Edit: - we shouldn’t drone strike our own civilians in foreign countries and their children
Never forget that Obamas drone program was 90% inaccurate, and he imprisoned the person who revealed this
Well fuck me, TIL. damn obamna…
Obama convinced me that the differences are just optics and rhetoric. In the end, nothing fundamentally changes.
Ml users throwing around the word fascist like it’s going out of style. Surely nothing bad can come from diluting the meaning of this word
Yeah thats right, rather attack the message and argue about technicalities and deflect from the fact that literal fascism was happening back then (and of course is still).
Fascism is a broad term and can mean anything from anti socialist to nazism, both the german and italian wikipedia articles are pretty clear about that (now go on with “wiKiPedIa iS nOt An aCtUal soUrCe”). Fascio is just the italian word for alliance and Obama continued the use of the Nato alliance that Bush began for Afghanistan. In fact he ordered the deployment of 17000 soldiers to it in whats known as “the surge”.
We also know that this fascio invoking was based on false and partly manufactured “evidence” (see allegations of weapons of mass destruction), this in itself is straight out the fascist manual, like Poland attacking a German radio station was manufactured to start WW2.
Obama had 2663 days at war, which is more than Hitler and like Hitler he directly ordered the killing of civilians in other countries. That doesnt mean that he was as bad as Hitler of course, but it means that he is a fascist.
If you lost a loved one at a wedding that Obama bombed you would use the exact term fitting for Obama, which is fascist.
Its easy to downplay the daily killing of people on a false premise from a cozy home far away isnt it?
Your opinion is objectively wrong.
I’m actually very sympathetic to this. What the US did, and continues to do, is far worse than what the fascists of the 1920s-40s attempted.
The Nazis and Japanese fascists tried (and failed) to acheive what the US sucessfully did: the colonization and eviction of hundreds of native peoples, and clearing of an entire region for the “master race”. All under a far more stable form of government for colonialism : bourgeois democracy.
Lebensraum failed, but manifest destiny succeeded.
Not only that, but committed countless other atrocities, unparalleled in history.
I’ve been thinking that we should probably find another term then “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie”. Not because it’s wrong but because people don’t know who bourgeoisie are anymore.
My proposal is “electoral dictatorship of the billionaires”, even tho it might be slightly misleading.
I agree with this sentiment. In general, I think that leftist political ideas are quite popular when you swap out the leftist terminology. “The real culture war is between the shareholders and the workers” doesn’t raise a person’s guard like “The bourgeoisie are oppressing the proletariat”. It also forces you to explain a little about your meaning to somebody who maybe doesn’t already know what these terms mean. Whenever I’m trying to talk politics with someone who is open-minded but not explicitly leftist, I try to use this tactic so I don’t immediately run into a wall of conditioned responses.
Removed by mod
Democrats somehow managed to label themselves as the “antifascist” party, while funding the worst genocide of the 2000s. Astounding
The [some of] definitions fit though
Good thing he got replaced, the next one would never do that right?
Oh, he did as well? Well, at least you voted him out when you found out.
Wait, you elected him back? Despite him having done so before just last time, and openly promising to do so again? And the alternative not having done so, nor promising to?
How much could you really care if you’re repeatedly and knowingly going against it?
Huh? Is this still a thing? Next you’ll be memeing about Clinton getting a BJ? Is there nothing new going on right now you feel you have to dig back decades ago for content?
Removed by mod
For me outside burgerland? I’m loving it so much I’m doing memes :)
I’m sure you will proudly announce your support for genocide also in the future and not hide. Right?
“Fuck those brown people, we had no choice but commit and support genocide. We are the good guys, they needed democracy.”
I also don’t live in Burgerland. But if I did i would definitely have voted for Harris. Sometimes you only have shitty options. But it’s simple common sense to choose the less shitty one then.
I would argue that “less shitty” that pretends to be good and lulls people into compliance is worse than “more shitty” that riles up people to resist any way they can. If the outcome will always be “shitty” then perhaps the one that will result in the long term weakening of the system is better.
The genocide was going to supported by the US government no matter what.
This meme and mentality did its job already and made Democrats lose.
Why do the Democrats deserve to win if they also support genocides and endless wars?
They don’t deserve to win. Neither do the Republicans but only one of those parties actually gives scraps to the people.
Edit: Instead of asking question, what exactly is your solution?
Scraps that are bought with blood from the global south. I’d rather die personally than keep subsisting off dead and dying brown people
Weird coming from you considering you are from Arizona. How many brown people’s homes were destroyed just so you can live there?
What a pathetic child.
History time.
Back in the day, runaway slave Frederick Douglas backed Abe Lincoln for President over a candidate who was for total abolition of slavery. Lincoln was open to abolition, and Douglas decided that it was better to have the ear of a sitting President over backing someone who had no chance of winning.
