|
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 February 14 2026 03:55 Legan wrote:
I have started to wonder what kind of deterrent will need to be established in future so that corporations and their shareholders won't engage in corruption and support fascism in the future. For murder, the deterrent can be life in jail. For foreigners allegedly smuggling drugs, the deterrent can be a missile strike. What would be enough of a deterrent for billionaires who engage in corruption and undermine democracy?
Guillotines and seizure of assets. And organized workers.
Historically the only thing that made the rich share was a credible threat of revolution. When the owner class is scared of communists taking everything, they are willing to deal with unions and make fair rules.
Sadly, that threat seems mostly gone nowadays, as the rich have become increasingly better at controlling the opinions of the not-rich, and the communist governments have shown to be pretty shitty, and then collapsed.
|
On February 13 2026 14:55 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2026 13:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2026 09:53 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On February 13 2026 09:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2026 08:50 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On February 13 2026 04:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2026 04:11 Jankisa wrote:On February 13 2026 04:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2026 01:07 Jankisa wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Well, they are here, and they will happilly tell you.
For oBlade, about getting one over Democrats and punishing them and anyone who is not white, applying laws selectively and spitting on the rest of the world who has been "taking advantage" of Americans. Basically, just regurgitated "America first" bullshit marching orders he gets form watching his idol Tucker Carlson.
Whatever lefties propose, he has diatribes he copy pasted from stormfront ready, with links and videos from X, the everything app, the guy never leaves his media bubble and when challenged here he just ignores it and keeps on spamming his bullshit.
The saddest part is that he's just a sad incel who has no personality or interests of his own so he lives vicariously by watching jack booted thugs executing people.
For Introvert, it's grievance, he, unlike oBlade at least has the balls to occasionally spare a critical word for Trump and his cohort, but, he is so blinded by propaganda and hate, he's been so convinced that immigrants are the poison killing his country and that the reason for this are Democrats that he is willing to cheer on downright fascism as long as they punish the people he hates, namely Democrats, liberals and anyone else conservatives blame for the USA being a shitthole it is.
This can range from Europeans and everyone else getting a "free ride" and USA protection, which, along with paying for immigrant healthcare is the reason, in his head, why USA can't afford healthcare.
For Jimmy, he's either a bad troll or very stupid, the guy unironically watches fox news and posts and acts like a boomer.
All of them share the common trait that they are petty people who blame all the issues in the USA on anything other then the country being a deliberate shit show, it's unimaginable to them that normal people from USA can be critical of both Democrats and Republicans and still vote and prefer Democrats every time much in the same way that GH can't imagine that people don't have to love or defend Democrats to want them to get back in to power as a better alternative to an inevitably violent and catastrophic revolution. I fully understand that people don't have to love Democrats to want them to get back in power as a preferable alternative to Republicans/revolution. They do typically have to defend them/their support from critics. That's part of when/why they resorted (for better or worse) to "lesser evilism" and the "trolley problem" as their defense of Democrats and their support of them and/despite their actions. This is part of why the discussion on wealth distribution in the US died without the critical "how do we change that in the US" part. It's definitely not about a majority of people in the US wanting to redistribute it more equally, because they do, and we have all known for well over a decade. The inequality is actually worse since this image btw. + Show Spoiler +Besides what Simberto mentioned about not being able to actually comprehend the scale, I believe that's at least partly because of the Hamster Wheel On August 30 2023 01:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 30 2023 00:42 StasisField wrote:
[quote]
You can't get what you want from Democrats if you don't vote in your own Democrats. You want a socialist revolution? Taking over the most popular party in a 2-party system and implementing your policy platform through that party is a nonviolent path to a real socialist revolution. You vote for socialists in the primary and you hold the line against literal fascist rule in the general. The evidence this works is the GOP. We have seen a demonstrable change in policy and attitude from the GOP over the last couple decades from a conservative party to openly advocating for fascism. The change you claim to want is possible but you turn your nose up to it. You'd rather do things that have no chance of changing how things work in this country. A real revolutionary you are, GH. This is just the start of the perpetual dem apologist refrain of: 1. There's a problem 2. Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system 6. Politicians wont fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam. people of good conscience need to get off that hamster wheel if we want any hope of a desirable future. It's not something they can wait another 40-60 years to do (like they have on the Black-white wealth gap). It's already too late to save countless people and every day they stubbornly refuse to get off the wheel countless more are lost. If you're going to thoughtlessly advocate for a tea partyesque movement you would do well to remember they also ignored electability arguments and were willing to lose winnable elections in favor of supporting their preference. Something I understand you specifically to be advocating against. I would personally prefer social democrats of the 60's to have shifted toward being democratic socialists in the 90's and would be more just plainly socialist in the 2020's. That's not what happened though. Instead they went the "New Democrat/Third Way" route and dragged anyone that opposed Republicans with them as the only other option. Contrary to what you all believe, I don't want a violent revolution. I just want (let's say to start) the same wealth distribution Republican voters want. AFAICT LightSpectra is the only person that believes there's a path to that in the US where the "1%" don't pay (various degrees of desperate) people (besides politicians, SC Judges, etc) to stop that, including violently if/when it comes to that. But also, no one has any prescription for how to overcome that. So....? On February 13 2026 02:14 Introvert wrote:On February 13 2026 01:07 Jankisa wrote:
Well, they are here, and they will happilly tell you.
For oBlade, about getting one over Democrats and punishing them and anyone who is not white, applying laws selectively and spitting on the rest of the world who has been "taking advantage" of Americans. Basically, just regurgitated "America first" bullshit marching orders he gets form watching his idol Tucker Carlson.
Whatever lefties propose, he has diatribes he copy pasted from stormfront ready, with links and videos from X, the everything app, the guy never leaves his media bubble and when challenged here he just ignores it and keeps on spamming his bullshit.
The saddest part is that he's just a sad incel who has no personality or interests of his own so he lives vicariously by watching jack booted thugs executing people.
For Introvert, it's grievance, he, unlike oBlade at least has the balls to occasionally spare a critical word for Trump and his cohort, but, he is so blinded by propaganda and hate, he's been so convinced that immigrants are the poison killing his country and that the reason for this are Democrats that he is willing to cheer on downright fascism as long as they punish the people he hates, namely Democrats, liberals and anyone else conservatives blame for the USA being a shitthole it is.
This can range from Europeans and everyone else getting a "free ride" and USA protection, which, along with paying for immigrant healthcare is the reason, in his head, why USA can't afford healthcare.
For Jimmy, he's either a bad troll or very stupid, the guy unironically watches fox news and posts and acts like a boomer.
All of them share the common trait that they are petty people who blame all the issues in the USA on anything other then the country being a deliberate shit show, it's unimaginable to them that normal people from USA can be critical of both Democrats and Republicans and still vote and prefer Democrats every time much in the same way that GH can't imagine that people don't have to love or defend Democrats to want them to get back in to power as a better alternative to an inevitably violent and catastrophic revolution. There's a lot wrong here and maybe this is bait, but I'd love to know where I ever said this or anything remotely like it. I would normally ignore stuff like this but it’s interesting because it's clear so much of it is just stuff you invented in your own head. + Show Spoiler +
If I misconstrued your reasoning, please feel free to correct me on it. I arrived at it from reading your general approach to topics.
Regarding oBlade's "rebuttal", I find it honestly hilarious that he tried to a) deny who he is, despite very obviously being in support of everything these guys do , b) move on to nitpick a word (classic) and then d) go on to prove exactly I wrote by going on to another comment in order to shit on Democrats.
GH, I understand that not everyone reads and comments on everything everyone writes, however, I put out 3 things that are very obvious and have been done, successfully before. This wealth would be very easily re-distributed by simply, doubling the corporate tax rate, that would get the income from it from half a trillion to one trillion. This would still be lower corporate tax rate then what it was in the 60-es. Okay... Redistributive taxation isn't the puzzle though? It's how to overcome the US Hamster Wheel/regulatory capture to sustainably implement redistributive policies that electoralism has no answer to? 1. There's a problem [wealth distribution in this case] 2. [bipartisan] Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system 6. [bipartisan] Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam. Retirement age Black people have spent their entire adult lives relentlessly supporting/voting for Democrats more reliably than any other group of people has for the last 60 years. That wealth distribution problem relative to the Black-white gap has been stagnant or gotten worse as a consequence. It's pretty literally insane to keep doing that. The problem with discussing fixing the problems with the US political system is that the system is so fundamentally broken that even if there existed the political will to fix it, it's going to take decades. + Show Spoiler +In addition, just as you correctly identified, that the problem with actually effecting any wealth redistribution runs deeper than just the political system: the problem with effecting any positive change to the political system, likewise, runs deeper, it's cultural.
And even if you had the means to effect cultural change, that is going to take decades too.
Then to bring even more bad news. At least a significant chunk of the cultural issues, are the effects of decades of cold war propaganda (and I use the term propaganda in its original non-derogative meaning). And undoing that will take decades of propaganda, which frankly, requires state involvement, which... oh no... requires you to solve the political problem.
To add to this horrible ouroboros of deeply ingrained problems, your (US) politics on the ground level, is such a team sport, that I'm sceptical you have any path to get anything done, and a part of this partisanship may be exacerbated by intentional foreign influence. Well, you have yourselves a pickle.
I don't think you have any choice but to simultaneously try to solve/lessen all 3. Even then... will probably take decades and far from guarantee of success. As a fortunate non-American, I wish you guys good luck. Looks like a bit of a pickle you guys are in. Besides the fact that what you're describing was what was supposed to be happening from the inside out with Democrats since the 60's. As I pointed out, they've gone so far the other way (despite lifetimes of a lot of very dedicated and intelligent people's best efforts), that the biggest achievement by Democrats in our lives was passing a healthcare bill that Nixon and his Republican party rejected as being too right-wing. I can't disagree that any solution is going to be hard in some capacities. However, between Trump/Fascism and the best available ecological science, no one reasonably believes that we have decades or that being non-American/not in the US will be sufficient (certainly not for future generations). So...? So small victories. There's no point doing root cause analysis to try and solve the underlying issues first, because as you say, you might not have long enough to solve the underlying issues, also the issues are circular. + Show Spoiler +All you can do attack what problems you can on every level. My point in replying to the original post, is that redistributive taxation is, in fact, the puzzle, so is everything else, the only option you guys have is to attack the problem from all angles and levels, all at the same time.
You'll need to redistribute wealth, you need to get money out of politics, you need people to stop thinking that a good way to run a country or an economy is just try to be the opposite of the USSR, and you need a third of your country to not think of another third of your country as enemies, and vice versa. You need to do all of this at the same time and more, because you don't have the luxury (or frankly the ability) to solve one problem at a time anymore. All you can do is consider and do what can be done on all these fronts, and take what little victories you can get. That sounds like standard "white moderate" rhetoric. It also doesn't address the fact that it is what was supposed to already be happening, though demonstrably isn't, and also not how things have pretty much ever actually get done. People have been making that same argument since the 60's (and at every remotely major step forward as a US society). Some knowingly, some as useful idiots, to convince people to reduce doing the things socialists and our allies work toward. The same sorts of things that also worked for slavery, suffrage, workers rights, civil rights, opposing war, etc, and to instead "take the little victories" of "getting a seat at the table" and playing along with "Third Way" Democrats. That's what has helped lead to Democrats celebrating something Nixon and Republicans rejected 50+ years ago as too right-wing as their greatest accomplishment since then. It's also a major part of how/why we got Trump/fascism. Why we still have slavery. Why the Black-white wealth gap hasn't improved. Why potentially pregnant people lost their bodily autonomy, and so many more horrific things that people accept as (sometimes regrettable) parts of the status quo. That doesn't mean I'm saying things have to be all or nothing, or "violent revolution tomorrow or bust!" It mostly means people have to change their understanding of how Democrats and elections generally fit into a coherent strategy to accomplish any of the things they ostensibly want to accomplish. The basic concept there is " non-reformist reforms". + Show Spoiler +On August 07 2024 13:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2024 06:39 Uldridge wrote:
Have you ever outlined how you think the social revolution should be enacted? If you have, I've missed it, so apologies for that. This is probably my most recent example: Show nested quote +On July 09 2024 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2024 03:10 Mohdoo wrote:
GH, I think a lot of this miscommunication is coming from how you use the word “revolution” and what you actually mean by it. People are responding to you as if your solution to everything is “we need to just all run towards politicians with pitch forks and demand universal income and an equitable tax structure”. I think it’s very clear to me that’s not what you are saying.
