This one included.
You know you're cooked when Bill Kristol is going around like, "Hey, shouldn't you be running a more progressive campaign to turn out more voters?"
Objection
joined 1 year ago
The democrats' message this cycle was literally, "Trump doesn't actually want to do anything about immigration, he just wants to campaign on it. We're the ones who are actually going to build the wall, he's all talk," and now they're all suprisied that they lost a bunch of Latino votes. Who could've predicted this?
When did any tankie claim that Trump was "the sane one?"
Also calling for a ceasefire while unconditionally arming Israel is like telling a mass shooter you disapprove of what they're doing while you hand them another clip.
Tammy Baldwin, Elissa Slotkin, and Jacky Rosen are all women who won senate races in states Kamala lost (WI, MI, NV). There's also Ruben Gallego, a Hispanic man who's winning in Arizona. So your "simplest explanation" is that these sexist, racist bigots were fine with voting for women (one of them a queer woman at that) and minorities for senate but not for president (for some reason) as opposed to the idea that Kamala Harris was just an unpopular candidate. That's not the simplest explanation, it's just the laziest.
-
Obviously, the main reason for record turnout in 2020 was COVID.
-
Biden actually has decent political instincts and has actually won elections before. Kamala didn't even have to pass a primary and bombed out of the one she did participate in in 2020. She was "untested" to put it mildly.
-
The economic situation was different.
-
Regardless of to what degree he was responsible, under Biden the US got entangled in foreign conflicts in Palestine and Ukraine.
-
It's not that there are 10 million commies that liked Biden but not Harris, it's that us commies believe that you can win over the working class by appealing to material interests.
-
Biden didn't campaign with fucking Dick Cheney
Oh, Iranian history is a special interest of mine, if you express the slightest interest in it...
The roots of it go back to the 1800's, when the Qajar dynasty were trying to maintain exorbitant lifestyles on the backs of an extremely poor and undeveloped country, so their solution, rather than developing the economy to increase long-term tax revenue, was instead to basically hold clearance sales of the entire country. The Reuter concession is an almost unbelievable example of it. They tried to sell essentially the entire country's economy to the guy who founded Reuters news: trains, trams, roads, forests, mines, canals, irrigation systems, telegraph systems, mills, factories, workshops, and even the national bank - in exchange for cash in the shah's private bank account. It was so bad that even the colonial powers of Britain and Russia said it was too much and wouldn't allow it.
The people were so pissed off about this sort of behavior that after they sold off tobacco rights to the British in 1890, there was a widespread boycott of tobacco, possibly the most successful boycott in history encompassing people across all of society, with a major religious leader even issuing a fatwa against violating the boycott, and going all the way up to women in the shah's own harem participating in it, forcing the shah to break the deal. The success of this mass action, combined with dissatisfaction with the shah selling out the country, led people to rise up in protest and start demanding things like a constitution and parliament. They even got the shah to sign off on it, and they brought in an American named Morgan Shuster to reform the tax code and root out loopholes and corruption. But when the shah died, his successor had other ideas, and he called in Britain and Russia, who were making quite a bit of money off loopholes and corruption, to come in and shell parliament.
Fast forward to WWI. Once again backed by Britain and Russia, the Ottomans invade Iran, and conduct the Armenian genocide. At the same time, there's a major famine, and the Spanish Flu is running rampant. When the dust settles, the old dynasty is gone, and a new shah comes to power, backed by Britain: Reza Shah Pahlavi. He attempted to push back against the oil deal but the British stonewalled him, and he lasted until WWII, when the Allies invaded to establish a strategic supply line between Britain and the USSR and to ensure Iranian oil didn't end up in the Nazi's hands instead of theirs. Afterwards, Britain forced him to abdicate and put his son in power, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi.
The new shah also attempted to renegotiate the oil deal, and again was stonewalled. British advisors hand-picked prime ministers for the shah to appoint, in the mostly powerless parliament, but even then they stonewalled their own prime ministers when they attempted to negotiate. Public sentiment grew increasingly heated, and the advisors sent word back that the situation was reaching a boiling point, but still the British wouldn't move an inch. Finally, the shah became more afraid of a revolution than he was of the British, and he appointed Mohammad Mossadegh as prime minister, with a huge wave of popular support calling for nationalization of the industry.
