|
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 |
If it rises over America's rate per capita you'll have the solid foundations of the premise to an argument.
|
On June 26 2026 11:29 LightSpectra wrote:
If it rises over America's rate per capita you'll have the solid foundations of the premise to an argument.
It is not like you are the one who brought up Norway...
|
Me: Norway has less crime
You: but it's rising for the youth
So you almost have something resembling a structured logical argument, if you squint while intoxicated in the dead of night, but let's examine some important context:
1) how much is youth crime rising in Norway?
2) how much is it rising or declining in the USA? (Conservatives have been telling me throughout this thread that the crime stats are all cooked and they're actually going up)
3a) what percentage of youth crime constitutes total crime in Norway and the USA?
3b) is adult crime in Norway going up or down?
4) assuming steady trends (which may not be a safe assumption but for the sake of argument we will do so), how long will it take (if ever) for Norwegian crime rates to surpass the USA's?
If the final answer turns out to be something like a century from now, do you think that sounds like a compelling argument for the superiority of the USA's system over Norway's?
|
On June 26 2026 11:40 LightSpectra wrote:
Me: Norway has less crime
You: but it's rising for the youth
So you almost have something resembling a structured logical argument, if you squint while intoxicated in the dead of night, but let's examine some important context:
1) how much is youth crime rising in Norway?
2) how much is it rising or declining in the USA? (Conservatives have been telling me throughout this thread that the crime stats are all cooked and they're actually going up)
3a) what percentage of youth crime constitutes total crime in Norway and the USA?
3b) is adult crime in Norway going up or down?
4) assuming steady trends (which may not be a safe assumption but for the sake of argument we will do so), how long will it take (if ever) for Norwegian crime rates to surpass the USA's?
If the final answer turns out to be something like a century from now, do you think that sounds like a compelling argument for the superiority of the USA's system over Norway's?
Yeah mate, you misrepresent both positions.
"The most dystopian thing about the Norwegian prison system is that they have measurably lower rates of recidivism which means a society with both less crime and percentage of the population imprisoned.
Meanwhile the most dystopian thing about the American prison system is the rampant sex slavery."
Now you seem to pivot to: US has more crime than Norway. From what I know however US kids dont throw grenades at people?
https://www.barrons.com/news/two-13-year-old-boys-among-three-held-over-oslo-grenade-attack-54e98cd5
On June 26 2026 10:49 Billyboy wrote:
Ya, I made sense, you have not. Not sure if it is a reading comprehension issue or you just don’t actually read the words.
As for Norways prison system, the whole point is rehabilitation not punishment. And it works, assuming you want less reoffending and less crime.
You literally didnt  :
On June 26 2026 03:54 Billyboy wrote:
I don’t think there is any possible way for point to proven.
|
On June 26 2026 12:17 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2026 11:40 LightSpectra wrote:
Me: Norway has less crime
You: but it's rising for the youth
So you almost have something resembling a structured logical argument, if you squint while intoxicated in the dead of night, but let's examine some important context:
1) how much is youth crime rising in Norway?
2) how much is it rising or declining in the USA? (Conservatives have been telling me throughout this thread that the crime stats are all cooked and they're actually going up)
3a) what percentage of youth crime constitutes total crime in Norway and the USA?
3b) is adult crime in Norway going up or down?
4) assuming steady trends (which may not be a safe assumption but for the sake of argument we will do so), how long will it take (if ever) for Norwegian crime rates to surpass the USA's?
If the final answer turns out to be something like a century from now, do you think that sounds like a compelling argument for the superiority of the USA's system over Norway's? Yeah mate, you misrepresent both positions. "The most dystopian thing about the Norwegian prison system is that they have measurably lower rates of recidivism which means a society with both less crime and percentage of the population imprisoned. Meanwhile the most dystopian thing about the American prison system is the rampant sex slavery." Now you seem to pivot to: US has more crime than Norway. From what I know however US kids dont throw grenades at people? https://www.barrons.com/news/two-13-year-old-boys-among-three-held-over-oslo-grenade-attack-54e98cd5Show nested quote +On June 26 2026 10:49 Billyboy wrote:
Ya, I made sense, you have not. Not sure if it is a reading comprehension issue or you just don’t actually read the words.
As for Norways prison system, the whole point is rehabilitation not punishment. And it works, assuming you want less reoffending and less crime. You literally didnt : Show nested quote +On June 26 2026 03:54 Billyboy wrote:
I don’t think there is any possible way for point to proven.
That was an absolute masterpiece, bravo.
|
Okay, so you don't actually care about statistics at all, you saw "Norwegian teens... Grenades" and decided that overrode everything else.
There's like 1-3 mass shootings in America every year by a
teenager with an automatic weapon, is that better or worse than using grenades?
|
United States44394 Posts
Right wing brains are truly fascinating.
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1361 Posts
On June 26 2026 12:43 LightSpectra wrote:
Okay, so you don't actually care about statistics at all, you saw "Norwegian teens... Grenades" and decided that overrode everything else.
There's like 1-3 mass shootings in America every year by a
teenager with an automatic weapon, is that better or worse than using grenades?
Well, the answer is obvious, does 'big grenade' have a lobby supporting grenade manufacturers who stand to make billions more each year without hindrances to their ability to supply the general public with grenades for... Self defence, I guess? Or in case the need to violently resist government overreach or something?
