|
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 July 27 2026 23:37 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2026 23:10 dyhb wrote:On July 27 2026 22:16 Jankisa wrote:On July 27 2026 21:41 dyhb wrote:On July 27 2026 17:34 Jankisa wrote:On July 27 2026 04:56 dyhb wrote:On July 27 2026 03:58 Gorsameth wrote:
no, no matter how much GH might like to claim otherwise people with his opinions are a infinitesimally tiny part of the electorate.
"we will change the entire governmental system of the US" is enough for anyone remotely sane to tune out. Like I pointed out in the post, this includes AOC and Rashida Tlaib from the Squad. They're DSA members. So you lie, get called out for lying and are unable to concede, instead you go on to pretend like being endorsed by an organization means being a member. No wonder you are a Trump defender, narcissists recognize other narcissists. So you’ve read that the local DSA chapter endorsed, but that’s inconvenient for you, so it was ignored by you? Membership isn’t public, endorsements are. Amazing. Quoted you making shit up, you double down again. AOC is not a DSA member. You, when trying to attack the left (which is coincidentally 99 % of what you do) lied but are completely incapable, even when faced with your own words easily quotable form a few hours ago say, yup, I fucked up. Clown. Same as before, membership is private, endorsements are public. She's an endorsed candidate of the local DSA chapter, and has been since her first election. She participates in their events (Q&As, DSA protests, DSA rallies) and seeks their endorsement. Let's check in on her last term: Tonight, U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) joined one thousand working class New Yorkers to discuss the broken political system that has failed working people and empowered Trump’s fascist movement. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez called on New Yorkers interested in fighting back to join NYC-DSA.
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez also discussed NYC-DSA’s ongoing campaigns to push New York State to build 15 gigawatts of affordable, union-built green energy, strengthen labor power through union campaigns at Starbucks and Amazon, end the genocide in Palestine, and win a massive investment in social housing to guarantee safe and affordable homes for all.
“We are up against an incredibly powerful political establishment. But times are changing. These are sites of real political struggles, in which an ascendant and organized working class can and will gain power. This is an opportunity to embark on a new mass movement of the working class,” said Representative Ocasio-Cortez. “DSA is a political home to take our own power back and organize. NYC-DSAI know you're big on "Who won the 2020 election," so here's a few easy ones for Jankisa Who has won the NYC-DSA endorsement 5 elections in a row? Who joined a NYC-DSA mass call (1,000) after her last election to urge listeners to join the DSA, "I Can’t Think of a Better Thing to Be Doing." Who called the DSA "a political home to take our own power back and organize?" Three frankly easy questions. But given your dodging, I might have to start calling you oBlade, Jankisa. This has become a trend for you. LMAO, so now instead of admitting that you were lying you will become a AOC = DSA truther and decide on your own that she is a member despite there being 0 evidence of that at all. Hint, if a question can be answered in 1 second by typing "is AOC in DSA" and answer is a very well documented "No" there is no amount of mental gymnastics that will change that. Let's do 4 questions instead: Who has won the NYC-DSA endorsement 5 elections in a row? AOC Who joined a NYC-DSA mass call (1,000) after her last election to urge listeners to join the DSA, "I Can’t Think of a Better Thing to Be Doing." AOC Who called the DSA "a political home to take our own power back and organize?" AOC Finally, we get some facts from you. Exciting!
Is AOC a member of DSA?
Nope.
Congratulations, you are a liar. How have you obtained the private membership rolls of the DSA, or did you obtain this information from a news article that you are relying on? Did you hack their website, or burgle their offices?
Do you personally possess clairvoyance or telepathy or otherwise psychic abilities that allowed you to come to this conclusion?
You seem so confident that I think we all deserve to know how you're speaking with all this confidence. Unless you're talking out of your ass and hoping nobody notices. I tried two times before, but given that you've now shown knowledge that AOC was endorsed by the largest chapter of the DSA, urged 1,000 people to join the DSA, and called the DSA a political home to take "our" own power back, maybe you're turning over a new leaf. I'd love to hear from you that your best friend Tommy learned that she cancelled her membership in 2021 because he worked for that organization in the states before moving back to Croatia.
|
Who won the 2020 election?
|
On July 27 2026 23:52 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2026 23:37 Jankisa wrote:On July 27 2026 23:10 dyhb wrote:On July 27 2026 22:16 Jankisa wrote:On July 27 2026 21:41 dyhb wrote:On July 27 2026 17:34 Jankisa wrote:On July 27 2026 04:56 dyhb wrote:On July 27 2026 03:58 Gorsameth wrote:
no, no matter how much GH might like to claim otherwise people with his opinions are a infinitesimally tiny part of the electorate.
