Biden only won because of Covid, and the economic conditions made it harder for Kamala. 2024 was always going to be an uphill battle because of inflation, I have no doubts Biden would’ve lost even without the cognitive decline.

Yeah, I mean that approach worked so well in 2016 and 2024, why not give it another shot?

There will ALWAYS and I mean ALWAYS be conflict going on over the Middle-East with everyone there. It is NEVER-ENDING. We’ve wasted nearly 20 years dicking around with Afghanistan and Iraq. All for what? So the Taliban can take over territory in less than a week after all that effort? What a waste!

Sorry, I’m having a lot of trouble trying to connect the dots between the US waging decades long wars of aggression in the Middle East and accomplished nothing with the idea that it’s acceptable to keep sending weapons and fueling conflict through a proxy.

The fact that they’ve been memeing about Trump having a third term tells you how excited they are about their actual prospects.

Three female senators won in swing states Kamala lost (Wisconsin, Nevada, Michigan), a Hispanic man won a fourth (Arizona), while white men lost in Pennsylvania and Ohio. Biden also was polling poorly when he dropped out.

I don’t know why I bother making that point because the response is invariably “Well people are just sexist/racist about the position of president” limiting the data set to one single point (two if you include Clinton, though probably not three because Obama doesn’t count). In this way, all conflicting evidence is shut out.

It’s just a way to avoid any actually useful critique of the Democrats’ platform, to shift blame to the voters rather than looking at what could actually be improved upon, because that might make somebody look bad. Which is ironic, because I seem to recall that one reason Harris refused to distance herself from Biden in any way (which contributed to her loss) was wanting to protect his “legacy.”

The truth is that Kamala Harris was a bad candidate with bad political instincts running a bad strategy. She never would’ve even been the nominee if there’d been a real primary. She went all in on Dick Cheney of all people who virtually no one, right or left, actually likes, while she completely alienated anyone who was pro-Palestine when it would’ve cost her nothing to pretend to care and the hardcore Zionists weren’t going to vote for her anyway. She doubled down on Biden’s economic policy and ran on more of the same despite the fact that people’s groceries had gotten more expensive. All of those things played a bigger role in her loss than her race or gender, and until we acknowledge that, we’re just gonna keep getting shitty candidates who do the same and lose.

As usual the libs are projecting when they talk about leftists defending every single thing a country does. The reality is that they want everything a US rival does to be bad, every single time, and if you step away from that, no matter the objective facts, you’re a “tankie.”

The biggest one for me is when I see people glazing Bush, like either you’re a teenager or you weren’t paying attention.

No, they appreciate yours.

Anyone who was so deeply involved in the wars in orchestrating the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should be tried as a war criminal. Bush, Cheney, Obama, Biden, Trump, they were all responsible for mass murder and should each receive whatever punishment is deemed appropriate for hundreds of thousands of murder charges.

And he’s snuggling with pigs on pig farms. I think there are some people who would say that such actions are only possible on exploited pigs who are headed for the slaughterhouse, and therefore, because he has made himself part of the meat system, he wouldn’t be a vegan, either.

What on earth? That’s like saying that activists who give water to pigs in slaughterhouse trucks aren’t vegan because “they’ve made themselves part of the meat system.”

You can snuggle pigs that aren’t headed to the slaughterhouse, so in no way does such an action necessitate or expedite harm to animals.

Well, that would certainly be an interesting new direction to try after 250 years of the opposite.

Definitely don’t believe these people have done much to earn the benefit of the doubt.

I’m not giving them the benefit of the doubt, even remotely.

I would say it’s harder to believe a sex trafficking pedophile island run by a bunch of billionaires to serve the world’s elite, ever existed in the first place

I don’t find that hard to believe at all, that seems very consistent with the sort of things billionaires do.

If a scientist famously attempted to do it, not sure why you would think these people wouldn’t?

This is what you’re not getting. It’s not a question of whether they would or wouldn’t do it based on morals. Absolutely no question that they would. The thing is they could’ve literally just dumped bodies into mass graves, what, are cops going to be snooping around? Or thrown them into the sea, whatever they feel like. It’s purely a question of practicality.

There’s simpler and more mundane explanations anyway, like desalinization. Again it’s not a question of “giving them the benefit of the doubt.”

Sulphuric acid is not particularly good at dissolving bodies. It’s hard to believe that a bunch of billionaires on a private island with bodies to dispose of would chose that as a method.

Agree that Epstein was clearly murdered.

Did this guy just call the KPD liberals?

That’s not really true at all. Republican voters are the ones who wanted - and demanded - to have Trump as the nominee. Many establishment figures in the RNC did not want him. However, if they had taken steps to deny him the nomination, there’s a very real chance that he would have run third party and split the vote. Hell, his supporters showed up to the 2016 convention armed and in numbers, in part in case the establishment tried something last minute.

On the Democrats’ side, the DNC have basically hand-picked establishment candidates for the past three elections, and they do it because they expect people to bend the knee and fall in line behind the lesser evil. Bernie was never going to run third party, and his supporters were never going to show up with guns at the convention. He actively campaigned for Hilary and they still blamed him, even though the number of Bernie-Trump voters was much smaller than the number of Clinton-McCain ones, and Clinton sure as hell didn’t stump for Barack.