How can grenades be better if businesses don't stand to gain? What are you, some kind of socialist?
|
On June 26 2026 09:17 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2026 08:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 26 2026 08:50 Razyda wrote:On June 26 2026 03:41 WombaT wrote:On June 26 2026 03:16 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 22:46 Billyboy wrote:
One thing to keep in mind for Rayzda is he is from Poland originally and likely old enough to remember what USSR communism was like and it was freaking horrible. Especially when you didn’t live in Moscow or St. Petersburg. So when people talk about communism or socialism that is what he thinks of, not the Nordic countries. Then when he hears moronic tankies talking about how it was mostly or all capitalist propaganda and the USSR was mostly good, he then thinks probably everything they say is wrong. And the sad part is all the reasonable people who just want a more equitable system get lumped in with the moronic tankies. Nordic countries are not socialist, good welfare system and strong labour unions do not make country socialist. On June 25 2026 23:11 WombaT wrote:
If Razyda can’t differentiate literal USSR Communism from like, milquetoast capitalism with some redistributive elements that’s on him
I can. You misunderstood my point. What are was saying was that when it comes to democrats, only candidates who describe themselves as socialists (eg: AOC, Mandani), seem to be able to generate some sort of organic excitement. On June 26 2026 01:33 dyhb wrote:
Trump's frankly obsessive concern with loyalty pulls Republicans behind Trump policies. Who can survive a question like, "I supported Trump when he did it, but I privately disagreed and did nothing, and trust me that I'll do all the good things and none of the bad if I'm elected?" It is difficult for me to imagine anyone but Vance being the nominee, and he's incredibly tied to Trump policies.
bolded: Isnt that, like, what every single politician before election says? Also one would imagine that the answer to this kind of questions would be along the lines: " You should ask president Trump about president Trump policies, my policies are as stated in my campaign." or something similar. I am also not sure if Vance will be candidate (after primaries). It seems to me that most of support he has, is because he is VP of Trump, not because VP is Vance (if that makes sense). On June 25 2026 22:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 17:59 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 14:27 dyhb wrote:On June 25 2026 10:11 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Democrat's chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus lost their primary to democratic socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier. [quote] www.nbcnews.comThat seems like a reasonably significant development regarding US politics? Essentially this means: Unless Democrats go with somethng crazy, like making Hunter their candidate, Republican wins next presidency. Trump has two huge things against him just from election to 2026: The Iran war was started under a mishmash of reasons, and none of the main ones were accomplished + Show Spoiler +Roughly speaking, the toppling of the Iranian regime, retrieval of all nuclear material, demolition of their ballistic missile stockpiles, and *later* permanent reopening of the strait before we freed up Iran to resume selling oil and operating its proxy Hezbollah and using previously frozen assets. That's somewhere between an absolute surrender and 90% of one. The energy crisis and the tariffs have individually and collectively hurt the American economy, and Trump's love of tariffs will likely continue to hurt the economy. I've seen it with talking to Republicans of my acquaintance. Their suppliers are hurting and their bottom lines are hurting and their upstream buyers are hurting. This is unlikely to change before the election in 2028. (If you want to stretch, a third would be the size of the corruption between crypto and Kushner's business and all the other self-dealing which would be too much for me to summarize right now) Democrats will somehow find a way to ruin it, perhaps, like they managed to turn Biden's 2020 win into Biden failing to hand off the reins and oopsie being forced to and Kamala/Biden's 2024 loss. But it's theirs to lose unless something big happens. bolded - this was what I was thinking after Trump election, that next one will go to Democrats by default. Democrats however managed to mess this up: essentially Democrats are now anti Trump or socialists. Socialists - well, yes you have New York and California, but then there are also other states, inhibited by sane people. Anti Trump - "Trump bad" argument is not the one which will work well against "John Smith", if it was Trump first term they would probably won next election, but it isnt. Generally Republicans are in unique position, where their candidate can say "that was Trump, I am different", because Trump is outlier (if for some reason Trump popularity goes up, they can ride this wave). On the other hand, Democrats have no one to vote for. Thats why, semi jokingly, I said Hunter, his recent tweet outburst made him more likeable than entire Democratic party. Both parties will be in this position for the 2028 presidential election. This is typical when a president's second term is ending, since there's no true incumbent running for re-election: The Republican presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Trump's presidency / approach (with Vance possibly having the hardest time distancing himself, if he even wants to). The Democratic presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Biden's presidency / approach (with Harris possibly having the hardest time distancing herself, if she even wants to). Whether or not there is "no one to vote for" is completely subjective and entirely a different subject. Polls this early - years early - are pretty useless indicators of who will do well in the primaries. We'll have to see which platforms each candidate focuses on championing, how they distinguish themselves from their primary opponents, etc. They not in the same position. Democrats will still be Democrats. Republicans however, as often mentioned here, were taken over by Trump, and are no longer the same republicans they were. Now Trump will be gone, so they will have opportunity to mold themselves into whatever they think will win them election. Then maybe don’t call politicians who blatantly aren’t socialists, socialists then? You can’t have your fucking cake and eat it too, you said right up this page that the Dems are either ‘anti-Trump’ or socialist’ and about half an hour later are saying ‘actually something like the Nordic model isn’t socialism’ Is it any fucking wonder politicians and think tanks are confused? Dude they describe themselves as Democratic socialists, take it with them not me. https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/"We believe there are many avenues that feed into the democratic road to socialism." If you account for that rest of my statement stands. No, they don't. Your "they" is completely incorrect. You were talking about presidential candidates, yet at most 1 of them (Bernie Sanders) has gone anywhere near identifying as a Democratic Socialist. Maybe there might be one in 2028, but they would be the exception, not the norm. The fact that ~2 new leaders in New York identify as Democratic Socialists doesn't have anything to do with who has been running - or who will be running - in presidential primaries. Mamdani isn't even constitutionally eligible to run for president (he wasn't born in this country). Democratic presidential candidates have been overwhelmingly not socialists of any kind. Furthermore, most Democratic voters aren't Democratic Socialists / socialists either, so you're way off base at both levels (whether you're talking about most party leaders or most party members). Will Razyda take this on board or will they double down? Place your bets now folks!
