Anonymous #1 3w

Yet it wasn’t.

-2

Anonymous #2 3w

and you can try to hide your faults behind a flimsy veil of arrogance as you have been, but that will only cause more damage to yourself in the long run.

14

Anonymous #2 3w

No lol. Fuck leftists. I’m not looking to be admired lol, I just know a wolf in sheep’s clothing when I see one. Why would I ever give any sort of charity to a group of people who only complain that Democrats aka THE LIBERAL PARTY aren’t doing enough when they themselves seek the destruction of liberalism?

-9

Anonymous #2 3w

Joker’s also always blowing wind out of his ass about how “leftists don’t do anything” while he sits on here 24 hours a day doing nothing but shitting on leftists lmfao

9

Anonymous #1 3w

Leftists legit try to sabotage liberal coalitions 🤣 Get bent

-6

Anonymous catboycommunist 3w

Thank you for your analysis fellow communist

-5

Anonymous ___joker__ 3w

you’re a sack of shit joker. you care more about your perceived liberalism than any sense of genuine justice or order. You don’t give a flying fuck about people’s livelihoods or improving them, all you care about is your petty little party politics in which you can claim to be marginally better than your opponent, yet you still inevitably adopt the same fascist ideological beliefs as them.

23

Anonymous #1 3w

More aesthetics than anything substantive. You guys keep affirming my opinion lol

-6

Anonymous #2 3w

this is not the behavior of a person who cares, this is the behavior of someone who doesn’t give a flying fuck either way because you’re not in any danger like the rest of us. don’t think we all forget your background as you used to advertise it on here. we now you’re not in any increased danger from these white supremacists, and it makes sense that you don’t give a flying fuck who is. Like I said in another comment, you’re a sympathizer joker. you can delude yourself all you want, but you are

11

Anonymous #2 3w

We know**

10

Anonymous #2 3w

Revolution, counter-institutions, or electoralism. Call it.

-3

Anonymous ___joker__ 3w

I wonder when you’re going to stop using that statement to project your own faults. because what the fuck have you done except vote for a democrat and blindly hope, while talking shit to every single person advocating for organization?

12

Anonymous ___joker__ 3w

don’t be a little coward, even though I know you are one. Address my comments.

13

Anonymous #2 3w

Address my character judgement and pathologizing! Do it!

-4

Anonymous ___joker__ 3w

Well it would help your case, because it makes sense that a white farm boy inevitably doesn’t give a fuck about the rise of white supremacy. you pretend to be against it, but won’t take any meaningful against it? Even going as far as to attack people who are organizing in opposition? there comes a line where it stop being complicity or sympathizing, and starts being support.

12

Anonymous #2 3w

Was raised on a farm and I help out from time to time, but not my occupation. Worked for a defense contractor for a few months but left over moral reasons. I daytrade the ES Mini now.

-2

Anonymous #2 3w

You’re not organizing in opposition btw. Stop inflating what you’re doing.

-2

Anonymous ___joker__ 3w

Oh man you worked for a defense contractor? Yeah, that tells me all I need to know about you buddy.

12

Anonymous #1 3w

Yup. only for a few months.

-2

Anonymous ___joker__ 3w

that.. that doesn’t change my underlying point regarding white supremacy and complicity since you seemingly have more of an issue with leftists than you do fascists. it seems like, in all honesty, you only like people who agree with liberalism… (I will say, despite our differences and disagreements in this convo, I applaud you for leaving the defense contractor)

3

Anonymous ___joker__ 3w

So not only are you a fascist sympathizer, you’ve got blood on your hands too? But it’s okay I guess, it’s only a few drops.

5

Anonymous #1 3w

Do you know what the definition of “sympathizer” is? CAN ANY OF YOU PEOPLE USE WORDS CORRECTLY?!?

-2

Anonymous ___joker__ 3w

Idk man this constant deflection from the fascist threat to your infantile hatred for everyone to your left is kinda giving sympathizer, or at the very least, useful idiot.