"we will change the entire governmental system of the US" is enough for anyone remotely sane to tune out. Like I pointed out in the post, this includes AOC and Rashida Tlaib from the Squad. They're DSA members. So you lie, get called out for lying and are unable to concede, instead you go on to pretend like being endorsed by an organization means being a member. No wonder you are a Trump defender, narcissists recognize other narcissists. So you’ve read that the local DSA chapter endorsed, but that’s inconvenient for you, so it was ignored by you? Membership isn’t public, endorsements are. Amazing. Quoted you making shit up, you double down again. AOC is not a DSA member. You, when trying to attack the left (which is coincidentally 99 % of what you do) lied but are completely incapable, even when faced with your own words easily quotable form a few hours ago say, yup, I fucked up. Clown. Same as before, membership is private, endorsements are public. She's an endorsed candidate of the local DSA chapter, and has been since her first election. She participates in their events (Q&As, DSA protests, DSA rallies) and seeks their endorsement. Let's check in on her last term: Tonight, U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) joined one thousand working class New Yorkers to discuss the broken political system that has failed working people and empowered Trump’s fascist movement. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez called on New Yorkers interested in fighting back to join NYC-DSA.
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez also discussed NYC-DSA’s ongoing campaigns to push New York State to build 15 gigawatts of affordable, union-built green energy, strengthen labor power through union campaigns at Starbucks and Amazon, end the genocide in Palestine, and win a massive investment in social housing to guarantee safe and affordable homes for all.
“We are up against an incredibly powerful political establishment. But times are changing. These are sites of real political struggles, in which an ascendant and organized working class can and will gain power. This is an opportunity to embark on a new mass movement of the working class,” said Representative Ocasio-Cortez. “DSA is a political home to take our own power back and organize. NYC-DSAI know you're big on "Who won the 2020 election," so here's a few easy ones for Jankisa Who has won the NYC-DSA endorsement 5 elections in a row? Who joined a NYC-DSA mass call (1,000) after her last election to urge listeners to join the DSA, "I Can’t Think of a Better Thing to Be Doing." Who called the DSA "a political home to take our own power back and organize?" Three frankly easy questions. But given your dodging, I might have to start calling you oBlade, Jankisa. This has become a trend for you. LMAO, so now instead of admitting that you were lying you will become a AOC = DSA truther and decide on your own that she is a member despite there being 0 evidence of that at all. Hint, if a question can be answered in 1 second by typing "is AOC in DSA" and answer is a very well documented "No" there is no amount of mental gymnastics that will change that. Let's do 4 questions instead: Who has won the NYC-DSA endorsement 5 elections in a row? AOC Who joined a NYC-DSA mass call (1,000) after her last election to urge listeners to join the DSA, "I Can’t Think of a Better Thing to Be Doing." AOC Who called the DSA "a political home to take our own power back and organize?" AOC Finally, we get some facts from you. Exciting! How have you obtained the private membership rolls of the DSA, or did you obtain this information from a news article that you are relying on? Did you hack their website, or burgle their offices? Do you personally possess clairvoyance or telepathy or otherwise psychic abilities that allowed you to come to this conclusion? You seem so confident that I think we all deserve to know how you're speaking with all this confidence. Unless you're talking out of your ass and hoping nobody notices.
Buddy, the burden of proof is on you, not on me. You made a statement which you can't prove and are now trying to thrown whatever sticks at the wall in order to pretend like you didn't do this.
|
Seems the second sentence of her Wikipedia is in on dyhb's big lie over here.
|
Northern Ireland27232 Posts
On July 28 2026 00:02 oBlade wrote:
Seems the second sentence of her Wikipedia is in on dyhb's big lie over here.
Who won the 2020 election?
|
On July 27 2026 23:36 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2026 23:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2026 23:04 LightSpectra wrote:On July 27 2026 22:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2026 22:23 LightSpectra wrote:On July 27 2026 22:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2026 21:56 LightSpectra wrote:On July 27 2026 21:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2026 12:32 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On July 27 2026 10:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
I want to believe DSA is a viable path towards non-reformist reforms. Democrats don't really have any real leadership other than to try to drag DSA supporters/politicians to objectively worse policies that Republicans wrote and will just reject and demand even shittier policy when Democrats try to cave and give them what they want.