Still, Mossadegh attempted to negotiate, and the US under Truman attempted to intervene as a mediator to prevent a crisis. But the Iranians had been struggling against British colonialism for a very long time, and the British still wouldn't budge. The oil industry was nationalized, and the British responded with a naval blockade that shut down Iran's economy and caused rampant poverty. Churchill approached Truman asking him to use the newly formed CIA to oust Mossadegh, and Truman told him to go to hell, that Mossadegh was a legitimate democratic leader and that the CIA was supposed to be about stopping communism not enforcing colonialism, and that the British brought this on themselves. There was no real animosity between Iran and America on either side at this point, the Iranians saw America as well-intentioned but naive, while Americans saw Iran as sympathetic but stubborn.
But Truman was replaced by Eisenhower, and Eisenhower was not acquainted with the background of the conflict, and Churchill and Alan Dulles were both pushing him to do it. Churchill changed tacts from talking about protecting Britain's property to warning that Mossadegh might end up aligning with the USSR, and also saying that he wouldn't support the formation of NATO or the Korean War unless Eisenhower gave him Iran. So he signed off on it.
They took over nearly every media outlet in the country, they bribed anyone who would take it, from politicians to vote counters to religious leaders, the hired protesters to march against the government and false flag "pro-government" protesters to go around wrecking things. Just before the coup, the American ambassador called up Mossadegh and told him a false story, that he was worried he would have to shut down the embassy because Mossadegh's supporters kept calling to give death threats, even to children at the embassy. Moved by the story, and eager to improve relations with the US, Mossadegh sent out a radio announcement telling all of his supporters to stay home and stop causing trouble. That's when the CIA made its move and deposed him, and no one was there to come to his aid.
They covered up their involvement for decades, until it was far enough back in history that people wouldn't care that they could finally admit it. That was the first democratic government they overthrew, and once the precedent had been set, they repeated around the world, Iran on behalf of BP, Guatemala on behalf of Chiquita, all across South America in Operation Condor, and so many more.
My point is that calling for peace doesn't necessarily mean very much unless there's terms and/or a plan for how to bring people to the table if they don't want to cooperate.
Quick question, how do you feel about Trump talking about immediately ending the war in Ukraine?
Words and speeches are completely meaningless unless that is addressed
But your proposal above, for Harris, is just more mere words: “Harris could have said”
That's why I used the word, "unless." If the words are addressing that point, then they're meaningful, but as long as they aren't, they are not.
On here we completely disagree. “I will stop the Gaza war by any means necessary.” seems like a pretty big indication.
Does it now? There are lots of ways to stop a war, for example, by destroying the other side's willingness or capability to keep fighting. You know, like Trump said, "finish the job," and then there won't be any more fighting because one side would all be dead. You're choosing to interpret it to mean what you want it to mean, and a supporter of Israel would interpret it to mean what they want it to mean, typical equivocation with no indication of what it actually means in practical terms.
What you don't understand is that politicians are most responsive to voters in the lead-up to an election. After they get elected, then they've already gotten the votes they needed, so they can focus more on lobbyists and corporate donors. That's why there is zero chance that she would've become more pro-Palestinian when in office, because the voters are far more favorable to Palestine than the donors and lobbyists are.
Oh god, apologism for the fascist shah, take it back to Reddit.
The the government Iran had in the 70's was the result of a CIA coup to oust the progressive leader Mohammad Mossadegh who became prime minister with overwhelming popular support and reclaimed control of Iran's oil from the British colonizers who had made an extremely exploitative deal with a different authoritarian dynasty before the country had any form of democracy - a deal, which despite being extremely favorable to them, they still consistently broke, lying about how much oil they were taking. This coup crushed Iran's fledgling democratic movement and reforms, and the shah proceeded to use secret police to hunt down and exterminate his political opponents, primarily leftists. In order to give the country the appearance of modernization, he banned women from wearing traditional religious garb. In other words, even then the government was still controlling how women dressed. This shit is falling for decades old propaganda from an awful government.