Looks like the answer was "double down, plus mention orange racism, plus ignore the actual policy positions of Democratic leaders". Yikes.
|
On June 26 2026 18:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2026 09:17 WombaT wrote:On June 26 2026 08:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 26 2026 08:50 Razyda wrote:On June 26 2026 03:41 WombaT wrote:On June 26 2026 03:16 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 22:46 Billyboy wrote:
One thing to keep in mind for Rayzda is he is from Poland originally and likely old enough to remember what USSR communism was like and it was freaking horrible. Especially when you didn’t live in Moscow or St. Petersburg. So when people talk about communism or socialism that is what he thinks of, not the Nordic countries. Then when he hears moronic tankies talking about how it was mostly or all capitalist propaganda and the USSR was mostly good, he then thinks probably everything they say is wrong. And the sad part is all the reasonable people who just want a more equitable system get lumped in with the moronic tankies. Nordic countries are not socialist, good welfare system and strong labour unions do not make country socialist. On June 25 2026 23:11 WombaT wrote:
If Razyda can’t differentiate literal USSR Communism from like, milquetoast capitalism with some redistributive elements that’s on him
I can. You misunderstood my point. What are was saying was that when it comes to democrats, only candidates who describe themselves as socialists (eg: AOC, Mandani), seem to be able to generate some sort of organic excitement. On June 26 2026 01:33 dyhb wrote:
Trump's frankly obsessive concern with loyalty pulls Republicans behind Trump policies. Who can survive a question like, "I supported Trump when he did it, but I privately disagreed and did nothing, and trust me that I'll do all the good things and none of the bad if I'm elected?" It is difficult for me to imagine anyone but Vance being the nominee, and he's incredibly tied to Trump policies.
bolded: Isnt that, like, what every single politician before election says? Also one would imagine that the answer to this kind of questions would be along the lines: " You should ask president Trump about president Trump policies, my policies are as stated in my campaign." or something similar. I am also not sure if Vance will be candidate (after primaries). It seems to me that most of support he has, is because he is VP of Trump, not because VP is Vance (if that makes sense). On June 25 2026 22:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 17:59 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 14:27 dyhb wrote:On June 25 2026 10:11 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
Essentially this means:
Unless Democrats go with somethng crazy, like making Hunter their candidate, Republican wins next presidency.
Trump has two huge things against him just from election to 2026: The Iran war was started under a mishmash of reasons, and none of the main ones were accomplished + Show Spoiler +Roughly speaking, the toppling of the Iranian regime, retrieval of all nuclear material, demolition of their ballistic missile stockpiles, and *later* permanent reopening of the strait before we freed up Iran to resume selling oil and operating its proxy Hezbollah and using previously frozen assets. That's somewhere between an absolute surrender and 90% of one. The energy crisis and the tariffs have individually and collectively hurt the American economy, and Trump's love of tariffs will likely continue to hurt the economy. I've seen it with talking to Republicans of my acquaintance. Their suppliers are hurting and their bottom lines are hurting and their upstream buyers are hurting. This is unlikely to change before the election in 2028. (If you want to stretch, a third would be the size of the corruption between crypto and Kushner's business and all the other self-dealing which would be too much for me to summarize right now) Democrats will somehow find a way to ruin it, perhaps, like they managed to turn Biden's 2020 win into Biden failing to hand off the reins and oopsie being forced to and Kamala/Biden's 2024 loss. But it's theirs to lose unless something big happens. bolded - this was what I was thinking after Trump election, that next one will go to Democrats by default. Democrats however managed to mess this up: essentially Democrats are now anti Trump or socialists. Socialists - well, yes you have New York and California, but then there are also other states, inhibited by sane people. Anti Trump - "Trump bad" argument is not the one which will work well against "John Smith", if it was Trump first term they would probably won next election, but it isnt. Generally Republicans are in unique position, where their candidate can say "that was Trump, I am different", because Trump is outlier (if for some reason Trump popularity goes up, they can ride this wave). On the other hand, Democrats have no one to vote for. Thats why, semi jokingly, I said Hunter, his recent tweet outburst made him more likeable than entire Democratic party. Both parties will be in this position for the 2028 presidential election. This is typical when a president's second term is ending, since there's no true incumbent running for re-election: The Republican presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Trump's presidency / approach (with Vance possibly having the hardest time distancing himself, if he even wants to). The Democratic presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Biden's presidency / approach (with Harris possibly having the hardest time distancing herself, if she even wants to). Whether or not there is "no one to vote for" is completely subjective and entirely a different subject. Polls this early - years early - are pretty useless indicators of who will do well in the primaries. We'll have to see which platforms each candidate focuses on championing, how they distinguish themselves from their primary opponents, etc. They not in the same position. Democrats will still be Democrats. Republicans however, as often mentioned here, were taken over by Trump, and are no longer the same republicans they were. Now Trump will be gone, so they will have opportunity to mold themselves into whatever they think will win them election. Then maybe don’t call politicians who blatantly aren’t socialists, socialists then? You can’t have your fucking cake and eat it too, you said right up this page that the Dems are either ‘anti-Trump’ or socialist’ and about half an hour later are saying ‘actually something like the Nordic model isn’t socialism’ Is it any fucking wonder politicians and think tanks are confused? Dude they describe themselves as Democratic socialists, take it with them not me. https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/"We believe there are many avenues that feed into the democratic road to socialism." If you account for that rest of my statement stands. No, they don't. Your "they" is completely incorrect. You were talking about presidential candidates, yet at most 1 of them (Bernie Sanders) has gone anywhere near identifying as a Democratic Socialist. Maybe there might be one in 2028, but they would be the exception, not the norm. The fact that ~2 new leaders in New York identify as Democratic Socialists doesn't have anything to do with who has been running - or who will be running - in presidential primaries. Mamdani isn't even constitutionally eligible to run for president (he wasn't born in this country). Democratic presidential candidates have been overwhelmingly not socialists of any kind. Furthermore, most Democratic voters aren't Democratic Socialists / socialists either, so you're way off base at both levels (whether you're talking about most party leaders or most party members). Will Razyda take this on board or will they double down? Place your bets now folks! Looks like the answer was "double down, plus mention orange racism, plus ignore the actual policy positions of Democratic leaders". Yikes.
He already doubled down about nazis being commies or something of that sort. Since you pass that Rubicon everything is possible.
|
On June 25 2026 03:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2026 02:32 dyhb wrote:On June 25 2026 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Democrat's chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus lost their primary to democratic socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier. Mamdani cast Avila Chevalier as the future of the Democratic Party, saying as he announced his endorsement on MS NOW that she will be “on the front lines” of showing that Democrats “have to be fighting for a vision that reckons with the fact that working people were not left behind just four years ago or 16 years ago. They were left behind a long time before that.”