That said, I'm pretty confident DSA will splinter into those that got sheepdogged back into being shitty Democrats and those that tried to tell them this would happen but went along anyway. "Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans, are the f*cking Judean People's Front. And the Judean Popular People's Front. AND the People's Front of Judea! Splitters!" See, now you think this is clever, but Trump is president after the biggest infighting Republicans have ever had. Nevermind the issues with Democrats believing Trump would/will/has destroy(ed) US democracy as they know it. What infighting? + Show Spoiler + A few Republicans talked shit about him but fell in line immediately after his first election. Jeff Flake was really concerned but kept voting for everything Trump wanted. The very, very few Republicans that actually turned on him like Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger were shunned so thoroughly by the rest of the party that they make the Jehovah's Witnesses look benevolent. I know you're not this oblivious, but for anyone that would think this in earnest... The Tea Party, into Trump v Bush/Establishment R's, into Trump controlling the party. Democrats need a similar transformation, but towards humanism/socialism. They really screwed us all by not rallying behind Bernie in 2016. But the Tea Party supported Ted Cruz before they switched to Trump. If you're following a similar precedent then the establishment/progressive in-fighting is going to lead to someone becoming POTUS that's barely tolerable to both of those sides, not a progressive. So you did know about the infighting... DSA is the closest thing Democrats have to the Tea Party (as most people understand it), but it's lacking some critical components that made the Tea Party work. You're missing the forest for the trees focusing on the individual champions. I'm coming to realize how people fundamentally misunderstand what happened from the Tea Party to now because they don't recognize what US politics actually is. The simple version is that the old "establishment Republicans" used their leverage over corporations (that they could regulate/tax/investigate them basically) to secure local "wins (formerly known as 'pork')" which in turn secured their reelections by making it prohibitively expensive to oust them, rather than just make some minor concessions that ultimately had negligible impact on the corporations' bottom lines. The Tea Party was billionaires exploiting an oblivious populism to systematically remove as much of the leverage that those establishment politicians and their constituencies had on them as possible. Okay so why did you bring up Republican infighting if their "success" in electing Trump is completely incomparable to what the DSA is doing to the Democratic Party? That's one of the benefits of maintaining a quote chain (why you so frequently choose not to is worth considering), it provides context. doubleupgradeobbies responded to me articulating some of my actual thoughts on DSA (as opposed to the caricature of them that was being bandied about) with a generic joke about infighting, so I pointed out how "infighting" isn't the problem (despite it getting the lion's share of the blame for a lack of political success in many people's views). But again, infighting only benefited the Republicans insofar that it got Trump through the door by being an outsider that could win the begrudging support of both sides. The overwhelmingly right-wing media landscape did the rest of the work in getting Republicans to fall in line. It's absolutely a problem for Democrats (to what extent is debatable) because there isn't an overwhelmingly left-wing media to do so the same thing for us (nor would a blue-MAGA personality cult be desirable, even if it did win a round or two of elections).
And again, you asked why I mentioned it. The reason was to illustrate that infighting wasn't the overwhelming problem it is portrayed to be, the real issues are simplistically intricate.
You're correct to point out this difference in media, but your imagination (and reading of my previous posts) fails you in coming up with what (I would believe) would be an appropriate counter for that for people that actually want to bring the best tenets of socialist thought into our societal structure.
At the core, is again, a fundamental misalignment between how many people view US politics and the actual mechanisms/systems/etc at play. Behind all the rhetoric, it's about leverage. Obviously a humanist/socialist perspective is never going to win playing in a system designed to accommodate competing factions of the Epstein Class by trying to build their own competing faction of "good Epstein Class people" within that system's rules.
On that note, it's worth hearing more about your thoughts on why you believe there isn't/won't/can't be comparable corporate/mainstream/left-wing media that reinforces humanist/the best socialist tenets pressuring Democrats to fall in line?
|
On July 28 2026 00:02 oBlade wrote:
Seems the second sentence of her Wikipedia is in on dyhb's big lie over here.
Who won the 2020 election? Wikipedia also has the answer to that one if you need help.
On July 28 2026 00:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
You're correct to point out this difference in media, but your imagination (and reading of my previous posts) fails you in coming up with what (I would believe) would be an appropriate counter for that for people that actually want to bring the best tenets of socialist thought into our societal structure.
Remind me what that appropriate counter would be?
At the core, is again, a fundamental misalignment between how many people view US politics and the actual mechanisms/systems/etc at play. Behind all the rhetoric, it's about leverage. Obviously a humanist/socialist perspective is never going to win playing in a system designed to accommodate competing factions of the Epstein Class by trying to build their own competing faction of "good Epstein Class people" within that system's rules.
20 years ago I probably would've agreed with this wholeheartedly, but Republicans have shown they can use their leverage to repeatedly screw over their own voters (not just the rank-and-file either, they have screwed over their own megacorporate backers in the weapons, agricultural, etc. industries) and that doesn't lose them those votes or support. The goldfish-brained swing voters don't remember any of it on election day either, just whatever gas prices look like and whatever the most recent scandal the media was talking about.