But it also feels like you are ignoring the fact that people are hugely misunderstanding you. You are clearly using revolution as a term to describe widespread social engagement and subsequent political changes by electing people who subscribe to worker-empowering policies. You view this as a fundamentally new framework for how equity is created and distributed. But when you don’t really address how people are framing your views, it gives the impression you’re just saying “idk I’m just saying democrats and shit heads and we should just kinda generally rush the capital with pitchforks until revolution is achieved”. They aren't "misunderstanding" in good faith, their "misunderstanding" is willful. They wouldn't refer to it as (variations of) "GH's revolution" [Kwark is stuck on calling it "imaginary"] otherwise. As if I'm the one concocting this stuff alone from staring at rocks in a hat or something. I'm not sure what you mean by "electing people". Whether you're referencing " non-reformist reforms" or that socialism is democratic and would still elect people, either way the primary obstacle for people that have failed to comprehend as much as you have isn't my communication, but their own stubborn resignation. For those (mostly lurkers checking out the thread because of recent political happenings) that could use a refresher/outline on socialist revolution, I think this could be helpful. The socialist revolution consists of the entire process, on a world scale, through which the socialist mode of production is established and supplants earlier modes of production. Hence just as the bourgeois revolution continued through an entire historical period extending over many years, during which revolutionary changes took place in one country after another, so, it may be expected, will the socialist revolution.
I think it is useful to consider the socialist revolution in this way, because then we have to reflect on the characteristics of a long process in time, passing possibly through several different stages of development as it spreads and gathers momentum. If as participants in the socialist movement we can fill our minds with such an historical sense, then we can the better adapt our passions and hopes to reality, and the better understand our current political and economic problems.
The socialist revolution is the work of generations. There are brilliant successes in its long course, and also disastrous setbacks; ideas and methods which carried all before them give rise, as conditions change through their very agency, to confusions, dogmas and falsehoods; schisms arise, mistakes and even crimes are committed. Such has ever been the history of revolutions, and the socialist revolution proves no exception.
Marxism is the theory of the socialist revolution. And considering revolution as an historical process, we should distinguish the fundamental principles of Marxism – those principles which we may expect to hold good all the time – from their consequences in policies and practices which we may expect to change from time to time; and from ideas and theories which, valid at one stage, in one set of circumstances, need to be revised when that stage is passed.
There are times of transition – and the present appears to be one of them – when it is necessary to review all the ideas and practices inherited from the past in order, in the light of facts and fundamental principles, to reject what is no longer applicable in them and generally to correct and change them for use in the new conditions. The necessity of this may well make itself known in the form of a crisis within the movement, of the revelation of evils plain for all to see as consequences of the old ideas and practices.... The revision then comes about as a bitter learning of lessons, a righting of wrongs, a conclusion forced on us by events, rather than as a calm process of scientifically deducing conclusions from premises.
What is fundamental and permanent in Marxism? What are those ideas we shall not revise, but in the light of which we shall revise other ideas? First of all, the statement of purpose, the goal of socialism. Secondly, the scientific proof of the historical necessity of that purpose. Thirdly, the demonstration of the means to gain it.
First, Marxism formulates the goal of the socialist revolution – the abolition of capitalist private property, the abolition of all exploitation of man by man, the social ownership of the means of production and their planned use for the benefit of the whole of society, leading to abundance and the brotherhood of communism.
Secondly, Marxism does not put forward this goal as a utopia, as a mere vision of what would ideally satisfy people’s needs and make them all happy, but as a goal the practical attainment of which is made necessary by the actual conditions of modern society, and the posing and attainment of which in fact corresponds to objective laws of development operating throughout human history. The development of the social production of the material means of life in the last analysis determines the direction of social development as a whole; and if now the goal of socialism is placed as a practical objective, that is because only under a socialist economy can the contradictions of modern capitalist society be solved and the great modern forces of production be fully utilised.
Thirdly, the goal being set and its necessity and attainability proved, Marxism states the indispensable means to attain the goal – in other words, what social forces must be set in motion and what action they must take. Socialism will only be gained by waging the working-class struggle. The forces to gain it are the working class in alliance with all the working people. The condition for gaining it is the conquest of power by these forces. And to wage this struggle and achieve the conquest of power, the working class must have its own independent political party.
Of course, whole books have been written, and more need to be written, explaining, justifying and elaborating the principles of Marxism, and the materialist dialectical method which is employed in them. But the above seems to me their essence.
As the socialist revolution develops, it is clearly the job of Marxist organisations to conclude from the new facts what is necessary to be done in the light of their Marxist principles. And what we have perhaps especially to guard against is fixed ideas about the means for gaining socialism and for building it, that is, fixed ideas about the methods of working-class struggle, the nature and policies of a socialist state, and the nature and methods of work of working-class parties. In times of transition, we have to criticise and revise not our fundamental principles but the conclusions we draw from them. This in turn brings with it, and cannot be effected without, changes in sentiments, in moral ideas, in standards and attitudes. www.marxists.org To tie it into previous explanations, I'd add that it basically starts with taking the socialists we have and organizing to study and do praxis more collectively. Part of that praxis is serving our communities (stuff like feeding people and providing other basic needs and services to those in need). During that praxis, we communicate with our communities. I prefer a Freirean approach which includes focusing on what our communities need based on what they tell us rather than us telling them what they need. It also includes (to the degree circumstance allows) exploring the role capitalism plays in that problem and how a socialist paradigm is different and preferable to a capitalist one in the context of the issues they care about. Organized, educated, and motivated, some of the first ambitions (and most recognizable to reformists/libs) are non-reformist reformsDifferent strains of socialism have different ideas on how best to go about just that part, before we even consider revolution. Contrary to Kwark's unabashed shitposting, none of that is imaginary. It's happening in pockets around the country despite the best efforts of conservative Republicans like Kwark, Libertarians like BJ, Libs like riot, and even social Democrats like Sunshine to undermine it and malign the people doing the work. The more "Revolutiony" bits most people are fixated on comes after a combination of reaching a critical mass of educated/organized socialists, non-reformist reforms are working, and/or material conditions demand/are conducive to revolution. I'm not an accelerationist, so the last one isn't a viable path on it's own, but rather an eventual inevitability of capitalism amid virile socialist opposition imo. One that makes it crucial to do the organizing, education, serving our communities, gathering of a critical mass, and getting the non-reformist reforms that will give us a chance against a perpetually encroaching fascist threat. What that looks like could vary wildly depending on what precipitates the revolutiony bits and one's particular favored flavor of socialism. Like it looks wildly different (particularly regarding timing) if Trump wins vs if he loses or if one identifies as a "Democratic Socialist" vs "Revolutionary Socialist" for example. It doesn't really change the need for organizing, education, or praxis, but it does dramatically impact the "material conditions demanding revolution" aspect. It sounds like standard white moderate rhetoric because Liberals have always been good on the rhetoric. Just because liberals might suggest wealth redistribution, doesn't mean they will make a SERIOUS attempt at it. At the same time, it doesn't mean they are wrong on the suggestion. It's irrelevant what the Democrats were supposed to have done, they were never going to do it. Democrats are fundamentally a party of Liberals. The keyword in the last paragraph is 'serious', Liberals are not serious, all they actually care about is maintaining some semblance of order. They may be able to sprout off progressive ideas, but they've never been serious about achieving progressive ends. They may talk about redistribution and wealth inequality, but they participate just as vigorously in the corruption and bending to big money interests. They may talk about campaign finance reform, but they will go to out the next day to tell the big business owners how they are job creators, and that they will do everything to make businesses easier. They may have in the party, or caucus with people who might be considered actually progressive, but they use their institutional power to stifle them when it comes to actual policy making or electoral power. They are a fundamentally unserious party, they just have the advantage of being stuck in a 2 party system where their single opponent feels like the political party equivalent of moustache twirling comic book villains. I for one, think IF there were to be meaningful reform to the US political system, or even just the Democratic Party, it would come through revolution, quite possibly violent. This is not a prescriptive formula for what I think should happen, just what I think would happen, and this is a BIIIGGG IF that meaningful reform will happen at all, let's say in our lifetimes. + Show Spoiler +
But it would be classless of me (and not in the good way), as a non-American, to suggest, hell,,, even predict, that how to solve these genuinely difficult problems might just be revolution, or something that looks very much like it. People get hurt in revolutions, and it's not exactly my blood or the blood of my compatriots I'd be talking about.
Your last response ended with "So...?" This leaves me with a narrow purview to directly answer the question, while also describing what I think is a viable path.
Thus my answer was, yes, you need to do wealth distribution. You also need to effect cultural change. You also need to fix the mechanics of your political system. You will swing and miss some (most) of the time, doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, take the little victories.
I, of course, left out that, realistically, doing all 3 at once, might look something like revolution. That would, of course, be classless of me.
Maybe I'm wrong. For your sakes, I genuinely hope I am. But like i said, I wish you guys good luck.
Hmm, something about you saying it doesn't trigger people?
Sounds like we mostly agree, with some ambiguity around whether you recognize the differences between taking reformist reforms as "little wins" or taking non-reformist reforms as "little wins". The latter I agree with.
|
On February 14 2026 03:31 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2026 01:42 Vivax wrote:On February 14 2026 01:27 Mohdoo wrote:
I think these conversations would be more productive if each person just described the pros and cons of ICE so far during 2026 There‘s apparently ICE agents functioning as diplomats in Austria, accredited and all. Pretty weird stuff. Pros: Quickly gets rid of illegals (horrible wording but what else is there to use tbh) while cops can focus on other stuff. Cons: Relatively new so prone to mistakes or excessive use of force. Potentially dangerous to people who aren‘t even their target group because of their image problem. I’ve still zero idea why they’re working over at the Olympics, manpower surplus or something? I mean it doesn’t exactly fall in their purview to provide security in foreign lands.
Bulding a trust basis for the electorate through public exposure and all that. Since it looks like it‘s decided they‘re there to stay.
On February 14 2026 03:55 Legan wrote:
I have started to wonder what kind of deterrent will need to be established in future so that corporations and their shareholders won't engage in corruption and support fascism in the future. For murder, the deterrent can be life in jail. For foreigners allegedly smuggling drugs, the deterrent can be a missile strike. What would be enough of a deterrent for billionaires who engage in corruption and undermine democracy?
If it‘s the billionaires who deter politicians from taking action against them that‘s going to be a tough nut to crack.
The only thing that threatens them is touching their stuff.
It‘s not like all billionaires are the same either. Some are more purist than others and only care about accumulating wealth without meddling in politics or straight up toxifying society. While he‘s probably a shark at the economic level, Buffett doesn‘t show up as particularly opinionated or polarizing. Bezos seems alright too, and he built his stuff from scratch.
|
Bezos bought the Washington Post in order to run a bunch of anti-union bullshit and eventually cancel their op-ed endorsing Kamala Harris. He's no better than Musk and Zuckerberg.
|
On February 14 2026 04:04 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2026 03:55 Legan wrote:
I have started to wonder what kind of deterrent will need to be established in future so that corporations and their shareholders won't engage in corruption and support fascism in the future. For murder, the deterrent can be life in jail. For foreigners allegedly smuggling drugs, the deterrent can be a missile strike. What would be enough of a deterrent for billionaires who engage in corruption and undermine democracy? Guillotines and seizure of assets. And organized workers. Historically the only thing that made the rich share was a credible threat of revolution. When the owner class is scared of communists taking everything, they are willing to deal with unions and make fair rules. Sadly, that threat seems mostly gone nowadays, as the rich have become increasingly better at controlling the opinions of the not-rich, and the communist governments have shown to be pretty [good] shitty, and then collapsed [and destroyed by western capitalists/fascists like in Chile].
Yup.