11

Anonymous ___joker__ 3w

it must be so hard for you, thinking that you’re the only educated person in the world meanwhile you’re functionally moronic.

7

Anonymous #1 3w

You really don’t know what a sympathizer or a useful idiot is, do you? You’ve just heard these terms in passing.

-3

Anonymous #1 3w

like the fascists definitely appreciate joker, whether he realizes it or not lmao.

6

Anonymous #2 3w

It is hard, thank you.

-3

Anonymous #2 3w

Easy. I don’t need to see you both jerk each other off. Take that shit to the DMs

-3

Anonymous ___joker__ 3w

I know it is, narcissists normally do view their lives as hard.

6

Anonymous #2 3w

😘

-3

Anonymous ___joker__ 3w

Fascists pride themselves on their anti-leftism, why would they oppose your virulent anti-leftism? Just because of your occasional very meek criticisms of them?

11

Anonymous #1 3w

And their anti-intellectualism! joker is hitting quite a few marks at this rate.

3

Anonymous ___joker__ 3w

I hope for your sake that you actually reflect on these convos and your behavior.

6

Anonymous #1 3w

“Meek criticisms”. You see a lot of fascists on here coming to critique liberal democracy? You point them out to me and I’ll go chat with them.

-7

Anonymous #5 3w

Well I didn’t do that, and I didn’t make Kamala Harris a shitty candidate ordained without a primary to test her mettle whatsoever. I swallowed my critiques on election day and voted for that shitty untested candidate in my swing state, like almost every leftist I know around here did. You want progressives to like you more? Throw ‘em a bone. Don’t go “we don’t need your vote anyways, we need moderate Republicans” and then blame the left when they say “heard, don’t need my vote anyways, R-Lite”

4

Anonymous #1 3w

Unfortunately, it seems like a non-negligible number of leftists did not vote for Dems in swing states, and plenty advocated for staying at home too. We can acknowledge that plenty of leftists understood what was at stake (thank you for doing that) while criticizing the ones who (for various reasons) did not

1

Anonymous #2 3w

Sorry, but what does “advocating for organization” mean?

5

Anonymous #7 3w

Yeah, sure, and we can also acknowledge that the Democratic Party has done absolutely nothing to curry favor with its progressive wing other than simply not be Donald Trump. How many times can we run the “Run Centrist To Peel Off Moderate Rs” play and lose with critical parts of the Democratic base before we consider a different strategy than playing into the Republicans’ hands? You can’t watch Kamala’s acceptance speech from the 2024 DNC and tell me that shit was what the actual base wanted.

5

Anonymous ___joker__ 3w

Fascists don’t need to go on forums and critique liberal democracy, they simply infiltrate and destroy it from the top down. So if you’re dedicating more time to shitting on leftists than to shit on them, you’re fucking up. You’re doing what they want you to do. Or do you think the Nazis were upset when the libs murdered Rosa?

5

Anonymous #1 3w

Like, Kamala’s strategy was to out-reactionary Donald Trump. Her attacks were often things like “I’m gonna be even TOUGHER on immigration than Trump! I’m gonna make our military THE MOST LETHAL FIGHTING FORCE ON EARTH! Dick Cheney loves me!” like bruh, this is Republican shit. And you wonder why Democratic and left-leaning independent voters, who should be very easy to get against Donald Trump, were clearly unenthused?

