EPTOn February 20 2026 00:06 LightSpectra wrote:
lol. Every time I try to take you seriously for more than a paragraph you insist on driving your clown car back into the circus tent. I guess you just can't help yourself.
Maybe AOC could still win some Republican votes if she starts trafficking children right now? Probably a futile strategy though, whoever the 2028 Republican candidate's going to be has probably been fucking kids since before AOC was born.
Show nested quote +
On February 19 2026 12:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
On February 19 2026 10:13 LightSpectra wrote:
The country's moved overwhelmingly to the economic right since Nixon. + Show Spoiler +
You are right to point out that Democrats (in their primaries) chose to help move the country to the right since NixonOn February 19 2026 09:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
Except when Democrats held large majorities in the house and senate, while holding the presidency, they finally passed their greatest achievement in the last 50 years.
A more right-wing version of Nixoncare...
At this rate, if Democrats win big enough majorities frequently enough, we'd be lucky to look forward to Democrats and their supporters celebrating finally building Trump's wall and implementing his immigration policy in 50 years.
EDIT:
It's a more complicated question than it seems, but basically: Blue states provide higher potential income but have the worst wealth gaps due to high barriers to entry (housing/cost of living). Red states provide lower potential income but have the best wealth equality because they offer an easier path to middle-class stability (homeownership/PPP).
On February 19 2026 08:45 LightSpectra wrote:
In reality, Democrats have had power for less than half of the past 50 years, and in terms of years where they had the House, Senate, and White House, it's been less than Republicans.
+ Show Spoiler +
You're blaming a world largely created by Republicans on "the uniparty" and kneecapping the only people preventing them from making racial wealth gap even worse.
On February 19 2026 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:
Except in reality...
Black people suffer from a racial wealth gap-> Black people ensure Democrats win elections -> Democrats don't improve that wealth gap-> Black people continue voting for them their whole lives at rates unparalleled by any other groups -> Democrats lose to fascists because of their hubris -> The transition from mass disruptive politics to electoral incorporation helped stabilize a racial wealth order that remains largely intact.
Movements fought for change, flooded the streets, and demanded justice, and the system pulled them in, calmed the unrest, and left who owns what largely the same. People won legal rights and political seats, but real economic power stayed concentrated at the top.
Meanwhile, the rules of capitalism shifted to protect wealth. Investments are taxed less than work. Finance operates with fewer limits. Housing became a vehicle for family wealth. Unions weakened. Dynasty trusts let the rich pass assets across generations with minimal interference.
These are not isolated policies. Together, they reinforce class power. Bringing movements into electoral politics stabilized the system without redistributing wealth. This has happened under both Democratic and Republican administrations, showing that representation alone rarely changes the underlying distribution of wealth or addresses structural inequality. Inequality, including racial wealth gaps, continues to reproduce itself.
The result is a bipartisan system where wealth persists across generations, while labor and social movements remain episodic and are absorbed by the system to preserve existing power.
On February 19 2026 06:09 LightSpectra wrote:
Democrats don't win election -> people suffer -> "why didn't Democrats stop this?" -> refuse to vote for Democrats because they can't do anything while they don't have power -> Democrats don't win election
ad infinitum
On February 19 2026 05:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
The bold is really a lot of the crux of it.
People refuse to see how we couldn't have gotten Trump/Republicans (or the Dynasty Trusts) without the Clintons and Biden/Democrats (and Delaware).
"No one fucking cares about how fucking stupid Hilary's team and Democrats were in 2016" or have been for decades, or how Biden's/Democrats hubris got us Trump 2.0 (among countless other issues) or the people that have suffered/died as a consequence, because for all the problems, it's working well enough for you/them.
One funny thing is, we all know no one advocating incremental reformism through Democrat electoralism will accept that when their family ends up on the chopping block.
On February 19 2026 05:31 Jankisa wrote:
Again, you are preaching to the choir, no one disagrees that Democrats are a corporatist party who has done plenty of bad shit over the years, and will, inevitably do more.
They are still much better for me, + Show Spoiler +
No one fucking cares about how fucking stupid Hilary's team and Democrats were in 2016, in case you didn't check lately, it's 2026 and all the bad shit that is happening is enacted by Republican president, congress and senate.
If Democrats get some semblance of power back in the midterms and start fucking up, which they will, please come here and shit on them all you like, in the meantime, stop, you are showing incredible lack of humanity, the people in their concentration camps that are being denied meals or contact with their families, who are being beaten up, raped, killed don't give a flying fuck about what Hillary did in 2016 or if her, Bill and Trump were buddies before that.