You see it here with the relentless opposition among people that consider themselves supportive of redistributive efforts you rightly point out are dependent on that threat to even discussing what us contributing to rebuilding that credible threat looks like.
|
On February 14 2026 04:10 LightSpectra wrote:
Bezos bought the Washington Post in order to run a bunch of anti-union bullshit and eventually cancel their op-ed endorsing Kamala Harris. He's no better than Musk and Zuckerberg.
Yeah I‘m not familiar with that story. Quite possible he‘s on the same level but better at hiding it. Idk.
Information control definitely seems to be high up on their agenda no matter what which isn‘t surprising because they are likely to feel threatened by masses whose living standards are at risk of declining.
I wouldn‘t want to be in the US under the current leadership so I‘m limiting myself to pay attention to the spillovers they cause in Europe in order to gain influence or straight up bully political opponents. I used to be pretty apolitical regarding the US but the fallout they can cause even in relatively meaningless countries far away from them has become hard to ignore.
If it‘s supposed to be intimidating having to deal with your public opinion at the mercy of billions of dollars of funding to influence it even if I lived in a swamp in the middle of Sweden, it‘s working. Like, you‘re not even safe at home from your devices eavesdropping on you to be used against you if necessary. Doesn‘t matter if you paid for them.
|
Raskin saying that Trump was listed more than a million times in the unredacted Epstein files is not surprising to me.
It must be very frustrating for all the people who were so pumped about catching all the Dems when they elected Trump and put Patel in charge and instead of releasing it say 1, 97% of Trump mentions are being redacted. Hard to celebrate the win when you elected the top creep.
|
On February 14 2026 03:40 Jankisa wrote:
It's actually interesting how this works.
In the last 4-5 pages we have been indulging (I at least, but many others) in engaging with bath faith people who just want to talk about Democrats and how shitty they are, while they are not in power, don't really do much or have a lot of influence over what is going on.
All the while Pam Bondi gave one of the most shameful displays of a public temper tantrum I've ever seen, and all of it in order to play defense for her pedophile boss and the Epstein class.
You brought that up lol.
People were talking about other things and you missed calling someone a fascist bootlicker for a while so you thought a good topic would be the accusation that oBlade, Introvert, and JJR only complain about Democrats. Despite Introvert telling you you're full of shit, and obviously he knows his own beliefs better than you do, you just assume that's what he's doing because all you do is obsess over your grievances against Republicans.
You brought up that specific subject and are now complaining people talked about it (or rather told you you were wrong in your psychological profiling).
Now just because Democrats are the 2nd most powerful party in the US, were president 2 years ago, have hundreds of federal representatives and control multiple branches of the largest states in the union and dominate the municipalities of almost all of the largest cities - this doesn't mean they're relevant to politics or some silly thing like that.
Other things going on all the while are the SAVE Act is 1 vote away from getting through the Senate if Republicans can whip up one more vote to go to the standing filibuster, since no octogenarian Democrats in the Senate have the stamina to block a bill by actual filibuster. And the 5th circuit ruling that illegal immigrants who crossed the border illegally aren't entitled to bond because the loophole was closed by 90s legislation.
On February 14 2026 03:40 Jankisa wrote:
People from both sides of political isle, protecting Epstein for decades, participating in all of his wile shit, Bondi said there are 10-s of thousands of videos, so much shit is still redacted, but not a peep from these ghouls who come here to list random immigrants who beat someone up or stole a car.
By deporting one rapist or preventing one murder - which is exactly what Croatia's strict immigration does - ICE demonstrably does more good than you do in a lifetime of schoolyard insults.
|
United States43570 Posts
There is no obligation that you prove to the fascist’s satisfaction that he is indeed a fascist. Facts don’t care about their feelings.
|
On February 14 2026 04:38 KwarK wrote:
There is no obligation that you prove to the fascist’s satisfaction that he is indeed a fascist. Facts don’t care about their feelings.
That shit is contagious. I don‘t want to live in a place where billionaire bootlickers make the rules, especially when it‘s not their country but they act like it or find ways to make it theirs by appealing to the egos of cheap people.
|
Northern Ireland26253 Posts
On February 14 2026 04:18 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2026 04:10 LightSpectra wrote:
Bezos bought the Washington Post in order to run a bunch of anti-union bullshit and eventually cancel their op-ed endorsing Kamala Harris. He's no better than Musk and Zuckerberg. Yeah I‘m not familiar with that story. Quite possible he‘s on the same level but better at hiding it. Idk. Information control definitely seems to be high up on their agenda no matter what which isn‘t surprising because they are likely to feel threatened by masses whose living standards are at risk of declining. I wouldn‘t want to be in the US under the current leadership so I‘m limiting myself to pay attention to the spillovers they cause in Europe in order to gain influence or straight up bully political opponents. I used to be pretty apolitical regarding the US but the fallout they can cause even in relatively meaningless countries far away from them has become hard to ignore. If it‘s supposed to be intimidating having to deal with your public opinion at the mercy of billions of dollars of funding to influence it even if I lived in a swamp in the middle of Sweden, it‘s working. Like, you‘re not even safe at home from your devices eavesdropping on you to be used against you if necessary. Doesn‘t matter if you paid for them.
Yeah, I mean it’s been a hell of a while since the US as a state, or individual actors within didn’t wield influence far beyond their borders, but in some domains it was relatively contained.
But it did feel some domains were at least relatively isolated in the past, and that feels much less so now.
From where I’m sitting, despite most rhetoric centring around the twin boogeymen of China and Russia, there’s plenty of pretty visible, tangible damage being caused by the States, or at least their oligarch class this side of the Altantic.
|
On February 14 2026 05:29 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2026 04:18 Vivax wrote:On February 14 2026 04:10 LightSpectra wrote:
Bezos bought the Washington Post in order to run a bunch of anti-union bullshit and eventually cancel their op-ed endorsing Kamala Harris. He's no better than Musk and Zuckerberg. Yeah I‘m not familiar with that story. Quite possible he‘s on the same level but better at hiding it. Idk. Information control definitely seems to be high up on their agenda no matter what which isn‘t surprising because they are likely to feel threatened by masses whose living standards are at risk of declining. I wouldn‘t want to be in the US under the current leadership so I‘m limiting myself to pay attention to the spillovers they cause in Europe in order to gain influence or straight up bully political opponents. I used to be pretty apolitical regarding the US but the fallout they can cause even in relatively meaningless countries far away from them has become hard to ignore. If it‘s supposed to be intimidating having to deal with your public opinion at the mercy of billions of dollars of funding to influence it even if I lived in a swamp in the middle of Sweden, it‘s working. Like, you‘re not even safe at home from your devices eavesdropping on you to be used against you if necessary. Doesn‘t matter if you paid for them. Yeah, I mean it’s been a hell of a while since the US as a state, or individual actors within didn’t wield influence far beyond their borders, but in some domains it was relatively contained. But it did feel some domains were at least relatively isolated in the past, and that feels much less so now. From where I’m sitting, despite most rhetoric centring around the twin boogeymen of China and Russia, there’s plenty of pretty visible, tangible damage being caused by the States, or at least their oligarch class this side of the Altantic.
If you pay attention you‘ll notice that personal space was abolished, but hey, at least we practiced social distancing.
I might as well dress my phone in a wedding dress these days. It knows more about you than your wife. Stored the other side of the atlantic or wherever the hell.
Can we PLEASE not have to pay attention to whenever some US president or his billionaire entourage wakes up in a pissy mood ? I‘m not posting on their services even.
|
On February 14 2026 04:38 KwarK wrote:
There is no obligation that you prove to the fascist’s satisfaction that he is indeed a fascist. Facts don’t care about their feelings.
Okay but counter-point, you can't go around calling people fascists just because they support secret police engaging in ethnic cleansing while unapologetically using white supremacist slogans and imagery and executing civilians in the street. Because then the word "fascist" would lose all of its meaning, or, er, whatever's left of it once you strip out the totalitarianism.
|
On February 14 2026 03:28 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2026 10:01 dyhb wrote:On February 13 2026 06:58 WombaT wrote:On February 13 2026 05:56 dyhb wrote:On February 13 2026 05:35 Jankisa wrote:Dyhb, as a relative newcomer, you, to me personally are the worse of them. The vile shit you spew out justifying murder of 2 boys, 11 and 8 in Gaza over in the Palestine thready and your doubling down is some of the worse sociopathic shit I've red on this forum, and that's saying a lot.
I don't even want to address anything you write in this thread because you are as uninteresting as you are inhumane. As you can tell from my previous post, I'm not interested in currying favor with somebody that tries to insult their way out of having a topical, interesting conversation. We've all heard it from kids that you're on the side of light and your opponents are on the side of darkness. There's really nowhere to go until you discover shared humanity and empathy. Go find ten things that are genuine disagreements without implying moral bankruptcy, and at least three things from your post that you'd equally apply to describe yourself. I'll take your literal post to give you ideas of insults that you might want to also apply inward. + Show Spoiler +On February 13 2026 01:07 Jankisa wrote:
For me, it's about getting one over Republicans and punishing them and anyone who is white, applying laws selectively and spitting on my fellow countrymen. Basically, I just regurgitate bullshit talking points and marching orders I get from watching left-wing influencers.
Whatever right-wingers propose, I post diatribes I copy pasted from left-wing outlets. I never leaves my media bubble and when challenged, I ignore it and keep on spamming bullshit.
The saddest part is that I'm just a sad incel who has no personality or interests of my own so I live vicariously by watching protesters break the law.
I am so blinded by propaganda and hate, I'm so convinced that Republicans are the poison killing America that I is willing to cheer on downright fascism as long as they punish the people I hate, namely Republicans, MAGA and anyone else progressives blame.
This can range from free-market types and everyone else not breaking the law to oppose the government.
I am a petty person who blame all the issues in the USA on Republicans. Is this just to run in perpetuity no matter how reprehensible one’s policy prescriptions are, or individuals or political movements one carries water for? I'm a little hopeful that you can use your words to describe how and what you find reprehensible, instead of adopting the kind of insulting epithets that debases yourself. You really embody the perspective that talking about the issues is over, and now is the time to flash the middle fingers and perform your outrage. The entire right populist agenda that’s encroaching across much of the ‘Western world’ as it were contains many elements I find rephensible. Civility to me has as a pre-requisite not holding utterly reprehensible views, and not wasting my time. Perfectly happy to civilly engage conservatives over various ideological disagreements, done it here plenty, done it elsewhere plenty. Indulging in conversations where your partner will insist that the sky is actually green very much falls within the purview It ain’t those former types currently driving things, certainly not in the States, from both the top and the bottom of the chain, very much is the latter. What is there to talk about when the goalposts and positions seemingly perpetually shift? When actual good faith discussion is in very short supply indeed? Patience and civility are not infinite resources, eventually people just couldn’t be arsed anymore, that’s not really on them. I find the encroachment of populism to be precisely due to the overgeneralization of the people voting for populists as bad people not worth convincing or engaging beyond the discourse of the middle finger. The further corollary is a fundamental distrust of Democracy by center-left and far-let figures when the voters deliver candidates that are deeply opposed to their policies and not hesitant at all to declare it to their faces in a vocal, brash, and populist manner.
I would like to live in a world where the center-right incorporates elements of policies that the center-left screwed up, and become a clear alternative. Consider when Germany's center-right was opposed to stricter asylum/migration policies, and then under Merz basically adopted them to deny power to the AfD's anti-immigration platform. Or when Sweden's right-of-center parties, historically isolating the far-right by refusing them coalition membership, eventually partnered with them. It turns out that many parties and countries aren't willing to do that. It's a pity about the results of it.
Now, I'm having trouble deciding whether your plan of action is deliberately designed to extend the power and influence of fringe ideas and fringe parties, or if it's just an accidental consequence of a failure to understand contemporary political issues. The world didn't just happen to get more racist and xenophobic and extreme after Obama and Merkel and Cameron (etc). These were real voting people that decided that mainstream parties/candidates weren't serious about policies to correct problems as they perceived them, and suffered the wrath of the center-left and left-wing for changing their votes to indicate their dissatisfaction. The last thing you want to do in that is to wantonly declare them not worth talking to and morally reprehensible. That just cements the first error.