On that note, it's worth hearing more about your thoughts on why you believe there isn't/won't/can't be comparable corporate/mainstream/left-wing media that reinforces humanist/the best socialist tenets pressuring Democrats to fall in line?
There could be, it's hypothetically possible, but there just isn't at this time. Right now the strongest force in politics is social media and the ones owned by the far-right (Facebook, Instagram, Youtube, Twitter, Tiktok) completely mog all of the other ones (Reddit, Bluesky, the rest are barely even worth mentioning), which are still mostly owned by right-wingers, just not explicit Trump donors.
|
On July 27 2026 23:56 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2026 23:52 dyhb wrote:On July 27 2026 23:37 Jankisa wrote:On July 27 2026 23:10 dyhb wrote:On July 27 2026 22:16 Jankisa wrote:On July 27 2026 21:41 dyhb wrote:On July 27 2026 17:34 Jankisa wrote:On July 27 2026 04:56 dyhb wrote:On July 27 2026 03:58 Gorsameth wrote:
no, no matter how much GH might like to claim otherwise people with his opinions are a infinitesimally tiny part of the electorate.
"we will change the entire governmental system of the US" is enough for anyone remotely sane to tune out. Like I pointed out in the post, this includes AOC and Rashida Tlaib from the Squad. They're DSA members. So you lie, get called out for lying and are unable to concede, instead you go on to pretend like being endorsed by an organization means being a member. No wonder you are a Trump defender, narcissists recognize other narcissists. So you’ve read that the local DSA chapter endorsed, but that’s inconvenient for you, so it was ignored by you? Membership isn’t public, endorsements are. Amazing. Quoted you making shit up, you double down again. AOC is not a DSA member. You, when trying to attack the left (which is coincidentally 99 % of what you do) lied but are completely incapable, even when faced with your own words easily quotable form a few hours ago say, yup, I fucked up. Clown. Same as before, membership is private, endorsements are public. She's an endorsed candidate of the local DSA chapter, and has been since her first election. She participates in their events (Q&As, DSA protests, DSA rallies) and seeks their endorsement. Let's check in on her last term: Tonight, U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) joined one thousand working class New Yorkers to discuss the broken political system that has failed working people and empowered Trump’s fascist movement. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez called on New Yorkers interested in fighting back to join NYC-DSA.
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez also discussed NYC-DSA’s ongoing campaigns to push New York State to build 15 gigawatts of affordable, union-built green energy, strengthen labor power through union campaigns at Starbucks and Amazon, end the genocide in Palestine, and win a massive investment in social housing to guarantee safe and affordable homes for all.
“We are up against an incredibly powerful political establishment. But times are changing. These are sites of real political struggles, in which an ascendant and organized working class can and will gain power. This is an opportunity to embark on a new mass movement of the working class,” said Representative Ocasio-Cortez. “DSA is a political home to take our own power back and organize. NYC-DSAI know you're big on "Who won the 2020 election," so here's a few easy ones for Jankisa Who has won the NYC-DSA endorsement 5 elections in a row? Who joined a NYC-DSA mass call (1,000) after her last election to urge listeners to join the DSA, "I Can’t Think of a Better Thing to Be Doing." Who called the DSA "a political home to take our own power back and organize?" Three frankly easy questions. But given your dodging, I might have to start calling you oBlade, Jankisa. This has become a trend for you. LMAO, so now instead of admitting that you were lying you will become a AOC = DSA truther and decide on your own that she is a member despite there being 0 evidence of that at all. Hint, if a question can be answered in 1 second by typing "is AOC in DSA" and answer is a very well documented "No" there is no amount of mental gymnastics that will change that. Let's do 4 questions instead: Who has won the NYC-DSA endorsement 5 elections in a row? AOC Who joined a NYC-DSA mass call (1,000) after her last election to urge listeners to join the DSA, "I Can’t Think of a Better Thing to Be Doing." AOC Who called the DSA "a political home to take our own power back and organize?" AOC Finally, we get some facts from you. Exciting! Is AOC a member of DSA?
Nope.
Congratulations, you are a liar. How have you obtained the private membership rolls of the DSA, or did you obtain this information from a news article that you are relying on? Did you hack their website, or burgle their offices? Do you personally possess clairvoyance or telepathy or otherwise psychic abilities that allowed you to come to this conclusion? You seem so confident that I think we all deserve to know how you're speaking with all this confidence. Unless you're talking out of your ass and hoping nobody notices. Buddy, the burden of proof is on you, not on me. You made a statement which you can't prove and are now trying to thrown whatever sticks at the wall in order to pretend like you didn't do this. I'm perfectly happy for you to change "Nope" to "I don't know" on the question you asked yourself "Is AOC a member of DSA." It's more truthful, and I've already said that membership is private. I'm going off of endorsements, national prominence, refusal to distance, attending their events, soliciting their endorsement, and rallying to increase their membership. You know, the kinds of things from the biggest DSA chapter that would lead a reporter to call her its most famous member.
