You know tossing out a few anecdotes isn't a "source," right? Here, I can do it too: McCarthyism peaked under Eisenhower, Nixon had a whole fucking enemies list and dirty tricks paramilitary squad, Reagan fired the air traffic controller union wholesale, etc.
Obviously both parties serve capitalism and will combat the left in accordance with the domestic police state, but one party has something like a real ideological opposition to leftists and is is openly talking about just shooting them. You're fucking delusional if you think that party is just as dangerous as the party that just wants protesters to stop breaking windows.
A member of the DSA gets taken in and questioned for a day.
Lying about the scope and seriousness of what's happening is also delusional. Have fun telling the feds who give you a helicopter ride that the Democrats would have been just as bad.
On August 30, 1921, President Warren G. Harding declared martial law for the entire state of West Virginia and 2,500 federal troops arrived on September 2, bringing with them machine guns and military aircraft armed with surplus explosive and gas bombs from the recently concluded World War I.
You really should fuck off with you "historical illiteracy" bullshit, but I'm guessing you won't.
It's a whole lot more complicated than whatever you're on about, and that's before we revisit the point that who the fuck cares what happened generations ago if one party has its boot on our throats right now.
The police don't really take orders from anyone; the complete lack of accountability is a big reason the protests got so large and have sustained for so long. And while there are no shortage of shitty local Democrats, at least some are making serious attempts to change how we handle crime, compared to a Republican party that is pure bootlicker.
One party at least has some elements trying to control the police; the other is openly asking "why don't we just do fascism?" How is this hard?
you might want to get over whatever bizarre electoralism
Dismissing electoralism without a feasible alternative is just whining. If you have an alternative plan to achieve socialism that will actually work , I'm all ears.
You know tossing out a few anecdotes isn't a "source," right? Here, I can do it too: McCarthyism peaked under Eisenhower, Nixon had a whole fucking enemies list and dirty tricks paramilitary squad, Reagan fired the air traffic controller union wholesale, etc.
Obviously both parties serve capitalism and will combat the left in accordance with the domestic police state, but one party has something like a real ideological opposition to leftists and is is openly talking about just shooting them. You're fucking delusional if you think that party is just as dangerous as the party that just wants protesters to stop breaking windows.
Lying about the scope and seriousness of what's happening is also delusional. Have fun telling the feds who give you a helicopter ride that the Democrats would have been just as bad.
deleted by creator
Hmmm...
You really should fuck off with you "historical illiteracy" bullshit, but I'm guessing you won't.
It's a whole lot more complicated than whatever you're on about, and that's before we revisit the point that who the fuck cares what happened generations ago if one party has its boot on our throats right now.
deleted by creator
The police don't really take orders from anyone; the complete lack of accountability is a big reason the protests got so large and have sustained for so long. And while there are no shortage of shitty local Democrats, at least some are making serious attempts to change how we handle crime, compared to a Republican party that is pure bootlicker.
One party at least has some elements trying to control the police; the other is openly asking "why don't we just do fascism?" How is this hard?
Dismissing electoralism without a feasible alternative is just whining. If you have an alternative plan to achieve socialism that will actually work , I'm all ears.