(Also, you always have the choice to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand. The choice to throw up your hands and dismiss new information, because you're tired or perceive bad faith, is still your choice and not some external inevitability. I'd certainly know far less about the left wing and fringe left if I refused to read what was written by people that are dismissive, insulting, or routinely operating in bad faith. Yourself potentially included, since I'm not clairvoyant on why you said "you seem to have rather grasped the lay of the land" to describe an obviously petulant and idiotic lengthy rant.)
|
On February 14 2026 04:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2026 14:55 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On February 13 2026 13:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2026 09:53 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On February 13 2026 09:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2026 08:50 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On February 13 2026 04:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2026 04:11 Jankisa wrote:On February 13 2026 04:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2026 01:07 Jankisa wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Well, they are here, and they will happilly tell you.
For oBlade, about getting one over Democrats and punishing them and anyone who is not white, applying laws selectively and spitting on the rest of the world who has been "taking advantage" of Americans. Basically, just regurgitated "America first" bullshit marching orders he gets form watching his idol Tucker Carlson.
Whatever lefties propose, he has diatribes he copy pasted from stormfront ready, with links and videos from X, the everything app, the guy never leaves his media bubble and when challenged here he just ignores it and keeps on spamming his bullshit.
The saddest part is that he's just a sad incel who has no personality or interests of his own so he lives vicariously by watching jack booted thugs executing people.
For Introvert, it's grievance, he, unlike oBlade at least has the balls to occasionally spare a critical word for Trump and his cohort, but, he is so blinded by propaganda and hate, he's been so convinced that immigrants are the poison killing his country and that the reason for this are Democrats that he is willing to cheer on downright fascism as long as they punish the people he hates, namely Democrats, liberals and anyone else conservatives blame for the USA being a shitthole it is.
This can range from Europeans and everyone else getting a "free ride" and USA protection, which, along with paying for immigrant healthcare is the reason, in his head, why USA can't afford healthcare.
For Jimmy, he's either a bad troll or very stupid, the guy unironically watches fox news and posts and acts like a boomer.
All of them share the common trait that they are petty people who blame all the issues in the USA on anything other then the country being a deliberate shit show, it's unimaginable to them that normal people from USA can be critical of both Democrats and Republicans and still vote and prefer Democrats every time much in the same way that GH can't imagine that people don't have to love or defend Democrats to want them to get back in to power as a better alternative to an inevitably violent and catastrophic revolution. I fully understand that people don't have to love Democrats to want them to get back in power as a preferable alternative to Republicans/revolution. They do typically have to defend them/their support from critics. That's part of when/why they resorted (for better or worse) to "lesser evilism" and the "trolley problem" as their defense of Democrats and their support of them and/despite their actions. This is part of why the discussion on wealth distribution in the US died without the critical "how do we change that in the US" part. It's definitely not about a majority of people in the US wanting to redistribute it more equally, because they do, and we have all known for well over a decade. The inequality is actually worse since this image btw. + Show Spoiler +Besides what Simberto mentioned about not being able to actually comprehend the scale, I believe that's at least partly because of the Hamster Wheel On August 30 2023 01:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
This is just the start of the perpetual dem apologist refrain of:
1. There's a problem
2. Politicians won't fix it
3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will
4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works
5. Need to fix the system
6. Politicians wont fix it (because it benefits them)
7. Repeat ad nauseam.
people of good conscience need to get off that hamster wheel if we want any hope of a desirable future. It's not something they can wait another 40-60 years to do (like they have on the Black-white wealth gap). It's already too late to save countless people and every day they stubbornly refuse to get off the wheel countless more are lost.
If you're going to thoughtlessly advocate for a tea partyesque movement you would do well to remember they also ignored electability arguments and were willing to lose winnable elections in favor of supporting their preference. Something I understand you specifically to be advocating against. I would personally prefer social democrats of the 60's to have shifted toward being democratic socialists in the 90's and would be more just plainly socialist in the 2020's. That's not what happened though. Instead they went the "New Democrat/Third Way" route and dragged anyone that opposed Republicans with them as the only other option. Contrary to what you all believe, I don't want a violent revolution. I just want (let's say to start) the same wealth distribution Republican voters want. AFAICT LightSpectra is the only person that believes there's a path to that in the US where the "1%" don't pay (various degrees of desperate) people (besides politicians, SC Judges, etc) to stop that, including violently if/when it comes to that. But also, no one has any prescription for how to overcome that. So....? On February 13 2026 02:14 Introvert wrote:On February 13 2026 01:07 Jankisa wrote:
Well, they are here, and they will happilly tell you.
For oBlade, about getting one over Democrats and punishing them and anyone who is not white, applying laws selectively and spitting on the rest of the world who has been "taking advantage" of Americans. Basically, just regurgitated "America first" bullshit marching orders he gets form watching his idol Tucker Carlson.
Whatever lefties propose, he has diatribes he copy pasted from stormfront ready, with links and videos from X, the everything app, the guy never leaves his media bubble and when challenged here he just ignores it and keeps on spamming his bullshit.
The saddest part is that he's just a sad incel who has no personality or interests of his own so he lives vicariously by watching jack booted thugs executing people.
For Introvert, it's grievance, he, unlike oBlade at least has the balls to occasionally spare a critical word for Trump and his cohort, but, he is so blinded by propaganda and hate, he's been so convinced that immigrants are the poison killing his country and that the reason for this are Democrats that he is willing to cheer on downright fascism as long as they punish the people he hates, namely Democrats, liberals and anyone else conservatives blame for the USA being a shitthole it is.
This can range from Europeans and everyone else getting a "free ride" and USA protection, which, along with paying for immigrant healthcare is the reason, in his head, why USA can't afford healthcare.
For Jimmy, he's either a bad troll or very stupid, the guy unironically watches fox news and posts and acts like a boomer.
All of them share the common trait that they are petty people who blame all the issues in the USA on anything other then the country being a deliberate shit show, it's unimaginable to them that normal people from USA can be critical of both Democrats and Republicans and still vote and prefer Democrats every time much in the same way that GH can't imagine that people don't have to love or defend Democrats to want them to get back in to power as a better alternative to an inevitably violent and catastrophic revolution. There's a lot wrong here and maybe this is bait, but I'd love to know where I ever said this or anything remotely like it. I would normally ignore stuff like this but it’s interesting because it's clear so much of it is just stuff you invented in your own head. + Show Spoiler +
If I misconstrued your reasoning, please feel free to correct me on it. I arrived at it from reading your general approach to topics.
Regarding oBlade's "rebuttal", I find it honestly hilarious that he tried to a) deny who he is, despite very obviously being in support of everything these guys do , b) move on to nitpick a word (classic) and then d) go on to prove exactly I wrote by going on to another comment in order to shit on Democrats.
GH, I understand that not everyone reads and comments on everything everyone writes, however, I put out 3 things that are very obvious and have been done, successfully before. This wealth would be very easily re-distributed by simply, doubling the corporate tax rate, that would get the income from it from half a trillion to one trillion. This would still be lower corporate tax rate then what it was in the 60-es. Okay... Redistributive taxation isn't the puzzle though? It's how to overcome the US Hamster Wheel/regulatory capture to sustainably implement redistributive policies that electoralism has no answer to? 1. There's a problem [wealth distribution in this case] 2. [bipartisan] Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system 6. [bipartisan] Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam. Retirement age Black people have spent their entire adult lives relentlessly supporting/voting for Democrats more reliably than any other group of people has for the last 60 years. That wealth distribution problem relative to the Black-white gap has been stagnant or gotten worse as a consequence. It's pretty literally insane to keep doing that. The problem with discussing fixing the problems with the US political system is that the system is so fundamentally broken that even if there existed the political will to fix it, it's going to take decades. + Show Spoiler +In addition, just as you correctly identified, that the problem with actually effecting any wealth redistribution runs deeper than just the political system: the problem with effecting any positive change to the political system, likewise, runs deeper, it's cultural.
And even if you had the means to effect cultural change, that is going to take decades too.
Then to bring even more bad news. At least a significant chunk of the cultural issues, are the effects of decades of cold war propaganda (and I use the term propaganda in its original non-derogative meaning). And undoing that will take decades of propaganda, which frankly, requires state involvement, which... oh no... requires you to solve the political problem.
To add to this horrible ouroboros of deeply ingrained problems, your (US) politics on the ground level, is such a team sport, that I'm sceptical you have any path to get anything done, and a part of this partisanship may be exacerbated by intentional foreign influence. Well, you have yourselves a pickle.
I don't think you have any choice but to simultaneously try to solve/lessen all 3. Even then... will probably take decades and far from guarantee of success. As a fortunate non-American, I wish you guys good luck. Looks like a bit of a pickle you guys are in. Besides the fact that what you're describing was what was supposed to be happening from the inside out with Democrats since the 60's. As I pointed out, they've gone so far the other way (despite lifetimes of a lot of very dedicated and intelligent people's best efforts), that the biggest achievement by Democrats in our lives was passing a healthcare bill that Nixon and his Republican party rejected as being too right-wing. I can't disagree that any solution is going to be hard in some capacities. However, between Trump/Fascism and the best available ecological science, no one reasonably believes that we have decades or that being non-American/not in the US will be sufficient (certainly not for future generations). So...? So small victories. There's no point doing root cause analysis to try and solve the underlying issues first, because as you say, you might not have long enough to solve the underlying issues, also the issues are circular. + Show Spoiler +All you can do attack what problems you can on every level. My point in replying to the original post, is that redistributive taxation is, in fact, the puzzle, so is everything else, the only option you guys have is to attack the problem from all angles and levels, all at the same time.
You'll need to redistribute wealth, you need to get money out of politics, you need people to stop thinking that a good way to run a country or an economy is just try to be the opposite of the USSR, and you need a third of your country to not think of another third of your country as enemies, and vice versa. You need to do all of this at the same time and more, because you don't have the luxury (or frankly the ability) to solve one problem at a time anymore. All you can do is consider and do what can be done on all these fronts, and take what little victories you can get. That sounds like standard "white moderate" rhetoric. It also doesn't address the fact that it is what was supposed to already be happening, though demonstrably isn't, and also not how things have pretty much ever actually get done. People have been making that same argument since the 60's (and at every remotely major step forward as a US society). Some knowingly, some as useful idiots, to convince people to reduce doing the things socialists and our allies work toward. The same sorts of things that also worked for slavery, suffrage, workers rights, civil rights, opposing war, etc, and to instead "take the little victories" of "getting a seat at the table" and playing along with "Third Way" Democrats. That's what has helped lead to Democrats celebrating something Nixon and Republicans rejected 50+ years ago as too right-wing as their greatest accomplishment since then. It's also a major part of how/why we got Trump/fascism. Why we still have slavery. Why the Black-white wealth gap hasn't improved. Why potentially pregnant people lost their bodily autonomy, and so many more horrific things that people accept as (sometimes regrettable) parts of the status quo. That doesn't mean I'm saying things have to be all or nothing, or "violent revolution tomorrow or bust!" It mostly means people have to change their understanding of how Democrats and elections generally fit into a coherent strategy to accomplish any of the things they ostensibly want to accomplish. The basic concept there is " non-reformist reforms". + Show Spoiler +On August 07 2024 13:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2024 06:39 Uldridge wrote:
Have you ever outlined how you think the social revolution should be enacted? If you have, I've missed it, so apologies for that. This is probably my most recent example: Show nested quote +On July 09 2024 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2024 03:10 Mohdoo wrote:
GH, I think a lot of this miscommunication is coming from how you use the word “revolution” and what you actually mean by it. People are responding to you as if your solution to everything is “we need to just all run towards politicians with pitch forks and demand universal income and an equitable tax structure”. I think it’s very clear to me that’s not what you are saying.