Because the shah was so successful in suppressing and killing leftists, when he fell out of favor as a Western puppet and lost foreign support, guess which faction remained that had the power to take advantage of the situation? The Islamic fundamentalists. The modern Iranian state didn't just spring up from nowhere, it came about as a result of the actions of the CIA and the shah.
Before I begin, I have a confession: until recently (until today, in fact), I was a tankie. But this morning I just woke up and realized everything I believed and everything I'd been saying was wrong, and my critics were right about everything. And so, I have decided to completely and totally adopt their way of thinking.
The above image is an example to illustrate how my thinking has changed. You may be familiar with "Russell's Teapot," a thought experiment from Bertrand Russell where he imagines that someone says that there is a tiny, invisible teapot, floating out in space. He argues that while such a claim cannot strictly be disproved, it can be dismissed without evidence because there is no evidence to support it. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. He goes on to explain that while he could not disprove the existence of God, he still considered himself an atheist, because he did not see sufficient evidence for the claim of God's existence to be credible.
In my previous (tankie) way of thinking, I would have agreed with this idea, that claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. But I now understand that this made me a Bad Person. Suppose that, as in the beautiful diagram I drew in MS Paint, the claim is not only that the teapot exists, but that inside of the teapot, there are a bunch of tiny invisible people who are geopolitical enemies of the United States and they are committing genocide against innocent people. Again, before, I would have said that that only makes the claim more implausible and would require extraordinary proof. Now, I realize how wrong I was, and I can only say that I deeply regret and apologize for my statements. The existence of the teapot can be proven incontrovertibly, by the following logic:
-
If you claim that the teapot does not exist, you are denying that the genocide inside it is happening.
-
If you deny the genocide is happening, you are a genocide denier and therefore a fascist.
-
Fascism is wrong.
-
Therefore, it is impossible to correctly deny the teapot's existence.
As a brief aside, I should mention that in addition to my political conversion, I have also experienced a drastic change in my religious beliefs, as it is now trivially easy to prove that God exists. According to the Torah, God flooded the world, wiping out virtually all of humanity, including countless ethnic groups. To deny the existence of God makes you a genocide denier and a fascist. However, it should be added that to worship God is genocide apologia, which is also fascist. The only non-fascist belief, which is necessarily correct, is that God exists and is evil. Moving on.
Before, I believed that it was ridiculous for the US to spend as much on the military as the next 9 countries combined. I wanted to slash the military budget to fund domestic spending, schools, hospitals, making sure bridges don't collapse, helping the poor, etc. I see now how wrong I was. The Genocide Teapot exists, somewhere out there in space, in fact, there could be countless numbers of them out there. Therefore, the real progressive thing to do is to further cut domestic spending and have everyone tighten our belts so that we can produce as many missiles as possible, to be fired out into space indiscriminately, in hopes of hitting a Genocide Teapot.
However, we must also consider the possibility that these teapots could be located here on Earth too. Teapots are a form of china, which is a very suspicious connection. Clearly, the US must be permitted to inspect every square inch of China in search of these invisible teapots, and refusal to comply should be considered an admission of guilt. But we should not, of course, limit ourselves to China. Perhaps there are Genocide Teapots in Russia, or Brazil, or Germany, or Canada, who knows? I do, because to deny that Genocide Teapots exist in all of those places is genocide denial, which is fascist and wrong.
In conclusion, we should bomb every country in the world simultaneously, including ourselves, and anyone who disagrees with me is a war-loving fascist.
Thank you.
President Trump kept America out of new wars and brought thousands of brave troops home from Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and many other countries. Joe Biden has undermined our military readiness and surrendered our strength to the Taliban.
When Trump pulls troops out of Afghanistan, it's "bringing thousands of brave troops home," but when Biden does the same, it's, "surrendering our strength to the Taliban." He brags about "keeping America out of foreign wars" while at the same time bragging about assassinating "the world's number one terrorist," Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, which was an extreme act of provocation.