3

Anonymous #1 3w

I don’t think she ever said she’d be tougher than Trump or bragged about Dick Cheney’s endorsement. The point of the Cheney endorsement (and she barely (if at all) talked about Dick’s endorsement, she only campaigned with Liz) was that Trump has gotten *so bad* that a two-time Trump voter can’t bring himself to vote for him again. Mainly because he literally caused his daughter to get death threats

3

Anonymous #1 3w

Im not disagreeing that Dems should have found a better candidate than Kamala. I think there are many valid critiques. However the alternative to Kamala was ICE raids turning deadly, gutting DEI, losing healthcare for millions, unchecked police brutality, and many other things. It was a gross miscalculation for people who are anywhere on the left to think that boycotting Harris was a wise thing to do. We are currently in an extreme shit show because of it

4

Anonymous #5 3w

Well I think that part was done out of false confidence that America simply wouldn’t re-elect the guy who royally fucked up the entire year 2020 and had already lost once before.

0

Anonymous #1 3w

Didn’t we already make that mistake in 2016

6

Anonymous #1 3w

Listen if we want to truly advance as a country, we have to accept some hard truths. 1. The Democratic Party has to get better at understanding what the base wants and being progressive 2. Leftist need to understand elections have consequences, we knew what a Trump presidency was going to bring. They don’t get to actively participate in getting this man elected(by encouraging millions to not vote) and then angry at the shit he is doing.

2

Anonymous #5 3w

in all honesty that 2nd point is an utterly crazy take. the DNC knew what trump was planning, and chose to capitulate to white supremacists and transphobes over moving towards the left at all. you can say all you want about us leftists, but at the end of the day as long as we complacently maintain these institutions that force us into a decision of “greater evil vs lesser evil”, we lose at the end of the day regardless. both campaigns moved further right in the 2024 election, however the

1

Anonymous #2 3w

Trump campaign moved much further right than the Harris campaign did. we need to force politicians to represent us, and if there are no politicians who represent us, we engage in civil disobedience at the bare minimum.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

You are simply avoiding responsibility.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

They capitulated to white supremacists…by nominating someone who’s black and Indian?

5

Anonymous #7 3w

and vowing to expand funding for DHS and the military.

1

Anonymous #5 3w

How am I, a single individual, avoiding accountability when independent watchdogs already determined that 3rd party voters had no tangible effect on the outcome of the election, and when we have *always* had a persistent portion of the population that did not engage in elections of any kind (~30% of the eligible population if I remember correctly)? could it be that you’re falling into the same party-loyalty that MAGA created for the Republican Party, except for the Democratic Party instead?

1

Anonymous #7 3w

I recommend looking up the term tokenization.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

I’m aware of what tokenization means. Are you saying Harris is a token?

1

Anonymous #7 3w

I’m saying that Harris’s nomination and campaign does not inherently dismiss concerns of the democratic party’s complicity. I do not think that the DNC themselves tokenized Harris as much as the average citizen does in order to defend the party.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

(meaning she absolutely had the qualifications for the presidency, I do not think that she was a “token” in that sense. I do think that people commonly cite her campaign as “evidence” of the DNC’s perceived innocence)

1

Anonymous #2 3w

So then how did they capitulate to transphobes and white supremacists?

1

Anonymous #7 3w

did they not advocate to expand funding for the military, DHS, and the DoD altogether? there were various democrats welcoming white supremacists into their arms, and nearly all of the Democratic Party publicly announced support for an ongoing genocide rooted in ethnotheocratic colonization and white supremacy. like even if you want to argue that their support for the genocide of Gaza was different or lesser than the alternative, there was absolutely no option in which one could vote against it

1

Anonymous #2 3w

it was a difference of how long it takes for us to get here in my genuine opinion, but we would’ve remained on this trajectory regardless. we need genuine pushback against our institutions. Meaningful civil disobedience to remind our government and politicians who they answer to, and if it doesn’t work, we up the ante for lack of a better phrase. we are not helpless, we need to remember that.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

“It was a difference of how long it takes for us to get here in my opinion” That sounds like a euphemism for “less people would have died”. That’s a material difference.

3

Anonymous #2 3w

Expanding funding for DHS does not directly equate to white supremacy. FEMA, the coast guard, TSA, and CISA are also under DHS. Resolving the immigration case backlog is literally the opposite of white supremacy. Improving the ability to screen for drugs at the border is not white supremacy.