On July 28 2026 00:02 oBlade wrote:
Seems the second sentence of her Wikipedia is in on dyhb's big lie over here. Yes, I am part of a vast conspiracy to make the introductory paragraph of AOC's Wikipedia entry portray a lie. And I would've gotten away with it too if not for you meddling kids Jankisa and Sermokala! No, seriously, when did Wikipedia get taken over by "narcissists" and "Trump defenders," I want to know!
|
The second line on AOC's Wikipedia page doesn't have a source.
|
On July 28 2026 00:19 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2026 00:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2026 23:36 LightSpectra wrote:On July 27 2026 23:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2026 23:04 LightSpectra wrote:On July 27 2026 22:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2026 22:23 LightSpectra wrote:On July 27 2026 22:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2026 21:56 LightSpectra wrote:On July 27 2026 21:49 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
See, now you think this is clever, but Trump is president after the biggest infighting Republicans have ever had. Nevermind the issues with Democrats believing Trump would/will/has destroy(ed) US democracy as they know it. What infighting? + Show Spoiler + A few Republicans talked shit about him but fell in line immediately after his first election. Jeff Flake was really concerned but kept voting for everything Trump wanted. The very, very few Republicans that actually turned on him like Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger were shunned so thoroughly by the rest of the party that they make the Jehovah's Witnesses look benevolent. I know you're not this oblivious, but for anyone that would think this in earnest... The Tea Party, into Trump v Bush/Establishment R's, into Trump controlling the party. Democrats need a similar transformation, but towards humanism/socialism. They really screwed us all by not rallying behind Bernie in 2016. But the Tea Party supported Ted Cruz before they switched to Trump. If you're following a similar precedent then the establishment/progressive in-fighting is going to lead to someone becoming POTUS that's barely tolerable to both of those sides, not a progressive. So you did know about the infighting... DSA is the closest thing Democrats have to the Tea Party (as most people understand it), but it's lacking some critical components that made the Tea Party work. You're missing the forest for the trees focusing on the individual champions. I'm coming to realize how people fundamentally misunderstand what happened from the Tea Party to now because they don't recognize what US politics actually is. The simple version is that the old "establishment Republicans" used their leverage over corporations (that they could regulate/tax/investigate them basically) to secure local "wins (formerly known as 'pork')" which in turn secured their reelections by making it prohibitively expensive to oust them, rather than just make some minor concessions that ultimately had negligible impact on the corporations' bottom lines. The Tea Party was billionaires exploiting an oblivious populism to systematically remove as much of the leverage that those establishment politicians and their constituencies had on them as possible. Okay so why did you bring up Republican infighting if their "success" in electing Trump is completely incomparable to what the DSA is doing to the Democratic Party? That's one of the benefits of maintaining a quote chain (why you so frequently choose not to is worth considering), it provides context. doubleupgradeobbies responded to me articulating some of my actual thoughts on DSA (as opposed to the caricature of them that was being bandied about) with a generic joke about infighting, so I pointed out how "infighting" isn't the problem (despite it getting the lion's share of the blame for a lack of political success in many people's views). But again, infighting only benefited the Republicans insofar that it got Trump through the door by being an outsider that could win the begrudging support of both sides. The overwhelmingly right-wing media landscape did the rest of the work in getting Republicans to fall in line. It's absolutely a problem for Democrats (to what extent is debatable) because there isn't an overwhelmingly left-wing media to do so the same thing for us (nor would a blue-MAGA personality cult be desirable, even if it did win a round or two of elections). And again, you asked why I mentioned it. The reason was to illustrate that infighting wasn't the overwhelming problem it is portrayed to be, the real issues are simplistically intricate. You're correct to point out this difference in media, but your imagination (and reading of my previous posts) fails you in coming up with what (I would believe) would be an appropriate counter for that for people that actually want to bring the best tenets of socialist thought into our societal structure. At the core, is again, a fundamental misalignment between how many people view US politics and the actual mechanisms/systems/etc at play. Behind all the rhetoric, it's about leverage. Obviously a humanist/socialist perspective is never going to win playing in a system designed to accommodate competing factions of the Epstein Class by trying to build their own competing faction of "good Epstein Class people" within that system's rules. On that note, it's worth hearing more about your thoughts on why you believe there isn't/won't/can't be comparable corporate/mainstream/left-wing media that reinforces humanist/the best socialist tenets pressuring Democrats to fall in line? Remind me what that appropriate counter would be? 20 years ago I probably would've agreed with this wholeheartedly, but Republicans have shown they can use their leverage to repeatedly screw over their own voters (not just the rank-and-file either, they have screwed over their own megacorporate backers in the weapons, agricultural, etc. industries) and that doesn't lose them those votes or support. The goldfish-brained swing voters don't remember any of it on election day either, just whatever gas prices look like and whatever the most recent scandal the media was talking about. There could be, it's hypothetically possible, but there just isn't at this time. Right now the strongest force in politics is social media and the ones owned by the far-right (Facebook, Instagram, Youtube, Twitter, Tiktok) completely mog all of the other ones (Reddit, Bluesky, the rest are barely even worth mentioning), which are still mostly owned by right-wingers, just not explicit Trump donors. I support revolutionary socialism as the appropriate counter. The specific tactics that includes varies depending on perspective, but it starts in many ways, including with individuals recognizing the fundamental structures of US politics and capitalism. That's been at the core of my focus on leverage in US political history as I've described previously (rather than how you're thinking about it).