This is taken from the issues page of Trump's campaign website, and there are several more statements relating to foreign policy, frequently and boldly contradicting each other. It's a perfect example of the "If By Whiskey" tactic. So what's actually going on here? Well, to understand the reasons for this equivocation, we need to analyze the foreign policy positions of Americans.
Broadly speaking, people fall into one of four camps: Idealist Hawk (liberals), Idealist Dove (libertarians), Realist Hawk (nationalists), and Realist Dove (socialists).
Idealist Hawks believe that US foreign policy is driven by benevolence and spreading freedom, and the fact that it repeatedly fails to do so (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc) is explainable by a variety of excuses. Generally, they are more interested in current events and easily persuaded to support intervention based on seeing a bad thing happening, without a broader analysis or explanation of the situation or how things have played out historically.
Idealist Doves also believe that US foreign policy is driven by benevolence, but they see that as a bad thing. They are generally right libertarians or hold libertarian values, they see war as another example of wasteful government spending as it tries and fails to improve people's lives, which they generally don't see as a valid goal in the first place. Being idealists, they are still rather easily duped into supporting war and militarism, often, they will support a "night watchman state," with police and the military being the only legitimate functions.
Realist Hawks are nationalists who believe that states pursue their own material interests and are right to do so. They are incapable of distinguishing between the state's interest and their own. Some few are rich enough to actually receive benefits from US foreign policy, but most just root for America in the same way that they might root for a football team.
Realist Doves, which I am a part of, do not believe that US foreign policy is not grounded in benevolence and does not benefit the people it claims to be helping, but also (generally) that it doesn't benefit the majority of people at home. We see it as being driven by and for class interests, and are opposed to the class it benefits.
Trump's foreign policy equivocation, and his "America First" slogan allows him to appeal to both the Idealist Doves (libertarians) and the Realist Hawks (nationalists). He can't consistently take any line on any specific thing. If by Afghanistan, you mean a disastrous nation-building exercise, wasteful government spending, and endangering our troops for the sake of helping foreigners, then of course Trump opposes it. But if by Afghanistan, you mean exerting American strength, intimidating Russia and China, and weakening terrorists to keep America safe, then of course Trump supports it.
In reality, to the extent that Trump has coherent beliefs at all, he is a Realist Hawk, a nationalist, and his record reflects that. But part of the reason he was able to get anywhere was because he was able to triangulate and equivocate well enough to dupe anti-war libertarians.
Unfortunately, in American politics, the conflict is generally between Idealist Hawks and everyone else. This is part of what allows the nationalists and libertarians to put aside their differences (the other part being that libertarians are easily duped). Realist Doves are not represented anywhere, the Idealist Interventionists consider us Russian bots along with everyone else who disagrees with them on foreign policy (regardless of how or why), the Idealist Doves are extremely unreliable, and the Realist Hawks may see the world in a similar way but have diametrically opposed priorities.
tl;dr: Trump's halfhearted antiwar posturing is an obvious ruse that only an idiot would fall for, but painting everyone skeptical of US foreign policy with the same brush helps him to sell it and to paint over ideological rifts that could otherwise be potentially exploited.
What is Soulism? Soulism, also known as anarcho-antirealism, is a school of anarchist thought which views reality and natural laws as unjust hierarchies.
Some people might laugh at the idea and say it's not a serious ideology, but this is no laughing matter. If these people are successful, then consensus reality would be destroyed and we would return to what the world was like before the Enlightenment. What did that world look like? Well, you had:
-
Ultra-powerful wizards hoarding knowledge in high towers, reshaping reality to their whims, with no regard for the common people
-
Bloodthirsty, aristocratic vampires operating openly, and on a much larger scale than they do today
-
Viscous, rage-driven werewolves terrorizing the populace, massacring entire villages with reckless abandon
-
Fey beings abducting children and replacing them with their own
-
Demons and angels waging massive wars against each other with humans caught in the crossfire
Fortunately, out of this age of chaos and insecurity emerged a group of scientists dedicated to protecting and advancing humanity by establishing a consensus reality and putting a stop to these out-of-control reality deviants.