“And it will take a new generation of leadership to ensure that the heartbeat of this party is once again the struggles of the working class,” Mamdani said.
Avila Chevalier is also a vocal critic of Israel, calling its war against Hamas in Gaza a genocide. A Columbia University alumna, she participated in the pro-Palestinian protests at the university and was present during last year’s standoff with police at Hamilton Hall, which she described as “quite horrific.” She also attended a controversial pro-Palestinian rally the day after Hamas’ 2023 attacks in Israel — an event that Brad Lander, the former city comptroller also sporting Mamdani’s endorsement in his congressional bid, condemned.
Avila Chevalier has voiced support for legislation to block certain arms sales to Israel, also known as the “Block the Bombs” bill. She has also called for abolishing ICE, “Medicare for All” and national tenant protections. www.nbcnews.comThat seems like a reasonably significant development regarding US politics? The big battle lines in the Democratic party is the DSA vs establishment and moderates, and the Democratic party's split on pro-Israel/anti-Israel. The NY primaries were the latest win for progressives. But in that win, a self-identified Zionist (though accusing Israel of genocide) won and received Mamdani's endorsement. That was Brad Lander. He renounced DSA membership after the DSA promoted an anti-Israel rally post-October 7th. But he was so favored to win that Mamdani made the smart political decision and endorsed. But Mamdani's wife snubbed Lander by leaving off her husband's third endorsed candidate while she encouraged her Instagram followers to vote for the other two on primary day. That's a microcosm of the divide. If you like following interesting political news, keep your eyes on that story as we head to 2028. I thought Mamdani and Lander teaming up (back before Mamdani won) was pretty interesting to watch, and I'm glad that Mamdani recently supported Lander back. Disappointed to hear about Mamdani's wife snubbing Lander though. Show nested quote +On June 25 2026 02:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 25 2026 02:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Democrat's chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus lost their primary to democratic socialist Darializa Avila Chevalier. Mamdani cast Avila Chevalier as the future of the Democratic Party, saying as he announced his endorsement on MS NOW that she will be “on the front lines” of showing that Democrats “have to be fighting for a vision that reckons with the fact that working people were not left behind just four years ago or 16 years ago. They were left behind a long time before that.”
“And it will take a new generation of leadership to ensure that the heartbeat of this party is once again the struggles of the working class,” Mamdani said.
Avila Chevalier is also a vocal critic of Israel, calling its war against Hamas in Gaza a genocide. A Columbia University alumna, she participated in the pro-Palestinian protests at the university and was present during last year’s standoff with police at Hamilton Hall, which she described as “quite horrific.” She also attended a controversial pro-Palestinian rally the day after Hamas’ 2023 attacks in Israel — an event that Brad Lander, the former city comptroller also sporting Mamdani’s endorsement in his congressional bid, condemned.
Avila Chevalier has voiced support for legislation to block certain arms sales to Israel, also known as the “Block the Bombs” bill. She has also called for abolishing ICE, “Medicare for All” and national tenant protections. www.nbcnews.comThat seems like a reasonably significant development regarding US politics? Awesome! Score another win for New York, assuming she wins the general election (and she almost certainly will). Hopefully we'll see other blue states with similar victories. It's critical to understand how they succeeded, and what they succeeded against if people want to replicate it elsewhere (and I'm not sure that's actually something all Democrat voters/supporters here want). I'm confident an electoral path to anything resembling a desirable future must include those kinds of discussions in places like these among people that see this sort of "inside out" strategy as the best way forward. dyhb just brought up two topics that I think make a lot of sense - democratic socialism vs. establishment/moderation and one's position on Israel (or perhaps one's position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). Those would be parts of the "what"; I would think that the "how" would include charismatic speeches and grassroots movements. I worry that not everyone has the same charisma that Sanders, Mamdani, and AOC have, so what would be reasonable "how" approaches that could be accessible to most/all left-wing candidates? And can you say more about the "inside out" strategy? What does that mean?
I agree those topics are critical to understanding and potentially replicating/expanding on those wins in NY (though that unfortunately didn't seem to be discussed much among their supporters here). This is especially true due to the happenstance of both ostensible leaders of the Democrat party being in New York and neither supported the winners (one endorsed the losers).
Who/what the Democrat party should be going into midterms and 2028 can't be both Jeffries and Schumer while also being AOC and Mamdani. One of those political factions is going to lose credibility with their supporters if they try to be both. There has to be a real tea partyesque fight imo.
I put organization and policy above charisma. Those are both accessible to pretty much any Democrat that wants them.
As for the "inside out" strategy, that is basically the idea of fixing the Democrat party (and US politics) by voting for incrementally better Democrats over time. AKA Entryism (or possibly Sheepdogging).
|
On June 26 2026 18:40 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2026 18:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 26 2026 09:17 WombaT wrote:On June 26 2026 08:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 26 2026 08:50 Razyda wrote:On June 26 2026 03:41 WombaT wrote:On June 26 2026 03:16 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 22:46 Billyboy wrote:
One thing to keep in mind for Rayzda is he is from Poland originally and likely old enough to remember what USSR communism was like and it was freaking horrible. Especially when you didn’t live in Moscow or St. Petersburg. So when people talk about communism or socialism that is what he thinks of, not the Nordic countries. Then when he hears moronic tankies talking about how it was mostly or all capitalist propaganda and the USSR was mostly good, he then thinks probably everything they say is wrong. And the sad part is all the reasonable people who just want a more equitable system get lumped in with the moronic tankies. Nordic countries are not socialist, good welfare system and strong labour unions do not make country socialist. On June 25 2026 23:11 WombaT wrote:
If Razyda can’t differentiate literal USSR Communism from like, milquetoast capitalism with some redistributive elements that’s on him
I can. You misunderstood my point. What are was saying was that when it comes to democrats, only candidates who describe themselves as socialists (eg: AOC, Mandani), seem to be able to generate some sort of organic excitement. On June 26 2026 01:33 dyhb wrote:
Trump's frankly obsessive concern with loyalty pulls Republicans behind Trump policies. Who can survive a question like, "I supported Trump when he did it, but I privately disagreed and did nothing, and trust me that I'll do all the good things and none of the bad if I'm elected?" It is difficult for me to imagine anyone but Vance being the nominee, and he's incredibly tied to Trump policies.