DSA is not that. But plenty of people I respect the work of think that it could(/must) be. So for those that think there's some sort of better reformist path option, DSA and the sort of uncomfortable infighting (that I would say you rightly/unintentionally point out is part of why the reformist path is a dead end) is the best version of that they're getting.
|
If all of the excesses and corruption of an Epstein accomplice POTUS didn't spur people into revolutionary socialism, then what will?
|
On July 28 2026 00:36 LightSpectra wrote:
The second line on AOC's Wikipedia page doesn't have a source. When you get done editing that article, make sure to also change "List of Democratic Socialists of America public officeholders." It has some very problematic references to "member." We wouldn't want two Wikipedia articles filled with lies.
|
On July 28 2026 00:20 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2026 23:56 Jankisa wrote:On July 27 2026 23:52 dyhb wrote:On July 27 2026 23:37 Jankisa wrote:On July 27 2026 23:10 dyhb wrote:On July 27 2026 22:16 Jankisa wrote:On July 27 2026 21:41 dyhb wrote:On July 27 2026 17:34 Jankisa wrote:On July 27 2026 04:56 dyhb wrote:On July 27 2026 03:58 Gorsameth wrote:
no, no matter how much GH might like to claim otherwise people with his opinions are a infinitesimally tiny part of the electorate.
"we will change the entire governmental system of the US" is enough for anyone remotely sane to tune out. Like I pointed out in the post, this includes AOC and Rashida Tlaib from the Squad. They're DSA members. So you lie, get called out for lying and are unable to concede, instead you go on to pretend like being endorsed by an organization means being a member. No wonder you are a Trump defender, narcissists recognize other narcissists. So you’ve read that the local DSA chapter endorsed, but that’s inconvenient for you, so it was ignored by you? Membership isn’t public, endorsements are. Amazing. Quoted you making shit up, you double down again. AOC is not a DSA member. You, when trying to attack the left (which is coincidentally 99 % of what you do) lied but are completely incapable, even when faced with your own words easily quotable form a few hours ago say, yup, I fucked up. Clown. Same as before, membership is private, endorsements are public. She's an endorsed candidate of the local DSA chapter, and has been since her first election. She participates in their events (Q&As, DSA protests, DSA rallies) and seeks their endorsement. Let's check in on her last term: Tonight, U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) joined one thousand working class New Yorkers to discuss the broken political system that has failed working people and empowered Trump’s fascist movement. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez called on New Yorkers interested in fighting back to join NYC-DSA.
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez also discussed NYC-DSA’s ongoing campaigns to push New York State to build 15 gigawatts of affordable, union-built green energy, strengthen labor power through union campaigns at Starbucks and Amazon, end the genocide in Palestine, and win a massive investment in social housing to guarantee safe and affordable homes for all.
“We are up against an incredibly powerful political establishment. But times are changing. These are sites of real political struggles, in which an ascendant and organized working class can and will gain power. This is an opportunity to embark on a new mass movement of the working class,” said Representative Ocasio-Cortez. “DSA is a political home to take our own power back and organize. NYC-DSAI know you're big on "Who won the 2020 election," so here's a few easy ones for Jankisa Who has won the NYC-DSA endorsement 5 elections in a row? Who joined a NYC-DSA mass call (1,000) after her last election to urge listeners to join the DSA, "I Can’t Think of a Better Thing to Be Doing." Who called the DSA "a political home to take our own power back and organize?" Three frankly easy questions. But given your dodging, I might have to start calling you oBlade, Jankisa. This has become a trend for you. LMAO, so now instead of admitting that you were lying you will become a AOC = DSA truther and decide on your own that she is a member despite there being 0 evidence of that at all. Hint, if a question can be answered in 1 second by typing "is AOC in DSA" and answer is a very well documented "No" there is no amount of mental gymnastics that will change that. Let's do 4 questions instead: Who has won the NYC-DSA endorsement 5 elections in a row? AOC Who joined a NYC-DSA mass call (1,000) after her last election to urge listeners to join the DSA, "I Can’t Think of a Better Thing to Be Doing." AOC Who called the DSA "a political home to take our own power back and organize?" AOC Finally, we get some facts from you. Exciting! Is AOC a member of DSA?