Bayard Ruskin was MLK’s right hand man. Ruskin was invaluable in the Civil Rights battle. Ruskin was gay, and decided that it would be counter-productive to push of LGBT rights in the 1960s.
During WW2, Communists happily accepted aid from racist america and colonial England because they knew Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were much worse.
Questions?
Serious answer:
Every proletarian has been through strikes and has experienced “compromises” with the hated oppressors and exploiters, when the workers have had to return to work either without having achieved anything or else agreeing to only a partial satisfaction of their demands. Every proletarian—as a result of the conditions of the mass struggle and the acute intensification of class antagonisms he lives among—sees the difference between a compromise enforced by objective conditions (such as lack of strike funds, no outside support, starvation and exhaustion)—a compromise which in no way minimizes the revolutionary devotion and readiness to carry on the struggle on the part of the workers who have agreed to such a compromise—and, on the other hand, a compromise by traitors who try to ascribe to objective causes their self-interest (strike-breakers also enter into “compromises”!), their cowardice, desire to toady to the capitalists, and readiness to yield to intimidation, sometimes to persuasion, sometimes to sops, and sometimes to flattery from the capitalists.
-“No Compromises?” Lenin.
In other words, you can’t really say that compromise in general is good or bad. It depends on the specifics of the situation. There are plenty of cases where compromise is the best way to advance one’s interests, but if you commit to one path or the other, you’re showing your hand too early. If the party you’re negotiating with knows ahead of time that you’re committed to compromising, then they’re not going to offer very much to do it, but if you never accept compromise, then you may miss out on a mutually beneficial arrangement.
There are historical examples where compromise was necessary, but there have also been cases where it wasn’t. If you’re going to take a position that says compromise is generally preferable, I’d ask whether that includes, for example, trying to find a compromise with Russia over Ukraine. Because it seems like the same people who say that the left has to compromise and sacrifice every demand will also call for fighting to the last Ukrainian and not giving up an inch of territory. That makes me think that it’s less about whether compromise is good or bad, and more about what we consider worth fighting for and what points we see as negotiable.
No questions. Thank you for illustrating how minorities are so oppressed that they are forced to support any power and not bother their masters just for a slim chance of not being totally wiped out.
How about now we stop and organise? I don’t like the taste of boots.
So you think cooperation is bad and everyone should organize on their own?
No wonder why the left is so fractured
Cooperation with the enemy in a war against the enemy… is bad.
There’s pretty clearly a big difference between saying we cannot ally with the DNC and must organize outside of that, vs saying cooperation itself is bad and we should organize on our own.
So, in your mind escaped slave Frederick Douglas was a bootlicker?
Bayard Ruskin? WW2 partisans?
Please make your explanation as elaborate as possible.
Do you know the meaning of “forced”? I put it in bold :(
If I put a gun at your head and I kindly ask you to choose between licking my boot or die, are you a bootlicker?
What do you mean you don’t have a choice? Dying is a choice. Try to be more grateful.
How about now we stop and organise? I don’t like the taste of boots.
Those folks were organizing, you are the one trying to insult them by implying they weren’t.
And if you think I misunderstood what you wrote you could be humble and accept it and delete your comment. You could accept the idea that you didn’t write clearly. I mean, you did misspell ‘organise.’ Maybe you made some other mistakes? Isn’t that possible?
So no, you don’t know what forced means ok. It means there are no choices, zero, nada.
I’m not insulting them, I’m pointing out that a choice between dying and obedience is NOT a choice and it CAN NOT be used to prove how compromising with fascists works. It doesn’t and they weren’t, they were forced to comply.
Organise is british. I know many british words like “wanker”, “cunt” or “arsehole”. Maybe you misplaced your manners? Isn’t that possible?
Right to insult like ‘wanker?’
Great way to build a strong organization.
So more than a hundred years later, free US citizens are no better in terms of options and opportunities than a runaway slave?
I’m trying to read your argument generously, and it comes off as: a minority has to work with the enemy to have a chance at achieving some of its goals.
Please correct me, as that doesn’t seem right?
The GOPedo with Trump are still in the popular minority of votes, they haven’t been neither popular majority nor willing to compromise for 50 years.
White Christians aren’t a US minority group, or do you mean that the GOPedo has negotiated with them for the current policies? (With minorities I refer to political minority powers, not necessarily demographics)
Or is it the plurality of voters that should accept working with Trump over Biden to get some of their policy? It would seem that Biden would be the compromise candidate, as Trump doesn’t seem to be pursuing any voter driven policy (health care, jobs, lower inflation, lower cost of living, legalising drugs, etc.), besides perhaps those of further US minorities (Heritage foundation, oligarchs, Saudi Arabia, Russia).
Would you please clarify what you’re arguing for with your picked examples?