+ Show Spoiler +
On February 19 2026 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]"Go on one of these" meaning? Pointing out that the "left wing" (they're centrist capitalist on a real political spectrum) of the capitalist party are not "the same" as the right wing, while also pointing out they are part of the problem, not a solution?
I'll also remind you that Democrats helped lay the foundations for them to do that. Including yucking it up with the people doing it before their hubris led to the fascists expanding the longstanding violent persecution of oppressed people (some of the worst of it by Democrat controlled police departments https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site ) in the US.
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2015/12/30/us/politics/TRUMPBILL/TRUMPBILL-superJumbo.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp)
EDIT: Republican and Democrat voters/supporters bickering over which people they should let exploit and abuse everyone for the Epstein class just means everyone (but the Epstein class) is losing. Although...
There's something I think most people have started to notice in the US, which is that there's also the "lackey class" that the economy is somewhat accommodating. It's the ~top 10% that are basically being bribed with shiny trinkets for their complicity.
https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/09/17/top-10-of-earners-make-up-half-of-us-retail-spending
[quote]"Go on one of these" meaning? Pointing out that the "left wing" (they're centrist capitalist on a real political spectrum) of the capitalist party are not "the same" as the right wing, while also pointing out they are part of the problem, not a solution?
I'll also remind you that Democrats helped lay the foundations for them to do that. Including yucking it up with the people doing it before their hubris led to the fascists expanding the longstanding violent persecution of oppressed people (some of the worst of it by Democrat controlled police departments https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site ) in the US.
+ Show Spoiler +
EDIT: Republican and Democrat voters/supporters bickering over which people they should let exploit and abuse everyone for the Epstein class just means everyone (but the Epstein class) is losing. Although...
There's something I think most people have started to notice in the US, which is that there's also the "lackey class" that the economy is somewhat accommodating. It's the ~top 10% that are basically being bribed with shiny trinkets for their complicity.
https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/09/17/top-10-of-earners-make-up-half-of-us-retail-spending
Again, you are preaching to the choir, no one disagrees that Democrats are a corporatist party who has done plenty of bad shit over the years, and will, inevitably do more.
They are still much better for me, + Show Spoiler +
the world and an average American.
They didn't start any of the relatively recent wars, they didn't start any of the trade wars and states where they govern on average have much, much better outcomes for average people.
It's incredibly obtuse and rude to keep on banging the same drum as if everyone here hasn't heard every intimate thought you have had about the Democratic party.
It's not interesting, original and it doesn't relate to the current situation and crisis that the world is dealing with.
They didn't start any of the relatively recent wars, they didn't start any of the trade wars and states where they govern on average have much, much better outcomes for average people.
It's incredibly obtuse and rude to keep on banging the same drum as if everyone here hasn't heard every intimate thought you have had about the Democratic party.
It's not interesting, original and it doesn't relate to the current situation and crisis that the world is dealing with.
No one fucking cares about how fucking stupid Hilary's team and Democrats were in 2016, in case you didn't check lately, it's 2026 and all the bad shit that is happening is enacted by Republican president, congress and senate.
If Democrats get some semblance of power back in the midterms and start fucking up, which they will, please come here and shit on them all you like, in the meantime, stop, you are showing incredible lack of humanity, the people in their concentration camps that are being denied meals or contact with their families, who are being beaten up, raped, killed don't give a flying fuck about what Hillary did in 2016 or if her, Bill and Trump were buddies before that.
+ Show Spoiler +
For fuck sake man, honestly, your brain is just as broken and fucked up as oBlade's.
I'm glad you stopped posting your tankie takes in the Russia / Ukraine thread, maybe it's time for you to do the same here until the midterms, because you are just making a fool out of yourself and annoying everyone else for no fucking reason.
I'm glad you stopped posting your tankie takes in the Russia / Ukraine thread, maybe it's time for you to do the same here until the midterms, because you are just making a fool out of yourself and annoying everyone else for no fucking reason.
The bold is really a lot of the crux of it.
People refuse to see how we couldn't have gotten Trump/Republicans (or the Dynasty Trusts) without the Clintons and Biden/Democrats (and Delaware).
"No one fucking cares about how fucking stupid Hilary's team and Democrats were in 2016" or have been for decades, or how Biden's/Democrats hubris got us Trump 2.0 (among countless other issues) or the people that have suffered/died as a consequence, because for all the problems, it's working well enough for you/them.
One funny thing is, we all know no one advocating incremental reformism through Democrat electoralism will accept that when their family ends up on the chopping block.
Democrats don't win election -> people suffer -> "why didn't Democrats stop this?" -> refuse to vote for Democrats because they can't do anything while they don't have power -> Democrats don't win election
ad infinitum
Except in reality...