But it also feels like you are ignoring the fact that people are hugely misunderstanding you. You are clearly using revolution as a term to describe widespread social engagement and subsequent political changes by electing people who subscribe to worker-empowering policies. You view this as a fundamentally new framework for how equity is created and distributed. But when you don’t really address how people are framing your views, it gives the impression you’re just saying “idk I’m just saying democrats and shit heads and we should just kinda generally rush the capital with pitchforks until revolution is achieved”. They aren't "misunderstanding" in good faith, their "misunderstanding" is willful. They wouldn't refer to it as (variations of) "GH's revolution" [Kwark is stuck on calling it "imaginary"] otherwise. As if I'm the one concocting this stuff alone from staring at rocks in a hat or something. I'm not sure what you mean by "electing people". Whether you're referencing " non-reformist reforms" or that socialism is democratic and would still elect people, either way the primary obstacle for people that have failed to comprehend as much as you have isn't my communication, but their own stubborn resignation. For those (mostly lurkers checking out the thread because of recent political happenings) that could use a refresher/outline on socialist revolution, I think this could be helpful. The socialist revolution consists of the entire process, on a world scale, through which the socialist mode of production is established and supplants earlier modes of production. Hence just as the bourgeois revolution continued through an entire historical period extending over many years, during which revolutionary changes took place in one country after another, so, it may be expected, will the socialist revolution.
I think it is useful to consider the socialist revolution in this way, because then we have to reflect on the characteristics of a long process in time, passing possibly through several different stages of development as it spreads and gathers momentum. If as participants in the socialist movement we can fill our minds with such an historical sense, then we can the better adapt our passions and hopes to reality, and the better understand our current political and economic problems.
The socialist revolution is the work of generations. There are brilliant successes in its long course, and also disastrous setbacks; ideas and methods which carried all before them give rise, as conditions change through their very agency, to confusions, dogmas and falsehoods; schisms arise, mistakes and even crimes are committed. Such has ever been the history of revolutions, and the socialist revolution proves no exception.
Marxism is the theory of the socialist revolution. And considering revolution as an historical process, we should distinguish the fundamental principles of Marxism – those principles which we may expect to hold good all the time – from their consequences in policies and practices which we may expect to change from time to time; and from ideas and theories which, valid at one stage, in one set of circumstances, need to be revised when that stage is passed.
There are times of transition – and the present appears to be one of them – when it is necessary to review all the ideas and practices inherited from the past in order, in the light of facts and fundamental principles, to reject what is no longer applicable in them and generally to correct and change them for use in the new conditions. The necessity of this may well make itself known in the form of a crisis within the movement, of the revelation of evils plain for all to see as consequences of the old ideas and practices.... The revision then comes about as a bitter learning of lessons, a righting of wrongs, a conclusion forced on us by events, rather than as a calm process of scientifically deducing conclusions from premises.
What is fundamental and permanent in Marxism? What are those ideas we shall not revise, but in the light of which we shall revise other ideas? First of all, the statement of purpose, the goal of socialism. Secondly, the scientific proof of the historical necessity of that purpose. Thirdly, the demonstration of the means to gain it.
First, Marxism formulates the goal of the socialist revolution – the abolition of capitalist private property, the abolition of all exploitation of man by man, the social ownership of the means of production and their planned use for the benefit of the whole of society, leading to abundance and the brotherhood of communism.
Secondly, Marxism does not put forward this goal as a utopia, as a mere vision of what would ideally satisfy people’s needs and make them all happy, but as a goal the practical attainment of which is made necessary by the actual conditions of modern society, and the posing and attainment of which in fact corresponds to objective laws of development operating throughout human history. The development of the social production of the material means of life in the last analysis determines the direction of social development as a whole; and if now the goal of socialism is placed as a practical objective, that is because only under a socialist economy can the contradictions of modern capitalist society be solved and the great modern forces of production be fully utilised.
Thirdly, the goal being set and its necessity and attainability proved, Marxism states the indispensable means to attain the goal – in other words, what social forces must be set in motion and what action they must take. Socialism will only be gained by waging the working-class struggle. The forces to gain it are the working class in alliance with all the working people. The condition for gaining it is the conquest of power by these forces. And to wage this struggle and achieve the conquest of power, the working class must have its own independent political party.
Of course, whole books have been written, and more need to be written, explaining, justifying and elaborating the principles of Marxism, and the materialist dialectical method which is employed in them. But the above seems to me their essence.
As the socialist revolution develops, it is clearly the job of Marxist organisations to conclude from the new facts what is necessary to be done in the light of their Marxist principles. And what we have perhaps especially to guard against is fixed ideas about the means for gaining socialism and for building it, that is, fixed ideas about the methods of working-class struggle, the nature and policies of a socialist state, and the nature and methods of work of working-class parties. In times of transition, we have to criticise and revise not our fundamental principles but the conclusions we draw from them. This in turn brings with it, and cannot be effected without, changes in sentiments, in moral ideas, in standards and attitudes. www.marxists.org To tie it into previous explanations, I'd add that it basically starts with taking the socialists we have and organizing to study and do praxis more collectively. Part of that praxis is serving our communities (stuff like feeding people and providing other basic needs and services to those in need). During that praxis, we communicate with our communities. I prefer a Freirean approach which includes focusing on what our communities need based on what they tell us rather than us telling them what they need. It also includes (to the degree circumstance allows) exploring the role capitalism plays in that problem and how a socialist paradigm is different and preferable to a capitalist one in the context of the issues they care about. Organized, educated, and motivated, some of the first ambitions (and most recognizable to reformists/libs) are non-reformist reformsDifferent strains of socialism have different ideas on how best to go about just that part, before we even consider revolution. Contrary to Kwark's unabashed shitposting, none of that is imaginary. It's happening in pockets around the country despite the best efforts of conservative Republicans like Kwark, Libertarians like BJ, Libs like riot, and even social Democrats like Sunshine to undermine it and malign the people doing the work. The more "Revolutiony" bits most people are fixated on comes after a combination of reaching a critical mass of educated/organized socialists, non-reformist reforms are working, and/or material conditions demand/are conducive to revolution. I'm not an accelerationist, so the last one isn't a viable path on it's own, but rather an eventual inevitability of capitalism amid virile socialist opposition imo. One that makes it crucial to do the organizing, education, serving our communities, gathering of a critical mass, and getting the non-reformist reforms that will give us a chance against a perpetually encroaching fascist threat. What that looks like could vary wildly depending on what precipitates the revolutiony bits and one's particular favored flavor of socialism. Like it looks wildly different (particularly regarding timing) if Trump wins vs if he loses or if one identifies as a "Democratic Socialist" vs "Revolutionary Socialist" for example. It doesn't really change the need for organizing, education, or praxis, but it does dramatically impact the "material conditions demanding revolution" aspect. It sounds like standard white moderate rhetoric because Liberals have always been good on the rhetoric. Just because liberals might suggest wealth redistribution, doesn't mean they will make a SERIOUS attempt at it. At the same time, it doesn't mean they are wrong on the suggestion. It's irrelevant what the Democrats were supposed to have done, they were never going to do it. Democrats are fundamentally a party of Liberals. The keyword in the last paragraph is 'serious', Liberals are not serious, all they actually care about is maintaining some semblance of order. They may be able to sprout off progressive ideas, but they've never been serious about achieving progressive ends. They may talk about redistribution and wealth inequality, but they participate just as vigorously in the corruption and bending to big money interests. They may talk about campaign finance reform, but they will go to out the next day to tell the big business owners how they are job creators, and that they will do everything to make businesses easier. They may have in the party, or caucus with people who might be considered actually progressive, but they use their institutional power to stifle them when it comes to actual policy making or electoral power. They are a fundamentally unserious party, they just have the advantage of being stuck in a 2 party system where their single opponent feels like the political party equivalent of moustache twirling comic book villains. I for one, think IF there were to be meaningful reform to the US political system, or even just the Democratic Party, it would come through revolution, quite possibly violent. This is not a prescriptive formula for what I think should happen, just what I think would happen, and this is a BIIIGGG IF that meaningful reform will happen at all, let's say in our lifetimes. + Show Spoiler +
But it would be classless of me (and not in the good way), as a non-American, to suggest, hell,,, even predict, that how to solve these genuinely difficult problems might just be revolution, or something that looks very much like it. People get hurt in revolutions, and it's not exactly my blood or the blood of my compatriots I'd be talking about.
Your last response ended with "So...?" This leaves me with a narrow purview to directly answer the question, while also describing what I think is a viable path.
Thus my answer was, yes, you need to do wealth distribution. You also need to effect cultural change. You also need to fix the mechanics of your political system. You will swing and miss some (most) of the time, doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, take the little victories.
I, of course, left out that, realistically, doing all 3 at once, might look something like revolution. That would, of course, be classless of me.
Maybe I'm wrong. For your sakes, I genuinely hope I am. But like i said, I wish you guys good luck.
Hmm, something about you saying it doesn't trigger people? Sounds like we mostly agree, with some ambiguity around whether you recognize the differences between taking reformist reforms as "little wins" or taking non-reformist reforms as "little wins". The latter I agree with.
What if the solution isn't redistribution of wealth via taxation, but more redistribution of wealth via income limits. CEOvs Average or median pay disparities are a proxy of the problem with the ultra wealthy as is. If we were to limit universal pay via legislation that no particular employee may be compensated via stock/benefit/salary more than XXX% beyond the median or average pay whatever is lower. then we may end up in a situation where the rising tide truly lifts all boats. shareholders would be over the moon not to be forced to satisfy these exorbitant CEO packages. and no one has to get taxed any more than they are now.
|
On February 14 2026 06:52 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2026 04:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2026 14:55 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On February 13 2026 13:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2026 09:53 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On February 13 2026 09:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2026 08:50 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On February 13 2026 04:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2026 04:11 Jankisa wrote:On February 13 2026 04:04 GreenHorizons wrote:[quote] I fully understand that people don't have to love Democrats to want them to get back in power as a preferable alternative to Republicans/revolution. They do typically have to defend them/their support from critics. That's part of when/why they resorted (for better or worse) to "lesser evilism" and the "trolley problem" as their defense of Democrats and their support of them and/despite their actions. This is part of why the discussion on wealth distribution in the US died without the critical "how do we change that in the US" part. It's definitely not about a majority of people in the US wanting to redistribute it more equally, because they do, and we have all known for well over a decade. The inequality is actually worse since this image btw. + Show Spoiler +Besides what Simberto mentioned about not being able to actually comprehend the scale, I believe that's at least partly because of the Hamster Wheel [quote] I would personally prefer social democrats of the 60's to have shifted toward being democratic socialists in the 90's and would be more just plainly socialist in the 2020's. That's not what happened though. Instead they went the "New Democrat/Third Way" route and dragged anyone that opposed Republicans with them as the only other option. Contrary to what you all believe, I don't want a violent revolution. I just want (let's say to start) the same wealth distribution Republican voters want. AFAICT LightSpectra is the only person that believes there's a path to that in the US where the "1%" don't pay (various degrees of desperate) people (besides politicians, SC Judges, etc) to stop that, including violently if/when it comes to that. But also, no one has any prescription for how to overcome that. So....? On February 13 2026 02:14 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
There's a lot wrong here and maybe this is bait, but I'd love to know where I ever said this or anything remotely like it. I would normally ignore stuff like this but it’s interesting because it's clear so much of it is just stuff you invented in your own head. + Show Spoiler +
If I misconstrued your reasoning, please feel free to correct me on it. I arrived at it from reading your general approach to topics.
Regarding oBlade's "rebuttal", I find it honestly hilarious that he tried to a) deny who he is, despite very obviously being in support of everything these guys do , b) move on to nitpick a word (classic) and then d) go on to prove exactly I wrote by going on to another comment in order to shit on Democrats.
GH, I understand that not everyone reads and comments on everything everyone writes, however, I put out 3 things that are very obvious and have been done, successfully before. This wealth would be very easily re-distributed by simply, doubling the corporate tax rate, that would get the income from it from half a trillion to one trillion. This would still be lower corporate tax rate then what it was in the 60-es. Okay... Redistributive taxation isn't the puzzle though? It's how to overcome the US Hamster Wheel/regulatory capture to sustainably implement redistributive policies that electoralism has no answer to? 1. There's a problem [wealth distribution in this case] 2. [bipartisan] Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system 6. [bipartisan] Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam. Retirement age Black people have spent their entire adult lives relentlessly supporting/voting for Democrats more reliably than any other group of people has for the last 60 years. That wealth distribution problem relative to the Black-white gap has been stagnant or gotten worse as a consequence. It's pretty literally insane to keep doing that. The problem with discussing fixing the problems with the US political system is that the system is so fundamentally broken that even if there existed the political will to fix it, it's going to take decades. + Show Spoiler +In addition, just as you correctly identified, that the problem with actually effecting any wealth redistribution runs deeper than just the political system: the problem with effecting any positive change to the political system, likewise, runs deeper, it's cultural.
