Suspending the Election
- Thread starter Trunkage
- Start date
Lenny from Legion
Edit: Probably combine this avatar and my last, Roy Mustang, you'd probably get a close approximately of my personality
All those environmental regulations and treaties that are insufficient to prevent global climate change? Those? Yeah.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,481
- 3,436
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
I know I know, you would prefer no regulations and treaties. Because you are sure that people will prevent it by positive thinking.
This is a lie and racist. The only time non-whites votes in greater numbers than whites was black Americans voting for Obama. Minorities vote at lower rates due to a combination of voter suppression and disillusionment with a failing democracy, same as everyone else, but because our politicians actually fail miserably to cater to them and instead reach out to white suburban fascists, they show up less often. Stop fucking lying.
Also, remember the original left coalition built by FDR that got obliterated under LBJ due to his being a racist Cold Warrior who got us into Vietnam? You gonna blame the black activists he slandered, socialists he jailed, leaders his FBI straight up fucking assassinated, for the state of things, or are you gonna blame the racist, sexist, murderous man who fucked it all up because the guys with the money said fuck us up some Vietnam? No, it the fragmentary left that’s the problem, not that bourgeois democracy is meant to destroy any solidarity between peoples so the rich can stay rich and democratic leadership is fucking fine with being pawns in that game.
I'd prefer sufficient actions rather than insufficient ones precisely because I'm sure that people will not prevent it by positive thinking.
Because Bourgeois democracy is a farce and if oppressed people routinely came out and voted in their own self interest it would be “the end of the Republic.” Thank you for the easy question. It’s the same reason the Dems torpedoed their own primaries for a few decades.
Also, you and the paid poster are literally describing the left’s unwillingness to support people who want them dead or imprisoned as “throwing a fit,” so fuck off with the high minded Greek words and join in the mud pit if you’re gonna throw it around anyway.
They are “fractured” because bourgeois democracy perpetuates itself through the devastation of meaningful solidarity. If the social democrats of Scandinavia were ever a real threat to the social order, the CIA would’ve killed them already.
“Waaaah, waaaaah, the Bernie Bros won’t vote against their own interests, waaaaah.”
BIDEN WANTS TO THROW BLM PROTESTERS IN JAIL AND OBAMA DID JUST THAT
When asked why the left will not vote for “the lesser of two evils” consider that this lesser evil fucking hates them and keeps murdering them and throwing them in prison. Fuck. Literally planned on voting for the guy until HE HIMSELF TOLD ME AND MY ENTIRE CITY TO FUCK OFF.
bUt TrUmp! OrAnGe MaN bAd!
I know when I'm told to pick which hand I want chopped off, I say my left without thinking since I'm right handed. It only makes sense.
Voting in this shithole country is just barely in anyone’s interest, but to the vaguest extent that it is and that it can be organized, it seems to be in their interest to vote for those running against Republicans in general elections. I’ll not take to lecturing the voting patterns of oppressed communities that are not my own.
This operates under the presumption that Biden is in fact not my enemy and will in fact be more lenient. Let us also consider that virtually none of the leaders from Ferguson or the trade protests of the 90’s, both left wing movements under democratic administrations, are still around. Now how’d that happen? If Biden is committing to jailing the anarchists, as Obama, Clinton, and LBJ did before him, as Democratic mayors (including my own) already are, then I’m not seeing how the co-opting of leftist rhetoric makes him a preferable alternative.
Tangentially, I’m highly suspicious of anyone who swaps around the order on LGBTQ unless it is to highlight the importance of transfolk to the movement, so your continuing to do so screams Lib chud to me.
It’s absurdly applicable here, and I’ve no regret parroting the words of Marx given how much less dated those are compared to the spooky bemused thoughts of pedophilic slave owners.
I’m not accepting their rhetoric as the destruction of property is an entirely valid form of protest and I refuse to bow to the bourgeois morality that says otherwise. All successful protest movements against capitalist hegemony function by wielding the power of the people to cut into profit margins and demand change. If it freed a subcontinent it can work here. Calling the burning of a police headquarters a “violent riot” is in fact bourgeois rhetoric and morality and I have no patience for it from you while you try to lecture me about what is going on in my city and who needs to be dealt with for things to be resolved peacefully.
And once again, he said he wanted to jail anarchists. He didn’t specify what activity they would have to partake in to deserve this, just anarchists. While I’m no fan of Bakunin the anti-Semite or Proudhon the enemy of tile throwers, I’m opposed to the jailing of either, same with the blanket jailing of all their successors.
Genuine question: Do you think any Presidential candidate, regardless of political party or independent status, could publicly come out with the above and stand any chance of getting elected in the US?
This is technically true, but overlooks quite a lot of context. Were they poverty stricken and corrupt as a result purely of their revolutionary origins? There's usually a lot more to it than that. In Cuba's case, for example, it'll have more to do with being under constant external threat.
I would agree that democratic socialism has a much better track record for long-lasting improvement to quality of life. But I wouldn't agree that destruction of property delegitimises a movement or inevitably leads to self-destruction. There are too many counter examples to the latter (like the ANC).
Last edited:
This line right here I think is where Progressives and Democrats really split
Democrats want to play both sides. So instead of actually embracing shit that would help people like Progressives want, they do half-assed measures (that then get negotiated down to quarter-assed measures when they negotiate with the Republicans) that help a little bit but don't actually fix any problems. They then whine that the little bit they did is better than the nothing so vote for them you ungrateful losers or else!
So either vote for Democrats and get a tiny bit of harm reduction (while signaling to Democrats that you're going to be willing to accept their crumbs so they have no reason to change and actually have to fight to fix things and risk pissing off their Corporate Overlords) or you vote Third Party (which, as much as I'd like to pretend otherwise, is not something that is ever going to work until there is some major change in politics but that major change has to come from the two parties that gain nothing and potentially lose everything to make these changes so yeah, that'll never happen. I'm not brainwashed enough to use the "A vote for Third Party is a vote for Trump!" bullshit but I do recognize that voting Third Party does hurt The Democrats chances).
EDIT: What the hell? Did The Escapist add some kind of swear filter to the system? I guess I'll change my naughty word into something else because ***** looks dumb as hell
"became"?
No, the gigantic sugar plantation under Batista was 'poverty-stricken' already, not to mention extremely corrupt-- no matter what the slave-owner-descended ruling class might have thought. The Tsar's Russia was literally just a few decades out from formal serfdom (and was still basically agrarian) and the Soviets rather dramatically grew their economy in the ensuing years.
The USA is an example of an independence movement, not so much revolution.
Of course Trump is whining about the possibility of voter fraud from postal voting, and not the in-person voting machines that cybersecurity experts and hackers have spent years demonstrating catastrophic vulnerabilities in, because you can't engage in voter suppression with postal voting.
Of course, the irony is that he votes absentee and so do a lot of military members(because Military members can choose any state as their home state while in service), not to mention a fair number of seniors.
But it's okay for them, because they're more likely to vote Republican.
There's apparently been some grumbling from GOP state campaigns saying that Trumps "Mail in votes= Voter Fraud" might end up suppressing GOP voting numbers because likely GOP numbers won't vote by mail because of Trump's idiotic "Voter Fraud" ranting and are thus less likely to vote at all.