Before, if you got sick or injured, you'd have to travel across the land through dangerous enchanted forests seeking a skilled faith healer or magical healing potion. But with consensus reality, easily accessible and consistent medical practices were instilled with the same magical healing properties. Once, if you wanted to transmute grain into bread, you had to convince a wizard to come out of their tower and do it, and they were just as likely to turn you into a newt for disturbing their studies. But thanks to consensus reality, anyone could build their own magical tower (a "mill") and harness the mana present in elemental air to animate their own "millstones" to do it! These things were only made possible by consensus reality.
Now, I'm not saying that this approach doesn't have it's drawbacks and failures, and I'm not going to say that the reality defenders have never done anything wrong. But these "Soulists" want to destroy everything that's been accomplished and bring us back to the times when these supernatural reality deviants were more powerful than reason or humanity, and constantly preyed upon us.
So do not fall for their propaganda, and if you see something, says something. Anyone altering reality through belief and willpower, or any other reality deviants such as vampires or werewolves, should be reported immediately to the Technocratic Union for your safety, the safety of those around you, and, indeed, the safety of reality itself.
Thank you for your cooperation.
What is Soulism? Soulism, also known as anarcho-antirealism, is a school of anarchist thought which views reality and natural laws as unjust hierarchies.
Some people might laugh at the idea and say it's not a serious ideology, but this is no laughing matter. If these people are successful, then consensus reality would be destroyed and we would return to what the world was like before the Enlightenment. What did that world look like? Well, you had:
-
Ultra-powerful wizards hoarding knowledge in high towers, reshaping reality to their whims, with no regard for the common people
-
Bloodthirsty, aristocratic vampires operating openly, and on a much larger scale than they do today
-
Viscous, rage-driven werewolves terrorizing the populace, massacring entire villages with reckless abandon
-
Fey beings abducting children and replacing them with their own
-
Demons and angels waging massive wars against each other with humans caught in the crossfire
Fortunately, out of this age of chaos and insecurity emerged a group of scientists dedicated to protecting and advancing humanity by establishing a consensus reality and putting a stop to these out-of-control reality deviants.
Before, if you got sick or injured, you'd have to travel across the land through dangerous enchanted forests seeking a skilled faith healer or magical healing potion. But with consensus reality, easily accessible and consistent medical practices were instilled with the same magical healing properties. Once, if you wanted to transmute grain into bread, you had to convince a wizard to come out of their tower and do it, and they were just as likely to turn you into a newt for disturbing their studies. But thanks to consensus reality, anyone could build their own magical tower (a "mill") and harness the mana present in elemental air to animate their own "millstones" to do it! These things were only made possible by consensus reality.
Now, I'm not saying that this approach doesn't have it's drawbacks and failures, and I'm not going to say that the reality defenders have never done anything wrong. But these "Soulists" want to destroy everything that's been accomplished and bring us back to the times when these supernatural reality deviants were more powerful than reason or humanity, and constantly preyed upon us.
So do not fall for their propaganda, and if you see something, says something. Anyone altering reality through belief and willpower, or any other reality deviants such as vampires or werewolves, should be reported immediately to the Technocratic Union for your safety, the safety of those around you, and, indeed, the safety of reality itself.
Thank you for your cooperation.
view more: next ›
Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism.
In the US, socialism has historically been shunned and not represented in the political sphere, to the point that the right started using "liberal" derisively and associated the term with socialism. Internationally, the term retains more of its original meaning, for example, in the UK the "Liberal Democrats," are more like libertarians.
Liberals are generally conservative, meaning they support the status quo or gradual change. US "conservatives" are sometimes more accurately called reactionaries or regressives, because they don't just want to preserve the status quo but to actively roll back progress that has already been made.
Because leftism is a very broad term, it's difficult to define exactly what leftists believe in an uncontroversial way, but generally speaking leftists support radical change away from capitalism.