Nope.
Congratulations, you are a liar. How have you obtained the private membership rolls of the DSA, or did you obtain this information from a news article that you are relying on? Did you hack their website, or burgle their offices? Do you personally possess clairvoyance or telepathy or otherwise psychic abilities that allowed you to come to this conclusion? You seem so confident that I think we all deserve to know how you're speaking with all this confidence. Unless you're talking out of your ass and hoping nobody notices. Buddy, the burden of proof is on you, not on me. You made a statement which you can't prove and are now trying to thrown whatever sticks at the wall in order to pretend like you didn't do this. I'm perfectly happy for you to change "Nope" to "I don't know" on the question you asked yourself "Is AOC a member of DSA." It's more truthful, and I've already said that membership is private. I'm going off of endorsements, national prominence, refusal to distance, attending their events, soliciting their endorsement, and rallying to increase their membership. You know, the kinds of things from the biggest DSA chapter that would lead a reporter to call her its most famous member. Show nested quote +On July 28 2026 00:02 oBlade wrote:
Seems the second sentence of her Wikipedia is in on dyhb's big lie over here. Yes, I am part of a vast conspiracy to make the introductory paragraph of AOC's Wikipedia entry portray a lie. And I would've gotten away with it too if not for you meddling kids Jankisa and Sermokala! No, seriously, when did Wikipedia get taken over by "narcissists" and "Trump defenders," I want to know!
I have no problem making a declarative statement if something is proven.
I apologize for calling you a liar, as you seem to be 100 % convinced that she is a member, so you didn't lie, just made a statement because it fits in with your general worldview.
When you google AOC and DSA, one of the first articles that I'm sure you've seen but choose to ignore is the one saying that she represents Democratic Party, not DSA:
https://www.dsausa.org/blog/ocasio-cortez-is-committed-to-the-democratic-party-not-dsa/
On the other hand, the only proper article that is not a smear attempt by Washington examiner going over her potential 2028 campaign calls her a DSA member:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jul/21/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-for-president
So, I'll go with them, I believe her leaving them since 2018 would be national news, so she is most likely still a DSA member, albeit one that is critical of their national leadership and strategy.
This whole exercise, to me, shows how much of a thorn in the eye of fake centrists she is, she has distanced herself from DSA by quite a margin, and yet you guys are desperate to make sure she is associated with them because you feel threatened by her, which is good.
|
On July 28 2026 01:12 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2026 00:36 LightSpectra wrote:
The second line on AOC's Wikipedia page doesn't have a source. When you get done editing that article, make sure to also change "List of Democratic Socialists of America public officeholders." It has some very problematic references to "member." We wouldn't want two Wikipedia articles filled with lies.
There are two sources in that article. One is from 2021 that refers to her being a member of DSA when she won in 2018. The other is a link to DSA's webpage from 2024 that says they will endorse her if she does four things.
On July 28 2026 01:12 Jankisa wrote:
This whole exercise, to me, shows how much of a thorn in the eye of fake centrists she is, she has distanced herself from DSA by quite a margin, and yet you guys are desperate to make sure she is associated with them because you feel threatened by her, which is good.
Yeah, probably best to not get lost in the sauce here. I don't know if she's still a registered member of the DSA, but the losers here keep bringing her up every time she pauses before talking or says something that could be easily misquoted because they are desperately afraid of intelligent left-wing women.
|
On July 28 2026 01:08 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2026 00:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 28 2026 00:19 LightSpectra wrote:On July 28 2026 00:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2026 23:36 LightSpectra wrote:On July 27 2026 23:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2026 23:04 LightSpectra wrote:On July 27 2026 22:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 27 2026 22:23 LightSpectra wrote:On July 27 2026 22:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]I know you're not this oblivious, but for anyone that would think this in earnest...
The Tea Party, into Trump v Bush/Establishment R's, into Trump controlling the party.