bolded: Isnt that, like, what every single politician before election says? Also one would imagine that the answer to this kind of questions would be along the lines: " You should ask president Trump about president Trump policies, my policies are as stated in my campaign." or something similar. I am also not sure if Vance will be candidate (after primaries). It seems to me that most of support he has, is because he is VP of Trump, not because VP is Vance (if that makes sense). On June 25 2026 22:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 17:59 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 14:27 dyhb wrote:[quote]Trump has two huge things against him just from election to 2026: The Iran war was started under a mishmash of reasons, and none of the main ones were accomplished + Show Spoiler +Roughly speaking, the toppling of the Iranian regime, retrieval of all nuclear material, demolition of their ballistic missile stockpiles, and *later* permanent reopening of the strait before we freed up Iran to resume selling oil and operating its proxy Hezbollah and using previously frozen assets. That's somewhere between an absolute surrender and 90% of one. The energy crisis and the tariffs have individually and collectively hurt the American economy, and Trump's love of tariffs will likely continue to hurt the economy. I've seen it with talking to Republicans of my acquaintance. Their suppliers are hurting and their bottom lines are hurting and their upstream buyers are hurting. This is unlikely to change before the election in 2028. (If you want to stretch, a third would be the size of the corruption between crypto and Kushner's business and all the other self-dealing which would be too much for me to summarize right now) Democrats will somehow find a way to ruin it, perhaps, like they managed to turn Biden's 2020 win into Biden failing to hand off the reins and oopsie being forced to and Kamala/Biden's 2024 loss. But it's theirs to lose unless something big happens. bolded - this was what I was thinking after Trump election, that next one will go to Democrats by default. Democrats however managed to mess this up: essentially Democrats are now anti Trump or socialists. Socialists - well, yes you have New York and California, but then there are also other states, inhibited by sane people. Anti Trump - "Trump bad" argument is not the one which will work well against "John Smith", if it was Trump first term they would probably won next election, but it isnt. Generally Republicans are in unique position, where their candidate can say "that was Trump, I am different", because Trump is outlier (if for some reason Trump popularity goes up, they can ride this wave). On the other hand, Democrats have no one to vote for. Thats why, semi jokingly, I said Hunter, his recent tweet outburst made him more likeable than entire Democratic party. Both parties will be in this position for the 2028 presidential election. This is typical when a president's second term is ending, since there's no true incumbent running for re-election: The Republican presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Trump's presidency / approach (with Vance possibly having the hardest time distancing himself, if he even wants to). The Democratic presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Biden's presidency / approach (with Harris possibly having the hardest time distancing herself, if she even wants to). Whether or not there is "no one to vote for" is completely subjective and entirely a different subject. Polls this early - years early - are pretty useless indicators of who will do well in the primaries. We'll have to see which platforms each candidate focuses on championing, how they distinguish themselves from their primary opponents, etc. They not in the same position. Democrats will still be Democrats. Republicans however, as often mentioned here, were taken over by Trump, and are no longer the same republicans they were. Now Trump will be gone, so they will have opportunity to mold themselves into whatever they think will win them election. Then maybe don’t call politicians who blatantly aren’t socialists, socialists then? You can’t have your fucking cake and eat it too, you said right up this page that the Dems are either ‘anti-Trump’ or socialist’ and about half an hour later are saying ‘actually something like the Nordic model isn’t socialism’ Is it any fucking wonder politicians and think tanks are confused? Dude they describe themselves as Democratic socialists, take it with them not me. https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/"We believe there are many avenues that feed into the democratic road to socialism." If you account for that rest of my statement stands. No, they don't. Your "they" is completely incorrect. You were talking about presidential candidates, yet at most 1 of them (Bernie Sanders) has gone anywhere near identifying as a Democratic Socialist. Maybe there might be one in 2028, but they would be the exception, not the norm. The fact that ~2 new leaders in New York identify as Democratic Socialists doesn't have anything to do with who has been running - or who will be running - in presidential primaries. Mamdani isn't even constitutionally eligible to run for president (he wasn't born in this country). Democratic presidential candidates have been overwhelmingly not socialists of any kind. Furthermore, most Democratic voters aren't Democratic Socialists / socialists either, so you're way off base at both levels (whether you're talking about most party leaders or most party members). Will Razyda take this on board or will they double down? Place your bets now folks! Looks like the answer was "double down, plus mention orange racism, plus ignore the actual policy positions of Democratic leaders". Yikes. He already doubled down about nazis being commies or something of that sort. Since you pass that Rubicon everything is possible.
They‘re not that different, practically.
They were even collaborating initially, as long as they had their own spaces.
It‘s not wrong. But this isn‘t 1930. The problem set is different. Part of it is advancing monopolization in a system that doesn‘t play by its own rules.
Gotta sit out Americas manmade horrors for a few years.
|
Glad this administration is about the important things. We now officially have more arrests over the reflecting pool than we have for the Epstein files.
|
On June 26 2026 23:14 Billyboy wrote:
Glad this administration is about the important things. We now officially have more arrests over the reflecting pool than we have for the Epstein files.