Black people suffer from a racial wealth gap-> Black people ensure Democrats win elections -> Democrats don't improve that wealth gap-> Black people continue voting for them their whole lives at rates unparalleled by any other groups -> Democrats lose to fascists because of their hubris -> The transition from mass disruptive politics to electoral incorporation helped stabilize a racial wealth order that remains largely intact.
Movements fought for change, flooded the streets, and demanded justice, and the system pulled them in, calmed the unrest, and left who owns what largely the same. People won legal rights and political seats, but real economic power stayed concentrated at the top.
Meanwhile, the rules of capitalism shifted to protect wealth. Investments are taxed less than work. Finance operates with fewer limits. Housing became a vehicle for family wealth. Unions weakened. Dynasty trusts let the rich pass assets across generations with minimal interference.
These are not isolated policies. Together, they reinforce class power. Bringing movements into electoral politics stabilized the system without redistributing wealth. This has happened under both Democratic and Republican administrations, showing that representation alone rarely changes the underlying distribution of wealth or addresses structural inequality. Inequality, including racial wealth gaps, continues to reproduce itself.
The result is a bipartisan system where wealth persists across generations, while labor and social movements remain episodic and are absorbed by the system to preserve existing power.
In reality, Democrats have had power for less than half of the past 50 years, and in terms of years where they had the House, Senate, and White House, it's been less than Republicans.
+ Show Spoiler +
You're blaming a world largely created by Republicans on "the uniparty" and kneecapping the only people preventing them from making racial wealth gap even worse.
Except when Democrats held large majorities in the house and senate, while holding the presidency, they finally passed their greatest achievement in the last 50 years.
A more right-wing version of Nixoncare...
Few people today would dare call President Richard Nixon a radical liberal. But 44 years ago, he proposed a health plan that went far beyond what today’s Affordable Care Act includes.
At this rate, if Democrats win big enough majorities frequently enough, we'd be lucky to look forward to Democrats and their supporters celebrating finally building Trump's wall and implementing his immigration policy in 50 years.
EDIT:
Data question: from worst to best, how is the racial wealth gap looking in solid blue, purple, and solid red states?
It's a more complicated question than it seems, but basically: Blue states provide higher potential income but have the worst wealth gaps due to high barriers to entry (housing/cost of living). Red states provide lower potential income but have the best wealth equality because they offer an easier path to middle-class stability (homeownership/PPP).
The country's moved overwhelmingly to the economic right since Nixon. + Show Spoiler +
Voters rewarded Reagan and Clinton with huge mandates because they liked what they saw. Obama was called a radical socialist despite being rather moderate, but by winning on a moderate platform he was able to expand Medicaid to 25 million people that didn't have it before, as well as prevent people with pre-existing conditions from being summarily killed by society.
If you want people to vote for more left-wing candidates, you need to convince people that left wing policies are preferable. What you're actually doing is encouraging detached apathy, which benefits the conservative status quo.
If you want people to vote for more left-wing candidates, you need to convince people that left wing policies are preferable. What you're actually doing is encouraging detached apathy, which benefits the conservative status quo.
lol. Every time I try to take you seriously for more than a paragraph you insist on driving your clown car back into the circus tent. I guess you just can't help yourself.
Show nested quote +
On February 19 2026 22:52 oBlade wrote:
AOC would be a great choice if she can get past the juggernaut of Kamala in the primaries. Just the thought of her being president is enough to get people out to vote. But she and Kamala are so equal and comparable in their level of competence that it's hard to even decide who should be at the top of the ticket between them. They'd have to flip a coin maybe. Kamala bringing the executive experience and an actual law degree, AOC bringing legislative experience. Either way the prospect of an all-female ticket would be the most terrifying and threatening thing to Republicans that Democrats should definitely do if they want to win.
AOC would be a great choice if she can get past the juggernaut of Kamala in the primaries. Just the thought of her being president is enough to get people out to vote. But she and Kamala are so equal and comparable in their level of competence that it's hard to even decide who should be at the top of the ticket between them. They'd have to flip a coin maybe. Kamala bringing the executive experience and an actual law degree, AOC bringing legislative experience. Either way the prospect of an all-female ticket would be the most terrifying and threatening thing to Republicans that Democrats should definitely do if they want to win.
Maybe AOC could still win some Republican votes if she starts trafficking children right now? Probably a futile strategy though, whoever the 2028 Republican candidate's going to be has probably been fucking kids since before AOC was born.
My apologies for briefly interrupting the relentless shitposting with Sartres, despite you all ostensibly knowing better. A clownish consort indeed.
I'll mention again that AOC has her problems, but she's the only person they're polling I'd consider voting for. If Democrats want my vote, they need to make sure she's their nominee, otherwise they are betting on other ("centrist") voters (which is their prerogative).