Democrats need a similar transformation, but towards humanism/socialism. They really screwed us all by not rallying behind Bernie in 2016. But the Tea Party supported Ted Cruz before they switched to Trump. If you're following a similar precedent then the establishment/progressive in-fighting is going to lead to someone becoming POTUS that's barely tolerable to both of those sides, not a progressive. So you did know about the infighting... DSA is the closest thing Democrats have to the Tea Party (as most people understand it), but it's lacking some critical components that made the Tea Party work. You're missing the forest for the trees focusing on the individual champions. I'm coming to realize how people fundamentally misunderstand what happened from the Tea Party to now because they don't recognize what US politics actually is. The simple version is that the old "establishment Republicans" used their leverage over corporations (that they could regulate/tax/investigate them basically) to secure local "wins (formerly known as 'pork')" which in turn secured their reelections by making it prohibitively expensive to oust them, rather than just make some minor concessions that ultimately had negligible impact on the corporations' bottom lines. The Tea Party was billionaires exploiting an oblivious populism to systematically remove as much of the leverage that those establishment politicians and their constituencies had on them as possible. Okay so why did you bring up Republican infighting if their "success" in electing Trump is completely incomparable to what the DSA is doing to the Democratic Party? That's one of the benefits of maintaining a quote chain (why you so frequently choose not to is worth considering), it provides context. doubleupgradeobbies responded to me articulating some of my actual thoughts on DSA (as opposed to the caricature of them that was being bandied about) with a generic joke about infighting, so I pointed out how "infighting" isn't the problem (despite it getting the lion's share of the blame for a lack of political success in many people's views). But again, infighting only benefited the Republicans insofar that it got Trump through the door by being an outsider that could win the begrudging support of both sides. The overwhelmingly right-wing media landscape did the rest of the work in getting Republicans to fall in line. It's absolutely a problem for Democrats (to what extent is debatable) because there isn't an overwhelmingly left-wing media to do so the same thing for us (nor would a blue-MAGA personality cult be desirable, even if it did win a round or two of elections). And again, you asked why I mentioned it. The reason was to illustrate that infighting wasn't the overwhelming problem it is portrayed to be, the real issues are simplistically intricate. You're correct to point out this difference in media, but your imagination (and reading of my previous posts) fails you in coming up with what (I would believe) would be an appropriate counter for that for people that actually want to bring the best tenets of socialist thought into our societal structure. At the core, is again, a fundamental misalignment between how many people view US politics and the actual mechanisms/systems/etc at play. Behind all the rhetoric, it's about leverage. Obviously a humanist/socialist perspective is never going to win playing in a system designed to accommodate competing factions of the Epstein Class by trying to build their own competing faction of "good Epstein Class people" within that system's rules. On that note, it's worth hearing more about your thoughts on why you believe there isn't/won't/can't be comparable corporate/mainstream/left-wing media that reinforces humanist/the best socialist tenets pressuring Democrats to fall in line? Remind me what that appropriate counter would be? 20 years ago I probably would've agreed with this wholeheartedly, but Republicans have shown they can use their leverage to repeatedly screw over their own voters (not just the rank-and-file either, they have screwed over their own megacorporate backers in the weapons, agricultural, etc. industries) and that doesn't lose them those votes or support. The goldfish-brained swing voters don't remember any of it on election day either, just whatever gas prices look like and whatever the most recent scandal the media was talking about. There could be, it's hypothetically possible, but there just isn't at this time. Right now the strongest force in politics is social media and the ones owned by the far-right (Facebook, Instagram, Youtube, Twitter, Tiktok) completely mog all of the other ones (Reddit, Bluesky, the rest are barely even worth mentioning), which are still mostly owned by right-wingers, just not explicit Trump donors. I support revolutionary socialism as the appropriate counter. The specific tactics that includes varies depending on perspective, but it starts in many ways, including with individuals recognizing the fundamental structures of US politics and capitalism. That's been at the core of my focus on leverage in US political history as I've described previously (rather than how you're thinking about it). DSA is not that. But plenty of people I respect the work of think that it could(/must) be. So for those that think there's some sort of better reformist path option, DSA and the sort of uncomfortable infighting (that I would say you rightly/unintentionally point out is part of why the reformist path is a dead end) is the best version of that they're getting. If all of the excesses and corruption of an Epstein accomplice POTUS didn't spur people into revolutionary socialism, then what will?
(ongoing) Deliberate and multi-generational efforts (like those I mentioned) by informed and dedicated workers aligning with circumstances ideally help brought about by those diligent efforts.
Nothing will magically 'spur' people into a revolution. Thinking a scandal will change the world is liberal idealism. As you pointed out, the Epstein Class owns the media, the algorithms, and the grocery stores (and in effect, the farms/factories that fill them). They know how to manage public anger and turn it into various forms of "harmless digital noise". The only thing that changes this is a brutal, multi-generational grind. We have to build/ramp up independent survival networks right now so people don't starve when they strike. We don't wait for the system to collapse. We diligently build the collective capacity to protect workers by choking off corporate profits, so that when the system finally fractures under its own greed, the working class has the raw physical leverage to take over instead of the fascists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