And even if you had the means to effect cultural change, that is going to take decades too.
Then to bring even more bad news. At least a significant chunk of the cultural issues, are the effects of decades of cold war propaganda (and I use the term propaganda in its original non-derogative meaning). And undoing that will take decades of propaganda, which frankly, requires state involvement, which... oh no... requires you to solve the political problem.
To add to this horrible ouroboros of deeply ingrained problems, your (US) politics on the ground level, is such a team sport, that I'm sceptical you have any path to get anything done, and a part of this partisanship may be exacerbated by intentional foreign influence. Well, you have yourselves a pickle.
I don't think you have any choice but to simultaneously try to solve/lessen all 3. Even then... will probably take decades and far from guarantee of success. As a fortunate non-American, I wish you guys good luck. Looks like a bit of a pickle you guys are in. Besides the fact that what you're describing was what was supposed to be happening from the inside out with Democrats since the 60's. As I pointed out, they've gone so far the other way (despite lifetimes of a lot of very dedicated and intelligent people's best efforts), that the biggest achievement by Democrats in our lives was passing a healthcare bill that Nixon and his Republican party rejected as being too right-wing. I can't disagree that any solution is going to be hard in some capacities. However, between Trump/Fascism and the best available ecological science, no one reasonably believes that we have decades or that being non-American/not in the US will be sufficient (certainly not for future generations). So...? So small victories. There's no point doing root cause analysis to try and solve the underlying issues first, because as you say, you might not have long enough to solve the underlying issues, also the issues are circular. + Show Spoiler +All you can do attack what problems you can on every level. My point in replying to the original post, is that redistributive taxation is, in fact, the puzzle, so is everything else, the only option you guys have is to attack the problem from all angles and levels, all at the same time.
You'll need to redistribute wealth, you need to get money out of politics, you need people to stop thinking that a good way to run a country or an economy is just try to be the opposite of the USSR, and you need a third of your country to not think of another third of your country as enemies, and vice versa. You need to do all of this at the same time and more, because you don't have the luxury (or frankly the ability) to solve one problem at a time anymore. All you can do is consider and do what can be done on all these fronts, and take what little victories you can get. That sounds like standard "white moderate" rhetoric. It also doesn't address the fact that it is what was supposed to already be happening, though demonstrably isn't, and also not how things have pretty much ever actually get done. People have been making that same argument since the 60's (and at every remotely major step forward as a US society). Some knowingly, some as useful idiots, to convince people to reduce doing the things socialists and our allies work toward. The same sorts of things that also worked for slavery, suffrage, workers rights, civil rights, opposing war, etc, and to instead "take the little victories" of "getting a seat at the table" and playing along with "Third Way" Democrats. That's what has helped lead to Democrats celebrating something Nixon and Republicans rejected 50+ years ago as too right-wing as their greatest accomplishment since then. It's also a major part of how/why we got Trump/fascism. Why we still have slavery. Why the Black-white wealth gap hasn't improved. Why potentially pregnant people lost their bodily autonomy, and so many more horrific things that people accept as (sometimes regrettable) parts of the status quo. That doesn't mean I'm saying things have to be all or nothing, or "violent revolution tomorrow or bust!" It mostly means people have to change their understanding of how Democrats and elections generally fit into a coherent strategy to accomplish any of the things they ostensibly want to accomplish. The basic concept there is " non-reformist reforms". + Show Spoiler +On August 07 2024 13:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2024 06:39 Uldridge wrote:
Have you ever outlined how you think the social revolution should be enacted? If you have, I've missed it, so apologies for that. This is probably my most recent example: Show nested quote +On July 09 2024 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2024 03:10 Mohdoo wrote:
GH, I think a lot of this miscommunication is coming from how you use the word “revolution” and what you actually mean by it. People are responding to you as if your solution to everything is “we need to just all run towards politicians with pitch forks and demand universal income and an equitable tax structure”. I think it’s very clear to me that’s not what you are saying.
But it also feels like you are ignoring the fact that people are hugely misunderstanding you. You are clearly using revolution as a term to describe widespread social engagement and subsequent political changes by electing people who subscribe to worker-empowering policies. You view this as a fundamentally new framework for how equity is created and distributed. But when you don’t really address how people are framing your views, it gives the impression you’re just saying “idk I’m just saying democrats and shit heads and we should just kinda generally rush the capital with pitchforks until revolution is achieved”. They aren't "misunderstanding" in good faith, their "misunderstanding" is willful. They wouldn't refer to it as (variations of) "GH's revolution" [Kwark is stuck on calling it "imaginary"] otherwise. As if I'm the one concocting this stuff alone from staring at rocks in a hat or something. I'm not sure what you mean by "electing people". Whether you're referencing " non-reformist reforms" or that socialism is democratic and would still elect people, either way the primary obstacle for people that have failed to comprehend as much as you have isn't my communication, but their own stubborn resignation. For those (mostly lurkers checking out the thread because of recent political happenings) that could use a refresher/outline on socialist revolution, I think this could be helpful. The socialist revolution consists of the entire process, on a world scale, through which the socialist mode of production is established and supplants earlier modes of production. Hence just as the bourgeois revolution continued through an entire historical period extending over many years, during which revolutionary changes took place in one country after another, so, it may be expected, will the socialist revolution.
I think it is useful to consider the socialist revolution in this way, because then we have to reflect on the characteristics of a long process in time, passing possibly through several different stages of development as it spreads and gathers momentum. If as participants in the socialist movement we can fill our minds with such an historical sense, then we can the better adapt our passions and hopes to reality, and the better understand our current political and economic problems.
The socialist revolution is the work of generations. There are brilliant successes in its long course, and also disastrous setbacks; ideas and methods which carried all before them give rise, as conditions change through their very agency, to confusions, dogmas and falsehoods; schisms arise, mistakes and even crimes are committed. Such has ever been the history of revolutions, and the socialist revolution proves no exception.
Marxism is the theory of the socialist revolution. And considering revolution as an historical process, we should distinguish the fundamental principles of Marxism – those principles which we may expect to hold good all the time – from their consequences in policies and practices which we may expect to change from time to time; and from ideas and theories which, valid at one stage, in one set of circumstances, need to be revised when that stage is passed.
There are times of transition – and the present appears to be one of them – when it is necessary to review all the ideas and practices inherited from the past in order, in the light of facts and fundamental principles, to reject what is no longer applicable in them and generally to correct and change them for use in the new conditions. The necessity of this may well make itself known in the form of a crisis within the movement, of the revelation of evils plain for all to see as consequences of the old ideas and practices.... The revision then comes about as a bitter learning of lessons, a righting of wrongs, a conclusion forced on us by events, rather than as a calm process of scientifically deducing conclusions from premises.
What is fundamental and permanent in Marxism? What are those ideas we shall not revise, but in the light of which we shall revise other ideas? First of all, the statement of purpose, the goal of socialism. Secondly, the scientific proof of the historical necessity of that purpose. Thirdly, the demonstration of the means to gain it.
First, Marxism formulates the goal of the socialist revolution – the abolition of capitalist private property, the abolition of all exploitation of man by man, the social ownership of the means of production and their planned use for the benefit of the whole of society, leading to abundance and the brotherhood of communism.
Secondly, Marxism does not put forward this goal as a utopia, as a mere vision of what would ideally satisfy people’s needs and make them all happy, but as a goal the practical attainment of which is made necessary by the actual conditions of modern society, and the posing and attainment of which in fact corresponds to objective laws of development operating throughout human history. The development of the social production of the material means of life in the last analysis determines the direction of social development as a whole; and if now the goal of socialism is placed as a practical objective, that is because only under a socialist economy can the contradictions of modern capitalist society be solved and the great modern forces of production be fully utilised.
Thirdly, the goal being set and its necessity and attainability proved, Marxism states the indispensable means to attain the goal – in other words, what social forces must be set in motion and what action they must take. Socialism will only be gained by waging the working-class struggle. The forces to gain it are the working class in alliance with all the working people. The condition for gaining it is the conquest of power by these forces. And to wage this struggle and achieve the conquest of power, the working class must have its own independent political party.
Of course, whole books have been written, and more need to be written, explaining, justifying and elaborating the principles of Marxism, and the materialist dialectical method which is employed in them. But the above seems to me their essence.
As the socialist revolution develops, it is clearly the job of Marxist organisations to conclude from the new facts what is necessary to be done in the light of their Marxist principles. And what we have perhaps especially to guard against is fixed ideas about the means for gaining socialism and for building it, that is, fixed ideas about the methods of working-class struggle, the nature and policies of a socialist state, and the nature and methods of work of working-class parties. In times of transition, we have to criticise and revise not our fundamental principles but the conclusions we draw from them. This in turn brings with it, and cannot be effected without, changes in sentiments, in moral ideas, in standards and attitudes. www.marxists.org To tie it into previous explanations, I'd add that it basically starts with taking the socialists we have and organizing to study and do praxis more collectively. Part of that praxis is serving our communities (stuff like feeding people and providing other basic needs and services to those in need). During that praxis, we communicate with our communities. I prefer a Freirean approach which includes focusing on what our communities need based on what they tell us rather than us telling them what they need. It also includes (to the degree circumstance allows) exploring the role capitalism plays in that problem and how a socialist paradigm is different and preferable to a capitalist one in the context of the issues they care about. Organized, educated, and motivated, some of the first ambitions (and most recognizable to reformists/libs) are non-reformist reformsDifferent strains of socialism have different ideas on how best to go about just that part, before we even consider revolution. Contrary to Kwark's unabashed shitposting, none of that is imaginary. It's happening in pockets around the country despite the best efforts of conservative Republicans like Kwark, Libertarians like BJ, Libs like riot, and even social Democrats like Sunshine to undermine it and malign the people doing the work. The more "Revolutiony" bits most people are fixated on comes after a combination of reaching a critical mass of educated/organized socialists, non-reformist reforms are working, and/or material conditions demand/are conducive to revolution. I'm not an accelerationist, so the last one isn't a viable path on it's own, but rather an eventual inevitability of capitalism amid virile socialist opposition imo. One that makes it crucial to do the organizing, education, serving our communities, gathering of a critical mass, and getting the non-reformist reforms that will give us a chance against a perpetually encroaching fascist threat. What that looks like could vary wildly depending on what precipitates the revolutiony bits and one's particular favored flavor of socialism. Like it looks wildly different (particularly regarding timing) if Trump wins vs if he loses or if one identifies as a "Democratic Socialist" vs "Revolutionary Socialist" for example. It doesn't really change the need for organizing, education, or praxis, but it does dramatically impact the "material conditions demanding revolution" aspect. It sounds like standard white moderate rhetoric because Liberals have always been good on the rhetoric. Just because liberals might suggest wealth redistribution, doesn't mean they will make a SERIOUS attempt at it. At the same time, it doesn't mean they are wrong on the suggestion. It's irrelevant what the Democrats were supposed to have done, they were never going to do it. Democrats are fundamentally a party of Liberals. The keyword in the last paragraph is 'serious', Liberals are not serious, all they actually care about is maintaining some semblance of order. They may be able to sprout off progressive ideas, but they've never been serious about achieving progressive ends. They may talk about redistribution and wealth inequality, but they participate just as vigorously in the corruption and bending to big money interests. They may talk about campaign finance reform, but they will go to out the next day to tell the big business owners how they are job creators, and that they will do everything to make businesses easier. They may have in the party, or caucus with people who might be considered actually progressive, but they use their institutional power to stifle them when it comes to actual policy making or electoral power. They are a fundamentally unserious party, they just have the advantage of being stuck in a 2 party system where their single opponent feels like the political party equivalent of moustache twirling comic book villains. I for one, think IF there were to be meaningful reform to the US political system, or even just the Democratic Party, it would come through revolution, quite possibly violent. This is not a prescriptive formula for what I think should happen, just what I think would happen, and this is a BIIIGGG IF that meaningful reform will happen at all, let's say in our lifetimes. + Show Spoiler +
But it would be classless of me (and not in the good way), as a non-American, to suggest, hell,,, even predict, that how to solve these genuinely difficult problems might just be revolution, or something that looks very much like it. People get hurt in revolutions, and it's not exactly my blood or the blood of my compatriots I'd be talking about.
