it.
I take it you liked the opening statement "He’s just trying to light a fire under y’all collective asses to engage meaningfully with your individual political beliefs, see how they track with what’s currently being represented by the Democratic Party, and normalize change."
engaging meaningfully is a vague term, similar to what you get when you ask ChatGPT to write for you. You can project that to cover pretty much any discussion about politics. What does this mean to you?
Harris's domestic platform was similar to Biden's on most issues.[15] She supported national abortion protections, LGBT+ rights, stricter gun control, and legislation to address climate change.[16] She also supported federal cannabis legalization, strengthening voting rights, strengthening the Affordable Care Act, and federal funding of housing. Harris departed from Biden on some economic issues, initially proposing what some described as a "populist" economic agenda. Harris advocated for limited anti-price-gouging laws for grocery and food prices, a cap on prescription drug costs, and expansion of the child tax credit.[17][18] On immigration, Harris supported increasing the number of Border Patrol agents and reforming the immigration system. On foreign policy, she supported continued military aid to Ukraine and Israel in their respective wars, but insisted that Israel should agree to a ceasefire and hostage deal and work towards a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.[19]
So, Harris hit most of the issues we agree are important, from taxing richer folks more to extending healthcare and adding protections for LGBT+ people. She had concrete plans to do these things. Are you going to argue that these don't track with what progressives want? Before you start with the genocide enablers thing again, I know that you disagree with her foreign policy, no need to go there.
Maybe something for you think about: were we closer to implementing a socialist system before or after Harris lost the election?
☐ The Democratic party has a viable path forward and we just need to support them ☐ The Democratic party has has no viable path forward so we need an alternative ☐ The US has no viable path forward, but to try to protect our loved ones from the worst of it ☐ I don't know how to get to a socialist future, but that's what I want
Generally speaking, my vote was not counted before the election result was announced. There's no reason for me to have voted for Harris. That said, I didn't want Trump to win. The way the US electoral system is set up though, there's not really much I could do about that.
If I tell you which poll option will you tailor your response? Are we back to cosplaying different characters depending on who you're talking to? That got old fast the first time around , can we not do that again?
I put the link so that hopefully you'd see I mean that:
One frustration the poll shows that confirms my personal experience is that when I'm arguing in favor of socialism I'm arguing against some people that believe each answer (and some unlisted ones) and they each need to be convinced of different things.
For the plurality of people here that ostensibly want a socialist future, I recommend dropping in my Blog to discuss our ideas of how to get there.
Ok, I went with option number 3. Now, your turn. I got these two for you:
So, Harris hit most of the issues we agree are important, from taxing richer folks more to extending healthcare and adding protections for LGBT+ people. She had concrete plans to do these things. Are you going to argue that these don't track with what progressives want?
Are we closer to implementing a socialist system before or after Harris lost the election?
So you chose "The US has no viable path forward, but to try to protect our loved ones from the worst of it"
The idea was also for you to elaborate on it. Because as it is, there's not really any reason to discuss the socialism aspect. I don't know that we're any closer to socialism, but we're definitely closer to revolutionary change one way or the other (granted it's looking like Democrats will side with the fascist revolution over a socialist one atm).
But yes, as far as I understand, Harris said things progressives liked. She didn't have "concrete plans" though. That would have required a viable plan to pass them, which you recognize (in your answer) she (and no one else) had/has.
It's like saying "I have a concrete plan for passing universal healthcare: Democrats win all the elections. Ta-da!"
I thought option 3 was about supporting democrats but I see now that it was just the third option in terms of votes, my apologies.
Edit: elaborating further. I'm not saying vote blue no matter who. I am simply acknowledging that the only way we get to socialism in America is through the Democrats. I see no future in which a violent revolution happens and the winning block is the socialists.To the majority of Americans this ideology is toxic.
In any case, I wanted to bring this back to the post you quoted 3 times.
He’s just trying to light a fire under y’all collective asses to engage meaningfully with your individual political beliefs, see how they track with what’s currently being represented by the Democratic Party, and normalize change."
I am engaging meaningfully with my political beliefs and tracking how the democratic platform, as embodied by Harris in the recent election, represents progressive values.
Harris hit most of the issues we agree are important, from taxing richer folks more to extending healthcare and adding protections for LGBT+ people. She had concrete plans to do these things. Are you going to argue that these don't track with what progressives want?
@oblade Can you explain the logic to sending the national guard and ice to Portland when the entire state of Oregon has just over 100k illegals. You have states like Texas with 1.6 million and Florida with 1 million and those states voted for Trump so he wouldn't get nearly the amount of push back.
Wouldn't it make way more sense from a resource and efficiency stand point to get those states cleared out, show how much better they are because of it and then go after the tiny ones that have insignificant amounts?
Does this not make it look like the goal has nothing to do with getting rid of illegals?
This is my guess as to how the conservatives will reason: Dem states may have less illegals but their harboring is more problematic. There's an existing sentiment to give this people a place in this countey unmerited, which needs to be extinguisged.
That's as far as I can muster before my devil's advocate is too appalled where this might go.
On October 06 2025 01:28 Billyboy wrote: @oblade Can you explain the logic to sending the national guard and ice to Portland when the entire state of Oregon has just over 100k illegals.
They're different reasons.
The reason for "sending" ICE is ICE's nationwide mission is immigration enforcement. Oregon is part of the nation.
Your 100k number is years old, and you don't know Texas and Oregon have different total populations. But estimate-splitting aside I get the implication. Only 100,000 people are living in the state with no permission whatsoever. Imagine how much fewer would be there without sanctuary policies.
On October 06 2025 01:28 Billyboy wrote: You have states like Texas with 1.6 million and Florida with 1 million and those states voted for Trump so he wouldn't get nearly the amount of push back.
You think ICE doesn't operate in Texas or Florida? After you saw a map listing ICE facilities in states nationwide, with Texas topping the list. And still produced this question. At a certain point I can't help you.
ICE operates even more efficiently in Texas and Florida because those states engage in even basic cooperation with federal enforcement. Yet Florida opened a detention facility and people call it a concentration camp. There's always "pushback."
On October 06 2025 01:28 Billyboy wrote: Wouldn't it make way more sense from a resource and efficiency stand point to get those states cleared out, show how much better they are because of it and then go after the tiny ones that have insignificant amounts?
Does this not make it look like the goal has nothing to do with getting rid of illegals?
Federal law applies nationwide.
Would it be efficient to specifically close existing offices and detention centers in Oregon, mothball existing infrastructure, and tell everyone who works in Oregon to move to Texas until Texas has not a single illegal alien left? No. Would it be smart policy to let sanctuary Democrats have little corners of lawlessness where they get away with whatever they want? Also no.
On October 06 2025 01:28 Billyboy wrote: @oblade Can you explain the logic to sending the national guard and ice to Portland when the entire state of Oregon has just over 100k illegals. You have states like Texas with 1.6 million and Florida with 1 million and those states voted for Trump so he wouldn't get nearly the amount of push back.
Wouldn't it make way more sense from a resource and efficiency stand point to get those states cleared out, show how much better they are because of it and then go after the tiny ones that have insignificant amounts?
Does this not make it look like the goal has nothing to do with getting rid of illegals?
Isn't it rather obvious? He sends national guard, where conditions prevent ICE from doing its job.
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.ibb.co/4wcqg32t/download-2.png)
![[image loading]](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271943805/figure/fig3/AS:392030749511683@1470478822508/Local-FBI-offices.png)