If Republicans are more loyal to the Republican party, it’s because the party responded to what they wanted. And the reason that they did so is because the “my way or the highway” mentality is so much more prevalent on the right. Liberals cannot ever shut up about the “lesser evil” and making the “rational” choice, while Conservatives don’t give a fuck about that shit. Conservatives don’t masturbate over how they’re so rational that they’ll humbly accept things they find morally abhorrent in order to prevent a greater evil the way liberals do, they say, “You can take my guns out of my cold dead hands,” and their politicians listen to those red lines, at least to a degree.

Meanwhile, establishment Democrats have an actively hostile relationship with the left, and liberals still demand that we support them unconditionally.

Look you can argue this point as much as you like but you’re wrong. I’m citing actual theory and you’re going off what “feels right” to you. What you personally believe is “feasible” or “not feasible” is completely irrelevant.

If you won’t believe one of the authors of the Communist Manifesto, then maybe you’ll believe Wikipedia, which says in the first line:

In Marxist thought, a communist society or the communist system is the type of society and economic system postulated to emerge from technological advances in the productive forces, representing the ultimate goal of the political ideology of communism. A communist society is characterized by common ownership of the means of production with free access[1][2] to the articles of consumption and is classless, stateless, and moneyless,[3][4][5][6] implying the end of the exploitation of labour.[7][8]

As I’ve explained to you several times, this is the end goal, an ideal to work towards, and not a policy to be implemented right away. Let me try to explain this to you.

Right now, you need money for everything. You need it for rent, you need it for food, you need it for transportation, for entertainment, for luxuries, etc. This makes people very dependent on the capitalist system, on wage labor, it makes it so that you have no choice but to sell your labor to survive. People will put up with a lot to keep their jobs because they’re afraid they’ll end up on the street otherwise. Some people will even put up with things like sexual harassment at work, or they’ll stay in an unhealthy relationship so they have a place to stay, or sell drugs, whatever. Ain’t no rest for the wicked.

Now, imagine that the state implements a free housing program. Now that you’re no longer dependent on money to avoid being homeless, you are no longer as desperate for it. Of course, there’s still plenty of stuff you can buy with it, but you have a safety net, and with that safety net, the balance of power at your job has shifted - if you get on your bosses bad side, you’ll be faced with a meager living situation but not a desperate one. Because money is no longer used to buy housing, it has become a little bit less critical to your life.

Now, imagine that, one by one, over time, more and more things are moved out of the financial sphere and distributed based on need or fairness. With each step, money becomes a little more “superfluous.” You don’t need it for food or rent, you don’t need it to get to work, you don’t need it to pay for internet, etc. It becomes something that’s used only for luxuries, collectables, imported goods, that sort of thing. Nobody goes around seizing everybody’s money, it just becomes more and more limited in its applications.

Eventually, is it really so impossible to imagine a world where money is so limited that it doesn’t really matter anymore? Where it has become “superfluous” and is eventually eliminated altogether? Obviously, such a transformation could not happen overnight. But we can certainly take steps to move in that direction, like the housing program I suggested. And taking steps in the direction of that vision is what Marx and Engles advocated for. Objectively. Indisputably. Even if you personally can’t imagine it, others have.

If you’re going to keep insisting that I’m wrong, then I have to ask where your ideas about what communism is come from, because they certainly don’t come from reading theory. And I don’t mind explaining things to people, but I do mind when people try to assert that I’m wrong about something without knowing basic facts about what we’re talking about.

How can you assume this is what they ment?

What do you mean? How can I assume that when Engles wrote “money will become superfluous” he meant “money will become superfluous?” Or how can I assume that he’s talking about a distant ideal rather than an immediate course of action? For the latter, it’s literally in the same piece of theory that I linked:

Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations, are the following:

(vi) Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.

That’s the short term, immediate measure he’s advocating for, in contrast to the long term idea of “money will become superfluous.”

You are talking about something else entirely n Communism does not advocate for the loss of personal finances.

I never said anything like that.

Communism isn’t what the u.s government and school systems has told you it is.

Lol? I’m literally citing theory. Where on earth did you get the idea that I’m relying on “what the US government and school systems told me it is?” Of course it isn’t that. I’m going off of actual communist theory.

It’s not giving up all your wealth and work to “the state” so it can be evenly distributed.

I never said anything like that.

I don’t think Marx advocated for no money to exist or be exchanged.

It sounds like your interpretation of communism is a hippie commune or co-ops. Not really the same thing.

Again, Engles:

Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.

This is, of course, the distant ideal and not what Marx and Engles advocated for doing immediately. This is why it’s important to understand the distinction between the ideal of communism and what communists advocate for in the present material conditions.

And because of Citizens United, and Israel, “elected officials by the people” might be a subjective interpretation of our current politicians.

And this is precisely why some form of authority has to exist in order to stop the bourgeoisie and reactionaries from influencing the political system. Even if you got rid of Citizens United and made bribery illegal again, the rich would still exert influence on politics through the press and through their control of the means of production. Citizens United is a symptom of that problem, not the cause. There’s a broader reason why Citizens United became a thing in the first place.