Your last response ended with "So...?" This leaves me with a narrow purview to directly answer the question, while also describing what I think is a viable path.
Thus my answer was, yes, you need to do wealth distribution. You also need to effect cultural change. You also need to fix the mechanics of your political system. You will swing and miss some (most) of the time, doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, take the little victories.
I, of course, left out that, realistically, doing all 3 at once, might look something like revolution. That would, of course, be classless of me.
Maybe I'm wrong. For your sakes, I genuinely hope I am. But like i said, I wish you guys good luck.
Hmm, something about you saying it doesn't trigger people? Sounds like we mostly agree, with some ambiguity around whether you recognize the differences between taking reformist reforms as "little wins" or taking non-reformist reforms as "little wins". The latter I agree with. What if the solution isn't redistribution of wealth via taxation, but more redistribution of wealth via income limits. CEOvs Average or median pay disparities are a proxy of the problem with the ultra wealthy as is. If we were to limit universal pay via legislation that no particular employee may be compensated via stock/benefit/salary more than XXX% beyond the median or average pay whatever is lower. then we may end up in a situation where the rising tide truly lifts all boats. shareholders would be over the moon not to be forced to satisfy these exorbitant CEO packages. and no one has to get taxed any more than they are now.
The ultra rich do not gain money through normal income for work. They gain money through owning stuff.
Doesn't mean that this is not a potentially good idea, linking CEO pay to median or lowest pay in a company sounds like a worthwhile concept.
But it doesn't really deal with wealth inequality.
|
On February 14 2026 07:11 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2026 06:52 Trainrunnef wrote:On February 14 2026 04:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2026 14:55 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On February 13 2026 13:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2026 09:53 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On February 13 2026 09:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2026 08:50 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On February 13 2026 04:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 13 2026 04:11 Jankisa wrote:[quote] [quote] + Show Spoiler +
If I misconstrued your reasoning, please feel free to correct me on it. I arrived at it from reading your general approach to topics.
Regarding oBlade's "rebuttal", I find it honestly hilarious that he tried to a) deny who he is, despite very obviously being in support of everything these guys do , b) move on to nitpick a word (classic) and then d) go on to prove exactly I wrote by going on to another comment in order to shit on Democrats.
GH, I understand that not everyone reads and comments on everything everyone writes, however, I put out 3 things that are very obvious and have been done, successfully before. This wealth would be very easily re-distributed by simply, doubling the corporate tax rate, that would get the income from it from half a trillion to one trillion. This would still be lower corporate tax rate then what it was in the 60-es. Okay... Redistributive taxation isn't the puzzle though? It's how to overcome the US Hamster Wheel/regulatory capture to sustainably implement redistributive policies that electoralism has no answer to? 1. There's a problem [wealth distribution in this case] 2. [bipartisan] Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system 6. [bipartisan] Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam. Retirement age Black people have spent their entire adult lives relentlessly supporting/voting for Democrats more reliably than any other group of people has for the last 60 years. That wealth distribution problem relative to the Black-white gap has been stagnant or gotten worse as a consequence. It's pretty literally insane to keep doing that. The problem with discussing fixing the problems with the US political system is that the system is so fundamentally broken that even if there existed the political will to fix it, it's going to take decades. + Show Spoiler +In addition, just as you correctly identified, that the problem with actually effecting any wealth redistribution runs deeper than just the political system: the problem with effecting any positive change to the political system, likewise, runs deeper, it's cultural.
And even if you had the means to effect cultural change, that is going to take decades too.
Then to bring even more bad news. At least a significant chunk of the cultural issues, are the effects of decades of cold war propaganda (and I use the term propaganda in its original non-derogative meaning). And undoing that will take decades of propaganda, which frankly, requires state involvement, which... oh no... requires you to solve the political problem.
To add to this horrible ouroboros of deeply ingrained problems, your (US) politics on the ground level, is such a team sport, that I'm sceptical you have any path to get anything done, and a part of this partisanship may be exacerbated by intentional foreign influence. Well, you have yourselves a pickle.
I don't think you have any choice but to simultaneously try to solve/lessen all 3. Even then... will probably take decades and far from guarantee of success. As a fortunate non-American, I wish you guys good luck. Looks like a bit of a pickle you guys are in. Besides the fact that what you're describing was what was supposed to be happening from the inside out with Democrats since the 60's. As I pointed out, they've gone so far the other way (despite lifetimes of a lot of very dedicated and intelligent people's best efforts), that the biggest achievement by Democrats in our lives was passing a healthcare bill that Nixon and his Republican party rejected as being too right-wing. I can't disagree that any solution is going to be hard in some capacities. However, between Trump/Fascism and the best available ecological science, no one reasonably believes that we have decades or that being non-American/not in the US will be sufficient (certainly not for future generations). So...? So small victories. There's no point doing root cause analysis to try and solve the underlying issues first, because as you say, you might not have long enough to solve the underlying issues, also the issues are circular. + Show Spoiler +All you can do attack what problems you can on every level. My point in replying to the original post, is that redistributive taxation is, in fact, the puzzle, so is everything else, the only option you guys have is to attack the problem from all angles and levels, all at the same time.
You'll need to redistribute wealth, you need to get money out of politics, you need people to stop thinking that a good way to run a country or an economy is just try to be the opposite of the USSR, and you need a third of your country to not think of another third of your country as enemies, and vice versa. You need to do all of this at the same time and more, because you don't have the luxury (or frankly the ability) to solve one problem at a time anymore. All you can do is consider and do what can be done on all these fronts, and take what little victories you can get. That sounds like standard "white moderate" rhetoric. It also doesn't address the fact that it is what was supposed to already be happening, though demonstrably isn't, and also not how things have pretty much ever actually get done. People have been making that same argument since the 60's (and at every remotely major step forward as a US society). Some knowingly, some as useful idiots, to convince people to reduce doing the things socialists and our allies work toward. The same sorts of things that also worked for slavery, suffrage, workers rights, civil rights, opposing war, etc, and to instead "take the little victories" of "getting a seat at the table" and playing along with "Third Way" Democrats. That's what has helped lead to Democrats celebrating something Nixon and Republicans rejected 50+ years ago as too right-wing as their greatest accomplishment since then. It's also a major part of how/why we got Trump/fascism. Why we still have slavery. Why the Black-white wealth gap hasn't improved. Why potentially pregnant people lost their bodily autonomy, and so many more horrific things that people accept as (sometimes regrettable) parts of the status quo. That doesn't mean I'm saying things have to be all or nothing, or "violent revolution tomorrow or bust!" It mostly means people have to change their understanding of how Democrats and elections generally fit into a coherent strategy to accomplish any of the things they ostensibly want to accomplish. The basic concept there is " non-reformist reforms". + Show Spoiler +On August 07 2024 13:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2024 06:39 Uldridge wrote:
Have you ever outlined how you think the social revolution should be enacted? If you have, I've missed it, so apologies for that. This is probably my most recent example: Show nested quote +On July 09 2024 03:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 09 2024 03:10 Mohdoo wrote:
GH, I think a lot of this miscommunication is coming from how you use the word “revolution” and what you actually mean by it. People are responding to you as if your solution to everything is “we need to just all run towards politicians with pitch forks and demand universal income and an equitable tax structure”. I think it’s very clear to me that’s not what you are saying.
But it also feels like you are ignoring the fact that people are hugely misunderstanding you. You are clearly using revolution as a term to describe widespread social engagement and subsequent political changes by electing people who subscribe to worker-empowering policies. You view this as a fundamentally new framework for how equity is created and distributed. But when you don’t really address how people are framing your views, it gives the impression you’re just saying “idk I’m just saying democrats and shit heads and we should just kinda generally rush the capital with pitchforks until revolution is achieved”. They aren't "misunderstanding" in good faith, their "misunderstanding" is willful. They wouldn't refer to it as (variations of) "GH's revolution" [Kwark is stuck on calling it "imaginary"] otherwise. As if I'm the one concocting this stuff alone from staring at rocks in a hat or something. I'm not sure what you mean by "electing people". Whether you're referencing " non-reformist reforms" or that socialism is democratic and would still elect people, either way the primary obstacle for people that have failed to comprehend as much as you have isn't my communication, but their own stubborn resignation. For those (mostly lurkers checking out the thread because of recent political happenings) that could use a refresher/outline on socialist revolution, I think this could be helpful. The socialist revolution consists of the entire process, on a world scale, through which the socialist mode of production is established and supplants earlier modes of production. Hence just as the bourgeois revolution continued through an entire historical period extending over many years, during which revolutionary changes took place in one country after another, so, it may be expected, will the socialist revolution.
I think it is useful to consider the socialist revolution in this way, because then we have to reflect on the characteristics of a long process in time, passing possibly through several different stages of development as it spreads and gathers momentum. If as participants in the socialist movement we can fill our minds with such an historical sense, then we can the better adapt our passions and hopes to reality, and the better understand our current political and economic problems.
The socialist revolution is the work of generations. There are brilliant successes in its long course, and also disastrous setbacks; ideas and methods which carried all before them give rise, as conditions change through their very agency, to confusions, dogmas and falsehoods; schisms arise, mistakes and even crimes are committed. Such has ever been the history of revolutions, and the socialist revolution proves no exception.
Marxism is the theory of the socialist revolution. And considering revolution as an historical process, we should distinguish the fundamental principles of Marxism – those principles which we may expect to hold good all the time – from their consequences in policies and practices which we may expect to change from time to time; and from ideas and theories which, valid at one stage, in one set of circumstances, need to be revised when that stage is passed.
There are times of transition – and the present appears to be one of them – when it is necessary to review all the ideas and practices inherited from the past in order, in the light of facts and fundamental principles, to reject what is no longer applicable in them and generally to correct and change them for use in the new conditions. The necessity of this may well make itself known in the form of a crisis within the movement, of the revelation of evils plain for all to see as consequences of the old ideas and practices.... The revision then comes about as a bitter learning of lessons, a righting of wrongs, a conclusion forced on us by events, rather than as a calm process of scientifically deducing conclusions from premises.
What is fundamental and permanent in Marxism? What are those ideas we shall not revise, but in the light of which we shall revise other ideas? First of all, the statement of purpose, the goal of socialism. Secondly, the scientific proof of the historical necessity of that purpose. Thirdly, the demonstration of the means to gain it.
First, Marxism formulates the goal of the socialist revolution – the abolition of capitalist private property, the abolition of all exploitation of man by man, the social ownership of the means of production and their planned use for the benefit of the whole of society, leading to abundance and the brotherhood of communism.
Secondly, Marxism does not put forward this goal as a utopia, as a mere vision of what would ideally satisfy people’s needs and make them all happy, but as a goal the practical attainment of which is made necessary by the actual conditions of modern society, and the posing and attainment of which in fact corresponds to objective laws of development operating throughout human history. The development of the social production of the material means of life in the last analysis determines the direction of social development as a whole; and if now the goal of socialism is placed as a practical objective, that is because only under a socialist economy can the contradictions of modern capitalist society be solved and the great modern forces of production be fully utilised.
Thirdly, the goal being set and its necessity and attainability proved, Marxism states the indispensable means to attain the goal – in other words, what social forces must be set in motion and what action they must take. Socialism will only be gained by waging the working-class struggle. The forces to gain it are the working class in alliance with all the working people. The condition for gaining it is the conquest of power by these forces. And to wage this struggle and achieve the conquest of power, the working class must have its own independent political party.
Of course, whole books have been written, and more need to be written, explaining, justifying and elaborating the principles of Marxism, and the materialist dialectical method which is employed in them. But the above seems to me their essence.