Take the Epstein files, read them, find probable cause for an arrest of someone, send a tip to the FBI and then whistleblow here if they never take it to a judge to get an arrest warrant.
|
Tried it. The police unfortunately won't go to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On June 26 2026 18:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2026 09:17 WombaT wrote:On June 26 2026 08:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 26 2026 08:50 Razyda wrote:On June 26 2026 03:41 WombaT wrote:On June 26 2026 03:16 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 22:46 Billyboy wrote:
One thing to keep in mind for Rayzda is he is from Poland originally and likely old enough to remember what USSR communism was like and it was freaking horrible. Especially when you didn’t live in Moscow or St. Petersburg. So when people talk about communism or socialism that is what he thinks of, not the Nordic countries. Then when he hears moronic tankies talking about how it was mostly or all capitalist propaganda and the USSR was mostly good, he then thinks probably everything they say is wrong. And the sad part is all the reasonable people who just want a more equitable system get lumped in with the moronic tankies. Nordic countries are not socialist, good welfare system and strong labour unions do not make country socialist. On June 25 2026 23:11 WombaT wrote:
If Razyda can’t differentiate literal USSR Communism from like, milquetoast capitalism with some redistributive elements that’s on him
I can. You misunderstood my point. What are was saying was that when it comes to democrats, only candidates who describe themselves as socialists (eg: AOC, Mandani), seem to be able to generate some sort of organic excitement. On June 26 2026 01:33 dyhb wrote:
Trump's frankly obsessive concern with loyalty pulls Republicans behind Trump policies. Who can survive a question like, "I supported Trump when he did it, but I privately disagreed and did nothing, and trust me that I'll do all the good things and none of the bad if I'm elected?" It is difficult for me to imagine anyone but Vance being the nominee, and he's incredibly tied to Trump policies.
bolded: Isnt that, like, what every single politician before election says? Also one would imagine that the answer to this kind of questions would be along the lines: " You should ask president Trump about president Trump policies, my policies are as stated in my campaign." or something similar. I am also not sure if Vance will be candidate (after primaries). It seems to me that most of support he has, is because he is VP of Trump, not because VP is Vance (if that makes sense). On June 25 2026 22:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 17:59 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 14:27 dyhb wrote:On June 25 2026 10:11 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
Essentially this means:
Unless Democrats go with somethng crazy, like making Hunter their candidate, Republican wins next presidency.
Trump has two huge things against him just from election to 2026: The Iran war was started under a mishmash of reasons, and none of the main ones were accomplished + Show Spoiler +Roughly speaking, the toppling of the Iranian regime, retrieval of all nuclear material, demolition of their ballistic missile stockpiles, and *later* permanent reopening of the strait before we freed up Iran to resume selling oil and operating its proxy Hezbollah and using previously frozen assets. That's somewhere between an absolute surrender and 90% of one. The energy crisis and the tariffs have individually and collectively hurt the American economy, and Trump's love of tariffs will likely continue to hurt the economy. I've seen it with talking to Republicans of my acquaintance. Their suppliers are hurting and their bottom lines are hurting and their upstream buyers are hurting. This is unlikely to change before the election in 2028. (If you want to stretch, a third would be the size of the corruption between crypto and Kushner's business and all the other self-dealing which would be too much for me to summarize right now) Democrats will somehow find a way to ruin it, perhaps, like they managed to turn Biden's 2020 win into Biden failing to hand off the reins and oopsie being forced to and Kamala/Biden's 2024 loss. But it's theirs to lose unless something big happens. bolded - this was what I was thinking after Trump election, that next one will go to Democrats by default. Democrats however managed to mess this up: essentially Democrats are now anti Trump or socialists. Socialists - well, yes you have New York and California, but then there are also other states, inhibited by sane people. Anti Trump - "Trump bad" argument is not the one which will work well against "John Smith", if it was Trump first term they would probably won next election, but it isnt. Generally Republicans are in unique position, where their candidate can say "that was Trump, I am different", because Trump is outlier (if for some reason Trump popularity goes up, they can ride this wave). On the other hand, Democrats have no one to vote for. Thats why, semi jokingly, I said Hunter, his recent tweet outburst made him more likeable than entire Democratic party. Both parties will be in this position for the 2028 presidential election. This is typical when a president's second term is ending, since there's no true incumbent running for re-election: The Republican presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Trump's presidency / approach (with Vance possibly having the hardest time distancing himself, if he even wants to). The Democratic presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Biden's presidency / approach (with Harris possibly having the hardest time distancing herself, if she even wants to). Whether or not there is "no one to vote for" is completely subjective and entirely a different subject. Polls this early - years early - are pretty useless indicators of who will do well in the primaries. We'll have to see which platforms each candidate focuses on championing, how they distinguish themselves from their primary opponents, etc. They not in the same position. Democrats will still be Democrats. Republicans however, as often mentioned here, were taken over by Trump, and are no longer the same republicans they were. Now Trump will be gone, so they will have opportunity to mold themselves into whatever they think will win them election. Then maybe don’t call politicians who blatantly aren’t socialists, socialists then? You can’t have your fucking cake and eat it too, you said right up this page that the Dems are either ‘anti-Trump’ or socialist’ and about half an hour later are saying ‘actually something like the Nordic model isn’t socialism’ Is it any fucking wonder politicians and think tanks are confused? Dude they describe themselves as Democratic socialists, take it with them not me. https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/"We believe there are many avenues that feed into the democratic road to socialism." If you account for that rest of my statement stands. No, they don't. Your "they" is completely incorrect. You were talking about presidential candidates, yet at most 1 of them (Bernie Sanders) has gone anywhere near identifying as a Democratic Socialist. Maybe there might be one in 2028, but they would be the exception, not the norm. The fact that ~2 new leaders in New York identify as Democratic Socialists doesn't have anything to do with who has been running - or who will be running - in presidential primaries. Mamdani isn't even constitutionally eligible to run for president (he wasn't born in this country). Democratic presidential candidates have been overwhelmingly not socialists of any kind. Furthermore, most Democratic voters aren't Democratic Socialists / socialists either, so you're way off base at both levels (whether you're talking about most party leaders or most party members). Will Razyda take this on board or will they double down? Place your bets now folks! Looks like the answer was "double down, plus mention orange racism, plus ignore the actual policy positions of Democratic leaders". Yikes.
