MarxMadness

Russia wrote it for a reason. Think for a few seconds on why that might be.

Because NATO put a bunch of Nazis in its command structure and the U.S. has backed various fascists countless times in the last 80 years, so it would put the western alliance in an embarrassing spot.

That's like half of politics: trying to embarass your opponents into backing off various positions.

Every politician who supported this should face a Nuremberg-style tribunal.

Have to apply that thinking to Democrats, too. They were backing Israel unconditionally from the jump, and were so married to that support that it probably cost them the election.

a general safety net for all

Why shouldn't there be a safety net for all?

The existence of coins does not imply a capital-based society, in the same way the emergence of personal computers in the 70s does not mean the economy of the 70s was highly computerized.

Check out David Graeber's Debt: The First 5000 Years for some anthropology on how exchange worked in early societies. Trading currency for goods or services was the exception, not the rule.

o7

You're just repeating yourself. It's not any more convincing this time around.

You deserve everything you voted for Palestine to get.

Differing treatment of nonprofits falls under "driving off the cliff at 95 vs. 100 mph." The bare minimum approach to the climate crisis would be something on the scale of the Green New Deal. Better treatment of nonprofits is probably more than canceled out by approving more fracking permits, too.

I'm also of the opinion that taking over the Democratic Party from within is a better strategy than trying to destroy it and start over, if only because of how large a task the latter is.

without the Democrats even having a proper seat in office, how are they supposed to even pass any policy, no matter how leftward they go on the political spectrum?

As we're seeing with Trump, you can do a lot with executive power and declaring an emergency. Over time you can translate this into more legislative support if what you're doing is actually good.

if the left continues fracturing and refusing to vote for them because “both sides are the same,” then all that happens is they keep shifting more and more right

Democrats chasing the right dates back to the 70s. It is what is causing the left wing of the party to stop voting for them, not the other way around. As Bernie showed, even a moderate social democrat can bring in those voters and then some. You also see lower-level candidates win by outflanking Democrats from the left, e.g., the whole progressive prosecutor movement.

Besides, the only way to get a politician to move towards you is to threaten not to vote for them. They don't chase voters they have in the bag; they chase voters who are on the fence. That's part of why they've been moving right -- they think they'll pick up more voters from the center than they'll lose from the left. The task is convincing them that unless they move left, they'll lose.

I said you voted for genocide because you voted for a party doing genocide. That's not the condescending shit you're doing, that's leveling a direct criticism.

And if you agree Dems are useless... what the fuck are you even saying anymore? They're useless, they're doing a genocide, but you still have to vote for them, because if you voted for someone opposed to the genocide, guess what, you actually voted for genocide!

Incoherent all the way down.

But if I’m going to do any kind of action to change that, I’m going to want the most favorable possible party in power.

I also used to make this argument. And for a few decades after Democrats stopped routinely trying to do major things for their constituents (the 60s), it had some merit.

But since the scientific community started really sounding the climate change alarm bells in the early 90s, we've had 20 years of Democrats in charge. They've failed to meaningfully address the issue, and failed to either keep Republicans out of office or implement policies strong enough to withstand Republican attacks. We tried it the way you're suggesting and it hasn't worked.

We're at the point where either Democrats need to be forced to radically change their platform, or the party needs to be destroyed so we can get at least one decent option. It doesn't help that the last 30+ years of inaction means we can't afford another 30 years of making small changes and hoping against hope that some new technology solves the problem for us.

I get the argument, I really do. I used to make it, too.

But this guy:

holding down the acceleration less, screaming about how he thinks we should go slower but isn’t taking his foot off the gas

Was told 30+ years ago that we desperately need to hit the brakes. He has failed to do so because he's wholly in the pocket of fossil fuel companies, and knows he's among the most insulated from the worst effects of the crisis.

The answer to "which would you rather convince" is that neither can be convinced. One just has to put up a bit of a facade because more of his voters take the issue (marginally) more seriously. If that guy hasn't done it in a generation, why would he do it now?

It's also getting harder to justify the "accelerating less" part when Democrats do stuff like that article describes.

It’s ok though, I understand you are struggling

What do you think you are accomplishing by being such an insufferable ass?

Democrats should be trying to win back voters like me -- voters who have supported lots of Democrats in the past, but who will not support genocide. They (and you) are instead telling those voters to fuck off. They (and you) make a lot of noise about wanting to win elections, but have no strategy besides browbeating voters, a strategy that just failed.