As the socialist revolution develops, it is clearly the job of Marxist organisations to conclude from the new facts what is necessary to be done in the light of their Marxist principles. And what we have perhaps especially to guard against is fixed ideas about the means for gaining socialism and for building it, that is, fixed ideas about the methods of working-class struggle, the nature and policies of a socialist state, and the nature and methods of work of working-class parties. In times of transition, we have to criticise and revise not our fundamental principles but the conclusions we draw from them. This in turn brings with it, and cannot be effected without, changes in sentiments, in moral ideas, in standards and attitudes. www.marxists.org To tie it into previous explanations, I'd add that it basically starts with taking the socialists we have and organizing to study and do praxis more collectively. Part of that praxis is serving our communities (stuff like feeding people and providing other basic needs and services to those in need). During that praxis, we communicate with our communities. I prefer a Freirean approach which includes focusing on what our communities need based on what they tell us rather than us telling them what they need. It also includes (to the degree circumstance allows) exploring the role capitalism plays in that problem and how a socialist paradigm is different and preferable to a capitalist one in the context of the issues they care about. Organized, educated, and motivated, some of the first ambitions (and most recognizable to reformists/libs) are non-reformist reformsDifferent strains of socialism have different ideas on how best to go about just that part, before we even consider revolution. Contrary to Kwark's unabashed shitposting, none of that is imaginary. It's happening in pockets around the country despite the best efforts of conservative Republicans like Kwark, Libertarians like BJ, Libs like riot, and even social Democrats like Sunshine to undermine it and malign the people doing the work. The more "Revolutiony" bits most people are fixated on comes after a combination of reaching a critical mass of educated/organized socialists, non-reformist reforms are working, and/or material conditions demand/are conducive to revolution. I'm not an accelerationist, so the last one isn't a viable path on it's own, but rather an eventual inevitability of capitalism amid virile socialist opposition imo. One that makes it crucial to do the organizing, education, serving our communities, gathering of a critical mass, and getting the non-reformist reforms that will give us a chance against a perpetually encroaching fascist threat. What that looks like could vary wildly depending on what precipitates the revolutiony bits and one's particular favored flavor of socialism. Like it looks wildly different (particularly regarding timing) if Trump wins vs if he loses or if one identifies as a "Democratic Socialist" vs "Revolutionary Socialist" for example. It doesn't really change the need for organizing, education, or praxis, but it does dramatically impact the "material conditions demanding revolution" aspect. It sounds like standard white moderate rhetoric because Liberals have always been good on the rhetoric. Just because liberals might suggest wealth redistribution, doesn't mean they will make a SERIOUS attempt at it. At the same time, it doesn't mean they are wrong on the suggestion. It's irrelevant what the Democrats were supposed to have done, they were never going to do it. Democrats are fundamentally a party of Liberals. The keyword in the last paragraph is 'serious', Liberals are not serious, all they actually care about is maintaining some semblance of order. They may be able to sprout off progressive ideas, but they've never been serious about achieving progressive ends. They may talk about redistribution and wealth inequality, but they participate just as vigorously in the corruption and bending to big money interests. They may talk about campaign finance reform, but they will go to out the next day to tell the big business owners how they are job creators, and that they will do everything to make businesses easier. They may have in the party, or caucus with people who might be considered actually progressive, but they use their institutional power to stifle them when it comes to actual policy making or electoral power. They are a fundamentally unserious party, they just have the advantage of being stuck in a 2 party system where their single opponent feels like the political party equivalent of moustache twirling comic book villains. I for one, think IF there were to be meaningful reform to the US political system, or even just the Democratic Party, it would come through revolution, quite possibly violent. This is not a prescriptive formula for what I think should happen, just what I think would happen, and this is a BIIIGGG IF that meaningful reform will happen at all, let's say in our lifetimes. + Show Spoiler +
But it would be classless of me (and not in the good way), as a non-American, to suggest, hell,,, even predict, that how to solve these genuinely difficult problems might just be revolution, or something that looks very much like it. People get hurt in revolutions, and it's not exactly my blood or the blood of my compatriots I'd be talking about.
Your last response ended with "So...?" This leaves me with a narrow purview to directly answer the question, while also describing what I think is a viable path.
Thus my answer was, yes, you need to do wealth distribution. You also need to effect cultural change. You also need to fix the mechanics of your political system. You will swing and miss some (most) of the time, doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, take the little victories.
I, of course, left out that, realistically, doing all 3 at once, might look something like revolution. That would, of course, be classless of me.
Maybe I'm wrong. For your sakes, I genuinely hope I am. But like i said, I wish you guys good luck.
Hmm, something about you saying it doesn't trigger people? Sounds like we mostly agree, with some ambiguity around whether you recognize the differences between taking reformist reforms as "little wins" or taking non-reformist reforms as "little wins". The latter I agree with. What if the solution isn't redistribution of wealth via taxation, but more redistribution of wealth via income limits. CEOvs Average or median pay disparities are a proxy of the problem with the ultra wealthy as is. If we were to limit universal pay via legislation that no particular employee may be compensated via stock/benefit/salary more than XXX% beyond the median or average pay whatever is lower. then we may end up in a situation where the rising tide truly lifts all boats. shareholders would be over the moon not to be forced to satisfy these exorbitant CEO packages. and no one has to get taxed any more than they are now. The ultra rich do not gain money through normal income for work. They gain money through owning stuff. Doesn't mean that this is not a potentially good idea, linking CEO pay to median or lowest pay in a company sounds like a worthwhile concept. But it doesn't really deal with wealth inequality.
certainly not in the short term, but if you are trying to pick the pockets of the ultra rich and powerful, doing it in one fell swoop isn't going to work. Most of the purchasing power of ultra rich has come from establishing businesses and generating appreciating assets. Sure they will still make millions when they sell the company, but in the meantime they couldn't castrate their workers ability to afford their rent. If done properly (i.e. not allowing staffing loopholes via "consultants"). The intent isn't to completely erradicate wealth inequality anyway, at least in my mind it shouldnt be. regulating it is enough.
|
|
|
On February 14 2026 06:12 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2026 03:28 WombaT wrote:On February 13 2026 10:01 dyhb wrote:On February 13 2026 06:58 WombaT wrote:On February 13 2026 05:56 dyhb wrote:On February 13 2026 05:35 Jankisa wrote:Dyhb, as a relative newcomer, you, to me personally are the worse of them. The vile shit you spew out justifying murder of 2 boys, 11 and 8 in Gaza over in the Palestine thready and your doubling down is some of the worse sociopathic shit I've red on this forum, and that's saying a lot.
I don't even want to address anything you write in this thread because you are as uninteresting as you are inhumane. As you can tell from my previous post, I'm not interested in currying favor with somebody that tries to insult their way out of having a topical, interesting conversation. We've all heard it from kids that you're on the side of light and your opponents are on the side of darkness. There's really nowhere to go until you discover shared humanity and empathy. Go find ten things that are genuine disagreements without implying moral bankruptcy, and at least three things from your post that you'd equally apply to describe yourself. I'll take your literal post to give you ideas of insults that you might want to also apply inward. + Show Spoiler +On February 13 2026 01:07 Jankisa wrote:
For me, it's about getting one over Republicans and punishing them and anyone who is white, applying laws selectively and spitting on my fellow countrymen. Basically, I just regurgitate bullshit talking points and marching orders I get from watching left-wing influencers.
Whatever right-wingers propose, I post diatribes I copy pasted from left-wing outlets. I never leaves my media bubble and when challenged, I ignore it and keep on spamming bullshit.
The saddest part is that I'm just a sad incel who has no personality or interests of my own so I live vicariously by watching protesters break the law.
I am so blinded by propaganda and hate, I'm so convinced that Republicans are the poison killing America that I is willing to cheer on downright fascism as long as they punish the people I hate, namely Republicans, MAGA and anyone else progressives blame.
This can range from free-market types and everyone else not breaking the law to oppose the government.
I am a petty person who blame all the issues in the USA on Republicans. Is this just to run in perpetuity no matter how reprehensible one’s policy prescriptions are, or individuals or political movements one carries water for? I'm a little hopeful that you can use your words to describe how and what you find reprehensible, instead of adopting the kind of insulting epithets that debases yourself. You really embody the perspective that talking about the issues is over, and now is the time to flash the middle fingers and perform your outrage. The entire right populist agenda that’s encroaching across much of the ‘Western world’ as it were contains many elements I find rephensible. Civility to me has as a pre-requisite not holding utterly reprehensible views, and not wasting my time. Perfectly happy to civilly engage conservatives over various ideological disagreements, done it here plenty, done it elsewhere plenty. Indulging in conversations where your partner will insist that the sky is actually green very much falls within the purview It ain’t those former types currently driving things, certainly not in the States, from both the top and the bottom of the chain, very much is the latter. What is there to talk about when the goalposts and positions seemingly perpetually shift? When actual good faith discussion is in very short supply indeed? Patience and civility are not infinite resources, eventually people just couldn’t be arsed anymore, that’s not really on them. I find the encroachment of populism to be precisely due to the overgeneralization of the people voting for populists as bad people not worth convincing or engaging beyond the discourse of the middle finger. The further corollary is a fundamental distrust of Democracy by center-left and far-let figures when the voters deliver candidates that are deeply opposed to their policies and not hesitant at all to declare it to their faces in a vocal, brash, and populist manner. I would like to live in a world where the center-right incorporates elements of policies that the center-left screwed up, and become a clear alternative. Consider when Germany's center-right was opposed to stricter asylum/migration policies, and then under Merz basically adopted them to deny power to the AfD's anti-immigration platform. Or when Sweden's right-of-center parties, historically isolating the far-right by refusing them coalition membership, eventually partnered with them. It turns out that many parties and countries aren't willing to do that. It's a pity about the results of it. Now, I'm having trouble deciding whether your plan of action is deliberately designed to extend the power and influence of fringe ideas and fringe parties, or if it's just an accidental consequence of a failure to understand contemporary political issues. The world didn't just happen to get more racist and xenophobic and extreme after Obama and Merkel and Cameron (etc). These were real voting people that decided that mainstream parties/candidates weren't serious about policies to correct problems as they perceived them, and suffered the wrath of the center-left and left-wing for changing their votes to indicate their dissatisfaction. The last thing you want to do in that is to wantonly declare them not worth talking to and morally reprehensible. That just cements the first error. (Also, you always have the choice to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand. The choice to throw up your hands and dismiss new information, because you're tired or perceive bad faith, is still your choice and not some external inevitability. I'd certainly know far less about the left wing and fringe left if I refused to read what was written by people that are dismissive, insulting, or routinely operating in bad faith. Yourself potentially included, since I'm not clairvoyant on why you said "you seem to have rather grasped the lay of the land" to describe an obviously petulant and idiotic lengthy rant.)
Why did you feel the need to include a condescending paragraph about Wombat having the choice to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand, in response to Wombat's post indicating that he chooses to listen, ask questions, and seek to understand?
|
Canada11416 Posts
Was it a good move for Trump to have done those tariffs in the first place?
And was it also a good move to increase Switzerland's tariff from 30 to 39% because he didn't like how they tried to explain why the trade deficit was variable due to fluctuating gold imports? But then reduced it to 15% after receiving a bribe from a bunch of Swiss billionaires?
And were any of these 'emergencies' that he is invoking emergency powers of the president rather than going through Congress?
Furthermore, is it a good move that Trump wants to block the opening of the Gordie Howe bridge, which he approved in his last term as a priority project. And to block it to gain 50% control of the bridge which they already have to demand that US steel be used which they already did and couldn't change it anyways because it's already built?
On February 14 2026 03:40 Jankisa wrote:
All the while Pam Bondi gave one of the most shameful displays of a public temper tantrum I've ever seen, and all of it in order to play defense for her pedophile boss and the Epstein class.
At the beginning, I was willing to allow there was at least some plausible deniability for people like Trump in that just because a person flew on one of Epstein's jets, it didn't necessarily follow that they were going to his island. But it seems like the first releases were to make Clinton look as bad as possible and release trivial stuff on Trump. The more that is revealed the deeper it gets and with Bondi's response, we're looking at a full blown cover-up with her running interference. How are we in a world were the victims' names are not being redacted and the alleged perpetrators are redacted? And the Attorney General of the United States of America's response is, but Obama? But the DOW is 50000? How dare you question our Dear Leader?
There is no pursuit of justice with this AG. Not even a little. It's just political games and fake outrage and sanctimonious finger wagging and crying "lawfare" lawfare". Spare me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!DMS5!,w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F1e7d226e-871d-4365-99e9-01eb9c93ffae_1280x720.png)