Colour me surprised.
|
On June 26 2026 22:28 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2026 18:40 Godwrath wrote:On June 26 2026 18:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 26 2026 09:17 WombaT wrote:On June 26 2026 08:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 26 2026 08:50 Razyda wrote:On June 26 2026 03:41 WombaT wrote:On June 26 2026 03:16 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 22:46 Billyboy wrote:
One thing to keep in mind for Rayzda is he is from Poland originally and likely old enough to remember what USSR communism was like and it was freaking horrible. Especially when you didn’t live in Moscow or St. Petersburg. So when people talk about communism or socialism that is what he thinks of, not the Nordic countries. Then when he hears moronic tankies talking about how it was mostly or all capitalist propaganda and the USSR was mostly good, he then thinks probably everything they say is wrong. And the sad part is all the reasonable people who just want a more equitable system get lumped in with the moronic tankies. Nordic countries are not socialist, good welfare system and strong labour unions do not make country socialist. On June 25 2026 23:11 WombaT wrote:
If Razyda can’t differentiate literal USSR Communism from like, milquetoast capitalism with some redistributive elements that’s on him
I can. You misunderstood my point. What are was saying was that when it comes to democrats, only candidates who describe themselves as socialists (eg: AOC, Mandani), seem to be able to generate some sort of organic excitement. On June 26 2026 01:33 dyhb wrote:
Trump's frankly obsessive concern with loyalty pulls Republicans behind Trump policies. Who can survive a question like, "I supported Trump when he did it, but I privately disagreed and did nothing, and trust me that I'll do all the good things and none of the bad if I'm elected?" It is difficult for me to imagine anyone but Vance being the nominee, and he's incredibly tied to Trump policies.
bolded: Isnt that, like, what every single politician before election says? Also one would imagine that the answer to this kind of questions would be along the lines: " You should ask president Trump about president Trump policies, my policies are as stated in my campaign." or something similar. I am also not sure if Vance will be candidate (after primaries). It seems to me that most of support he has, is because he is VP of Trump, not because VP is Vance (if that makes sense). On June 25 2026 22:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 25 2026 17:59 Razyda wrote:
[quote]
bolded - this was what I was thinking after Trump election, that next one will go to Democrats by default.
Democrats however managed to mess this up: essentially Democrats are now anti Trump or socialists.
Socialists - well, yes you have New York and California, but then there are also other states, inhibited by sane people.
Anti Trump - "Trump bad" argument is not the one which will work well against "John Smith", if it was Trump first term they would probably won next election, but it isnt.
Generally Republicans are in unique position, where their candidate can say "that was Trump, I am different", because Trump is outlier (if for some reason Trump popularity goes up, they can ride this wave). On the other hand, Democrats have no one to vote for. Thats why, semi jokingly, I said Hunter, his recent tweet outburst made him more likeable than entire Democratic party. Both parties will be in this position for the 2028 presidential election. This is typical when a president's second term is ending, since there's no true incumbent running for re-election: The Republican presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Trump's presidency / approach (with Vance possibly having the hardest time distancing himself, if he even wants to). The Democratic presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Biden's presidency / approach (with Harris possibly having the hardest time distancing herself, if she even wants to). Whether or not there is "no one to vote for" is completely subjective and entirely a different subject. Polls this early - years early - are pretty useless indicators of who will do well in the primaries. We'll have to see which platforms each candidate focuses on championing, how they distinguish themselves from their primary opponents, etc. They not in the same position. Democrats will still be Democrats. Republicans however, as often mentioned here, were taken over by Trump, and are no longer the same republicans they were. Now Trump will be gone, so they will have opportunity to mold themselves into whatever they think will win them election. Then maybe don’t call politicians who blatantly aren’t socialists, socialists then? You can’t have your fucking cake and eat it too, you said right up this page that the Dems are either ‘anti-Trump’ or socialist’ and about half an hour later are saying ‘actually something like the Nordic model isn’t socialism’ Is it any fucking wonder politicians and think tanks are confused? Dude they describe themselves as Democratic socialists, take it with them not me. https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/"We believe there are many avenues that feed into the democratic road to socialism." If you account for that rest of my statement stands. No, they don't. Your "they" is completely incorrect. You were talking about presidential candidates, yet at most 1 of them (Bernie Sanders) has gone anywhere near identifying as a Democratic Socialist. Maybe there might be one in 2028, but they would be the exception, not the norm. The fact that ~2 new leaders in New York identify as Democratic Socialists doesn't have anything to do with who has been running - or who will be running - in presidential primaries. Mamdani isn't even constitutionally eligible to run for president (he wasn't born in this country). Democratic presidential candidates have been overwhelmingly not socialists of any kind. Furthermore, most Democratic voters aren't Democratic Socialists / socialists either, so you're way off base at both levels (whether you're talking about most party leaders or most party members). Will Razyda take this on board or will they double down? Place your bets now folks! Looks like the answer was "double down, plus mention orange racism, plus ignore the actual policy positions of Democratic leaders". Yikes. He already doubled down about nazis being commies or something of that sort. Since you pass that Rubicon everything is possible. They‘re not that different, practically. They were even collaborating initially, as long as they had their own spaces. It‘s not wrong. But this isn‘t 1930. The problem set is different. Part of it is advancing monopolization in a system that doesn‘t play by its own rules. Gotta sit out Americas manmade horrors for a few years.
Umm, the USSR and Nazi Germany collaborated (until, famously, they didn't), but the biggest internal enemy the Nazis had inside Germany was the Communist Party. Clearly equivocating the Nazis and the communists is ascribing far too much to the "horseshoe" theory of politics. A temporary alliance with some foreign communists doesn't really matter in that, and anyway the argument was much much shallower even than that. It was that because the S in NSADP stands for socialist, that means the Nazis must be socialists, which is why Razyda also believes that North Korea is a democratic republic.
|
On June 26 2026 23:27 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2026 23:14 Billyboy wrote:
Glad this administration is about the important things. We now officially have more arrests over the reflecting pool than we have for the Epstein files. Take the Epstein files, read them, find probable cause for an arrest of someone, send a tip to the FBI and then whistleblow here if they never take it to a judge to get an arrest warrant.
Wish I could but one of the conspirators is the president and despite campaigning on locking up a bunch of Dems and releasing the files he is protecting himself and friends.
