After Biden's meltdown, the Democrats are hoping to reenergize people with a supposedly "progressive" pick for Kamala Harris' running mate.
Nice attack ad. Love how that url has nothing to show about these claims but instead just pushes someone else in your face who literally has zero chance of anything.
The links are to the PSL presidential campaign, which shouldn't be too surprising from a domain called votesocialist2024. The poster is meant to be agitational, to make you think critically.
These claims are all either sourced in the poster or easily verifiable public record. Walz famously cracked down on the George Floyd protests. As in, in the city(ies) where Chauvin killed him. His record includes those vetoes. And it should really be no surprise to anyone that the Democratic ticket is Zionist, the party line is support for Israel and its genocide. The only national-level Dem that consistently voices opposition is Tlaib.
Well, you are correct, in a way. The Harris/Walz ticket has a very large chance to commit genocide if elected. That's something that Claudia & Karina have zero chance of doing.
You should be proud!
Growing up I was told genocide was the most serious crime and we must ensure it never happens again.
Now liberals are trying to do lesser-evil genocide.
Personally, I think we should actually materially oppose it based on consistent principles. Perhaps liberals feel that Trump gives them the green light to be open, bloodthirsty genociders? I'm glad I don't associate with them anymore.
I don't "side" with anyone. Genocide is bad. I'm still going to do what I have to for avoiding making everything exceptionally worse by further enabling obviously more psychotic behavior, until such time as a better realistic solution is made available.
I don't "side" with anyone.
When Kamala was criticized for her Zionism during an ongoing genocide, your only reply was to insult the critic and go, "what about Trump?" Deflections like this are very common when someone doesn't want to address a topic. Why don't you want to address the topic of Kamala being a genocide supporter?
Genocide is bad.
Then why did you deflect when a public figure was criticized for supporting it? Wouldn't the consistent thing to do be saying, "yeah you're right"?
I'm still going to do what I have to for avoiding making everything exceptionally worse by further enabling obviously more psychotic behavior, until such time as a better realistic solution is made available.
So you are confirming exactly what I just said in my last comment. Lesser evilism support for genocide while telling yourself it isn't. But when people who actually materially oppose it criticized the genocide-supporting candidate you've decided to support in the last two weeks, you deflected and insulted them.
"Never again" except when it disagrees with vote shaming lesser evilism, eh?
Quick hint, I never said Kamala good or that I'd vote for her.
I am only being against Trump in my comments. You read in what you like. I'm just sick of the twats deciding to vote for Trump as some protest over Kamala/Biden Etc and was calling out the shit attack ad for what it was.
Insult wasn't deflecting, I did address the topic. Genocide bad, m'kay? The insult can stand alone if the person addressed to was going to vote Trump.
Quick hint, I never said Kamala good or that I'd vote for her.
I am only being against Trump in my comments.
Absolutely false. You did not, "yes and" the person criticizing Kamala's support for genocide. You said this: "But Trump won't commit genocide? Grow up."
So, obviously a dismissal of the criticism of Kamala by deflecting to Trump, as I've said a few times. And insulting the critic at the same time! I don't think this is something I really need to explain. I think you know what your words mean.
But in case you just plain miscommunicated your sentiment (while being condescending!), I would recommend that you be clearer and more concrete in your statements.
You read in what you like.
What am I supposed to take away from this next quote of yours? "I'm still going to do what I have to for avoiding making everything exceptionally worse by further enabling obviously more psychotic behavior, until such time as a better realistic solution is made available." This was you trying to defend your deflection and insult. How are you "avoiding" "further enabling obviously more psychotic behavior" by dumping on people critical of Kamala for her support for the genocide of Gaza?
Again, I think you know what your words mean. Can you not stand by them?
I'm just sick of the twats deciding to vote for Trump as some protest over Kamala/Biden Etc and was calling out the shit attack ad for what it was.
First of all, if you think PSL wants you to vote for Trump, you have absolutely no clue what this poster is about. Perhaps you should investigate more before believing you have a right to speak, let alone condescend.
Next, you are doing exactly what I said, lmao. You perceive any criticism of your Dem genociders as violating your lesser evilism stance on Trump.
Insult wasn't deflecting, I did address the topic.
Of course it is deflecting. You tried to shift the conversation to Trump and lesser evilism. You did not address Kamala's support for genocide. Your deflection is a very common line from Dems for decades, it is meant to terminate criticism and keep you nice and complacent. It even makes some people go out of their way to police others using this thought terminating cliche. Can you believe it?
Genocide bad, m'kay?
Then oppose it rather than defending those carrying it out.
The insult can stand alone if the person addressed to was going to vote Trump.
You are very confused.
Is it? These are not difficult facts to verify. For example, Walz is infamous for sending the National Guard in to stop the George Floyd protests, for example. As in, in the place he was killed, the original protests.
I'd be happy to provide information if you're having trouble verifying anything, though.
I'm sure we'd all be better for the citations, yes. That might even be related to why such is SOP pretty much everywhere — except propagandist troll puddles, of course. That's not this place, though, right?
Can you let me know which ones you've looked into and had trouble verifying?
Can you show me that you actually found anything viable? Then, maybe you'll look at the salient fact that OP's lack of citations smacks more of non-zero confidence in said claims' veracity rather than sophomoric ineptitude.
My offer is to help you if you have trouble verifying anything. To me there is more than enough information to double check anything you would want to and I already knew much of the content just by being aware of things like the George Floyd protests.
Let me know what points you've looked into and had trouble verifying.
Your trolling is neither clever nor skilled. You must enjoy toadying for a propaganda bot, sweet cheeks. 🤷🏽♂️
No I'm actually willing to help you if you actually take the first step and have any interest in investigation. It's really up to you to decide whether you care about learning about sourcing, or this topic.
