I’m sure Vance was lying, but if these were anything like the Presidential debates, there would definitely be a strong Democrat bias. You can’t possibly think that Walz didn’t get fact checked because he was a perfect little angel with flawlessly honest rhetoric, right?
Disclaimer: I didn’t watch very much of the debate because, as others said, it was boring, but Harris sure as shit lied in her debate.
I was lazy picking Wikipedia when everyone knows it’s got an American brainrot problem. That’s entirely my fault.
It is true that “conservative opposition to liberalism” is a thing that has exist and currently exists, but the issue is that “conservative” is a relative term, it refers not to an absolute ideological tendency (like liberalism does) but to the necessarily relative value of seeking to conserve the current order of things. This is relative because the order of things can be different, and that changes the question of if you want to conserve it (conservative), go back to some past state, real or imagined (reactionary), or advance to some future state of greater development (progressive).
So when liberal revolutionaries set the west on fire, conservatives were in conflict with them because the conservatives were trying to preserve the feudal/aristocratic/monarchic order that the liberals opposed. Now that the liberals in the west are no longer revolutionaries but overwhelmingly the establishment and without any serious contest, the acting of promoting liberalism over other ideologies is conservative and the old position of promoting a feudal/aristocratic/monarchic order is reactionary. The rise of neoliberalism, in particular, represents the overwhelming historical victory of liberalism over both reactionary and progressive forces (“There is no alternative,” the perfect conservative slogan).
Of course, a political ideology can be a mix of conservative and reactionary or conservative and progressive (I’ll let you decide on reactionary/progressive), and I’d say that former pair is pretty important for understanding the ideology of the Republicans, but don’t let that exaggerate in your mind the piddling degree to which the latter pair applies to Democrats.
Is that a better explanation? Whether this is how you personally want to use the words or not, this will help you understand how socialists use them.
Generally, the people posting this sort of thing also support land back or some variant of it, and will be on the side of the indigenous population in any dispute with western colonizers.
It’s an understandable mistake regardless, but just for your reference, the “What is your story?” at the end informally indicates it only wants affirmative answers because that’s how you’d have a “story” to tell in this regard. There are often hints like that in a question like this.
Nearly everyone would like a roof, heat/cooling (climate dependent), beds of some kind, etc. I don’t give a shit about seasonal decorations for a portion of the population until everyone who wants those gets them.
The Hillsborough disaster?
idk what your reference point is, but ime people want homes
and they are tied to “state owned companies”
“State Owned Enterprises” is the term. Anyway, is this actually true? My impression was that the billionaires had private companies (Alibaba, etc.) and SOEs did not produce them.
First of all, no one except for straw-anarchists are saying not to vote. Everyone who objects to Harris says to vote third party. Of course, some people will respond to what’s going on by not voting, but we (leftists) encourage them to vote instead.
There is no viable risk, a plurality of people already either don’t vote or vote third party, the people like me are already accounted for since I wasn’t about to support neoliberals anyway and have already voted third party.
So the only ones left are people who are just starting to vote third party. Let me say simply there is no way for us to just speak into existence a new voting bloc of around 15% of the population of the entire state to spoil your favored cop’s chances of winning. If things were that easy, we could have a communist President within, like, 3 election cycles. No, things move much more slowly than that because you can’t just manifest “Well what if everyone laid down their arms voted for Elizabeth Warren?” on a population like you made a magic wish.
The voteblue philosophy is one of fear, of an overriding fear even at things that are impossible in material reality, and using that fear as an excuse to never fight for someone who is better than center-right while always promising that on some future day we will finally have something better. It’s a psychological hamster wheel, you’ll keep running on it forever and never make progress, so the only solution is to get off.
The Nazi Party being banned was good, just not enough
Biden is, for example, a much more coherent genocidal Zionist, as is Harris.
Besides the token joke that Biden isn’t a “more coherent” anything, I think Trump would be equal in this respect (not worse, but equal). He doesn’t have the same developed reasons as Biden, but America’s zionist project has deliberately allowed for zionist organizations like AIPAC to buy out politicians and send lobbyists to him, and Trump will definitely follow the directions of the overwhelming majority of his allies if they are given to him consistently. He didn’t understand imperialism well enough to understand why military spending on South Korea made sense, but they simply don’t have much sway to anyone in America except a tiny minority. Israel – because of conditions the American imperial machine created and maintains for the purpose – does have that sway
The thing that I think really makes it obvious that your thinking here is completely defective is that you don’t even bring up the question “are you in a swing state?” I’m in a deep-blue state, why the fuck, even by your broken logic, should I vote for Kamala? She’ll win my whole state anyway, so all I’m doing is helping to legitimize her if I vote for her, not do a single thing to keep Orange Man out.
I guess I’ve discovered an “unreconstructed” socialist. I think an autocracy is bad even if it kills rightists, but that doesn’t mean I want to make peace with the rich. If the government isn’t bound by a popular mandate, then it’s just guided by the whims of whichever assholes are in charge, and you’ve basically reverted to monarchy.
Mao’s purging of the landlords was a great achievement, but it only worked because he left it up to the people rather than having the PLA go to every plot of land and dictate what is to be done with it. Likewise, it was also a great achievement that he was able to rehabilitate Puyi, the last Emperor of China, rather than resorting to killing him. Turning people into productive members of society is always the most preferential option, it’s just that it often simply isn’t viable.
Revenge is an idealist notion that doesn’t accomplish anything. It’s just sadism and leaves justice completely aside. Sometimes it is correct to kill people (and in times of war, unfortunately frequently so), but that is for the material difference that makes (e.g. diffusing threats) rather than because it rights some imaginary cosmic ledger.
Yes, we must seize power from the reactionaries, and that will require incredible violence and lead to lots of purging, but if we are separate from the people, we are just a military dictatorship like any other.
It’s a form of socialism in the broadest sense of the term, but what you’re describing has nothing to do with socialism as it has ever existed in the world and not something that should exist. Socialism must be democratic or it’s just a holding-state for fascism and, as you describe your “system,” an engine of gleeful murder.
no Tiktok = better times
This is boomer brainrot for it to make a three-item list of modern problems. People said the same shit about TV and even about books, not that I’d give tiktok much credit as an advanced medium in the same way those were. But it’s just philistine to consider it a great societal evil on par with climate change and the housing market.
Also where I live there wasn’t any “attempted genocide on gays”.
You all may perpetrate one yet considering the direction your country is going in.
If you come at things from such a completely misanthropic point of view, you firstly are unlikely to get off the ground, but even if you do, you’ll just be creating what liberals think socialism is (a very bad and ineffectual thing)
The conditional is right there