Out of curiosity, why does the department of war need 90bn for a 30bn war? MAGA math is hard to figure out.
|
United States44394 Posts
On June 27 2026 00:09 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2026 23:27 oBlade wrote:On June 26 2026 23:14 Billyboy wrote:
Glad this administration is about the important things. We now officially have more arrests over the reflecting pool than we have for the Epstein files. Take the Epstein files, read them, find probable cause for an arrest of someone, send a tip to the FBI and then whistleblow here if they never take it to a judge to get an arrest warrant. Wish I could but one of the conspirators is the president and despite campaigning on locking up a bunch of Dems and releasing the files he is protecting himself and friends.
Oblade is pretending we don't know that Donald Trump's personal defence attorney became Deputy Attorney General and took responsibility for investigating Ghislaine Maxwell.
|
On June 26 2026 23:33 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2026 22:28 Vivax wrote:On June 26 2026 18:40 Godwrath wrote:On June 26 2026 18:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 26 2026 09:17 WombaT wrote:On June 26 2026 08:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 26 2026 08:50 Razyda wrote:On June 26 2026 03:41 WombaT wrote:On June 26 2026 03:16 Razyda wrote:On June 25 2026 22:46 Billyboy wrote:
One thing to keep in mind for Rayzda is he is from Poland originally and likely old enough to remember what USSR communism was like and it was freaking horrible. Especially when you didn’t live in Moscow or St. Petersburg. So when people talk about communism or socialism that is what he thinks of, not the Nordic countries. Then when he hears moronic tankies talking about how it was mostly or all capitalist propaganda and the USSR was mostly good, he then thinks probably everything they say is wrong. And the sad part is all the reasonable people who just want a more equitable system get lumped in with the moronic tankies. Nordic countries are not socialist, good welfare system and strong labour unions do not make country socialist. On June 25 2026 23:11 WombaT wrote:
If Razyda can’t differentiate literal USSR Communism from like, milquetoast capitalism with some redistributive elements that’s on him
I can. You misunderstood my point. What are was saying was that when it comes to democrats, only candidates who describe themselves as socialists (eg: AOC, Mandani), seem to be able to generate some sort of organic excitement. On June 26 2026 01:33 dyhb wrote:
Trump's frankly obsessive concern with loyalty pulls Republicans behind Trump policies. Who can survive a question like, "I supported Trump when he did it, but I privately disagreed and did nothing, and trust me that I'll do all the good things and none of the bad if I'm elected?" It is difficult for me to imagine anyone but Vance being the nominee, and he's incredibly tied to Trump policies.
bolded: Isnt that, like, what every single politician before election says? Also one would imagine that the answer to this kind of questions would be along the lines: " You should ask president Trump about president Trump policies, my policies are as stated in my campaign." or something similar. I am also not sure if Vance will be candidate (after primaries). It seems to me that most of support he has, is because he is VP of Trump, not because VP is Vance (if that makes sense). On June 25 2026 22:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Both parties will be in this position for the 2028 presidential election. This is typical when a president's second term is ending, since there's no true incumbent running for re-election:
The Republican presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Trump's presidency / approach (with Vance possibly having the hardest time distancing himself, if he even wants to).
The Democratic presidential primary can be a spectrum of candidates figuring out how closely they want to align themselves with Biden's presidency / approach (with Harris possibly having the hardest time distancing herself, if she even wants to).
Whether or not there is "no one to vote for" is completely subjective and entirely a different subject. Polls this early - years early - are pretty useless indicators of who will do well in the primaries. We'll have to see which platforms each candidate focuses on championing, how they distinguish themselves from their primary opponents, etc. They not in the same position. Democrats will still be Democrats. Republicans however, as often mentioned here, were taken over by Trump, and are no longer the same republicans they were. Now Trump will be gone, so they will have opportunity to mold themselves into whatever they think will win them election. Then maybe don’t call politicians who blatantly aren’t socialists, socialists then? You can’t have your fucking cake and eat it too, you said right up this page that the Dems are either ‘anti-Trump’ or socialist’ and about half an hour later are saying ‘actually something like the Nordic model isn’t socialism’ Is it any fucking wonder politicians and think tanks are confused? Dude they describe themselves as Democratic socialists, take it with them not me. https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/"We believe there are many avenues that feed into the democratic road to socialism." If you account for that rest of my statement stands. No, they don't. Your "they" is completely incorrect. You were talking about presidential candidates, yet at most 1 of them (Bernie Sanders) has gone anywhere near identifying as a Democratic Socialist. Maybe there might be one in 2028, but they would be the exception, not the norm. The fact that ~2 new leaders in New York identify as Democratic Socialists doesn't have anything to do with who has been running - or who will be running - in presidential primaries. Mamdani isn't even constitutionally eligible to run for president (he wasn't born in this country). Democratic presidential candidates have been overwhelmingly not socialists of any kind. Furthermore, most Democratic voters aren't Democratic Socialists / socialists either, so you're way off base at both levels (whether you're talking about most party leaders or most party members). Will Razyda take this on board or will they double down? Place your bets now folks! Looks like the answer was "double down, plus mention orange racism, plus ignore the actual policy positions of Democratic leaders". Yikes. He already doubled down about nazis being commies or something of that sort. Since you pass that Rubicon everything is possible. They‘re not that different, practically. They were even collaborating initially, as long as they had their own spaces. It‘s not wrong. But this isn‘t 1930. The problem set is different. Part of it is advancing monopolization in a system that doesn‘t play by its own rules. Gotta sit out Americas manmade horrors for a few years. Umm, the USSR and Nazi Germany collaborated (until, famously, they didn't), but the biggest internal enemy the Nazis had inside Germany was the Communist Party. Clearly equivocating the Nazis and the communists is ascribing far too much to the "horseshoe" theory of politics. A temporary alliance with some foreign communists doesn't really matter in that, and anyway the argument was much much shallower even than that. It was that because the S in NSADP stands for socialist, that means the Nazis must be socialists, which is why Razyda also believes that North Korea is a democratic republic. The German communists aren’t absolving their role in helping the Nazis seize power, since they were allies in toppling Germany’s Social Democrats. Just to clarify that it’s small consolation that “it doesn’t matter” and “biggest internal enemy,” when they have blood on their hands in selling out Germany to the Nazis. It’s also a little tricky saying foreign communists when Germanys communists operated under Stalin’s Comintern.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