I found a citation for every single one of these easily. Which one are you struggling to verify?
Surely, you...you know...did some work to verify your beliefs instead of sticking your head in the sand...right?
Oh? Care to show your work, or are you more comfortable with making as-yet-unsupported claims like OP? 🤷🏽♂️
Well, I'm curious which ones you tried finding any information on, and which ones were difficult for you? The one that is an attributed quote is especially easy to find. The one with the exact title of a news article is also very easy to find. And one is a reference to a widely publicized act he took in office during a series of nationwide protests about which many news articles are incredible easy to find with keywords. The last one is also very easy to find with keywords.
You're implying some of it is not true, I think. So what did you do to verify them, and which ones were you unable to? Surely you aren't just pretending to care about misinformation but not putting any effort into verification yourself, right? Does that only go for facts you already like?
Tankies gonna tank. Sorry we can't get one of your authoritarians elected here instead... Harris/Walz are going to be elected because Americans actually like them, and they will improve this country!
Genociders gonna genocide. I really would love to see all the snarky liberals like you try and give your snide remarks in front of a Palestinian whose child was blown to pieces or who lost all their limb function from being shot while walking down the street.
I'm quite sure you are not brave enough.
The PSL does not expect to win the presidential election. They expect to agitate for socialist positions and use electoralism as a vehicle for other organizing.
Every statement in this poster is true. If they are tankies, what does that say to you?
Build dual power. The state will persist until capitalism inevitably destroys itself and the state that props it up.
We must have strong and well-networked communities that can survive and thrive when that happens.
In the meantime, it's easier to have a liberal squishy government in power than a fascist one. The libs will attempt to placate and pander to us with little concessions here and there.
That's better than fascists who will do as much as possible to crush us into oblivion and suppress any rumblings that sound even slightly left-wing.
Both parties are statist and against any true vision of socialist structures, but don't pretend the republicans and dems are equally bad. Dems are bad, but the right-wingers are Satan. I'd much rather fight the mini-boss than the main boss if I had the choice.
Build dual power.
Dual Power cannot be built. It was a Bolshevik term for their analysis of the situation in the Russian Empire where the Russian government was so weak and delegitimized and soviets had built up enough of their own power that they believed revolution could be seized at that particular moment.
The state will persist until capitalism inevitably destroys itself and the state that props it up.
Capitalism destroys itself only through its contradictions, of making a system that produces a class conscious working class. This is only inevitable over a long time frame and it can be sped up through socialist political education and organizing.
In the meantime, it's easier to have a liberal squishy government in power than a fascist one.
The liberal government has many properties of the fascist one and has traditionally led to fascism, which is used as a tool of capital to crush an ascendant left. The fascists were inspired by American settler-colonialism and liberalism and the US government supported them up until the start of WWII, including in collaboration with American companies there. They then saved a bunch of Nazis, keeping them in positions of power in West Germany and using them to fight left wing movements in Latin Ampa.
The liberal government is just where capital is in full control and not worried about the left. You see them drop their mask when they feel any threat from the left. For example, the Democratic political class controls the major cities and many states and there they fund the cops, hire the cops, and use their violence to fight us. Walz infamously sent the National Guard in to suppress the original George Floyd protests. If they get worried enough they will gladly let fascists deal with the problem of socialists, as they always have.
The libs will attempt to placate and pander to us with little concessions here and there.
Liberal pandering to the left is false promises and cynical manipulations. There is a fundamental opposition between us, they cannot actually oppose caoital, they are a capitalist political entity.
Both parties are statist and against any true vision of socialist structures
The idea of dual power came from statists and is unique to statists. Marxist organizing is premised on the maintenance of the state post-revolution.
but don't pretend the republicans and dems are equally bad.
They are part of the same continuum that delivers one-two punches for capital. They agree with one another far more than they disagree. They are also both liberal parties, one is just more conservative. We do not actually have many proper fascists in the US. Instead, we have reactionaries that are part of the exact systems the US has had in place under liberalism. A given white supremacist organization is not a new fascist reaction, it is a harkening back to tge liberal status quo 50-70 years ago, to Jim Crow, and beyond.
You'll find that the current Dem administration is doing a genocide. How are liberals reacting to this? Have they made any real demands? Threatened to withhold their votes? Of course not. The role they are taught, by your logic, is a tailing lesser-evilism where their idea of political action is hand-wringing before inevitably voting as an individual and never thinking beyond the current election.
Dems are bad, but the right-wingers are Satan. I'd much rather fight the mini-boss than the main boss if I had the choice.
Dems are right wing.
The text is quite readable and this seems to be an attention-grabbing poster with some visuals. What's wrong with the text?
Or is it perhaps the content that you have a problem with?
Blind people can't read it. Citations are missing. Author is missing
The author is obviously the political campaign that the URLs go to.
It's unclear to me what citations anyone needs. These are easily verifiable facts. I already knew 2 of them and I don't even live in Minnesota. But if you have any trouble verifying any of the things for which you think there should be a citation, I would be happy to show you how to do so.
But feel free to transcribe the image to help blind people.
Tell me you don't know what a citation is without telling me you don't know what a citation is
A citation is source information for a claim. This is why I'm offering to help you source, I.e. verify, any claims here you are having trouble doing so yourself.
I've offered this to you and two others. So far, nobody seems to actually be interested in sources. Hmm.
The citations and author for several of them are right there in the image. Are you visually impaired? Again, I must ask, is it simply the content that you disagree with, but you don't have any actual arguments against it? That's what this seems like to me.