4

Anonymous #7 3w

except it isn’t. if all you think about is short term gains, then you’ve already lost. Regardless, I find it interesting how no one seemingly wants to address the conclusion that 3rd party voters did not have an outcome of the election, and how there’s been a consistent subset of the eligible voter population that never engages in any elections. you’re both blaming subsets of the population instead of engaging in the slightest thought about how the Democratic Party should combat this.

0

Anonymous #7 3w

reinforcing our multi-tiered justice system, which still utilizes slavery as a form of punishment and disproportionately incarcerates people of color, is indeed white supremacy. did we see any democrats pushing for major reforms to the justice system, or pushing to end our imperialistic acts of aggression towards other nations as they pushed to further heavily fund the military (which, let’s not forget how the DoD consistently fails its audits) The issue here is most people don’t recognize that

0

Anonymous #2 3w

our country has never weeded out systemic white supremacy, it’s just gotten better at hiding it and conditioning the masses.

0

Anonymous #2 3w

Less people dying isn’t a “short-term gain”. That’s a lower short-term loss. Looking at less death as a “gain” is crazy work. I already addressed non-voters above btw, and 3rd party voters did have an impact in some congressional races

3

Anonymous #2 3w

Please walk me through how ensuring immigrants who have cases in immigration court aren’t in limbo for a decade is white supremacy, because I don’t understand that at all. Their ability to remain in the US is at significant risk before their case is heard. They could be deported as soon as some SCOTUS ruling happens.

4

Anonymous #7 3w

again, it seems like you’re just trying to blame everyone who’s vocally against the current Democratic Party and further left than it, than perform any meaningful reflection of the party itself. why is that, when once again, my vote did not result in her loss? Did they have an impact on the outcome of the presidential election, which is the topic of discussion? people are capable of voting blue for state and local, and third party for the presidential election.

0

Anonymous #7 3w

dude, SCOTUS was not impacted by the election. The institution of the Supreme Court of the United States has already fallen if you haven’t realized, and that happened years before the most recent election. that’s part of my entire point. Additionally, maybe address the actual reasons I gave instead of fixated on a single issue (true single-issue voter, huh?) in order to avoid addressing it. I didn’t claim that addressing the immigration backlog was white supremacy

0

Anonymous #2 3w

however, if you want to touch immigration, there’s a reason why that backlog exists, and it’s to create a pool of wage-slaves for the richest corporations (yes, another form of slavery occurring in this country). How likely would it have been that they truly followed through on that promise when those same corporations are the ones who fund both parties?

0

Anonymous #2 3w

(hence why no party has advocated to demolish the immigration pipeline and allow for immediately available naturalization if the qualifications are met)

0

Anonymous #2 3w

Because they proposed a bill that would do exactly that. Before Trump came into power, the bills Congress passed and didn’t pass actually meant something.

4

Anonymous #2 3w

The Biden border bill was literally supposed to fix some of these issues. It was the first legislative fix in decades. I absolutely agree with you that both parties and their masters benefit from the status quo, but what is needed is a legislative fix, and that’s what was proposed, before Trump killed it

6

Anonymous #2 3w

Maybe you misunderstood. My point of bringing up “a SCOTUS ruling” is that the limbo that you’re in before your case is heard means your status is at the mercy of many outside forces. I didn’t say electing someone else was going to fix SCOTUS itself. I said that clearing the immigration case backlog (i.e. hiring more judges so all the cases can be heard faster) would put many of them in a safer position that protects them from deportation due to some court ruling, a new administration, etc.

3

Anonymous #2 3w

If people are capable of voting blue in state elections, then they must not have realized it. Because third-party votes caused democrats to lose in swing states like PA. That paved the way for a Republican senate to pass the OBBBA, which is the source of most of the problems under this administration, since it allocates the money for it

4