YOU are speaking!

Have you made any poignant commentary on the recent election in the U.S.? Do you have a good response to liberals who are upset with the results or process of the election? Have you written or seen something as a comment reply/post that you think has standalone value? Did you see a new take or analysis you hadn’t previously considered?

Whether it’s a long idea with lots of context, or a short and sweet one liner, we want those thoughts aggregated here. This post is intended to be a resource for comrades to draw from when having actual discussions outside of Hexbear both online or IRL regarding the election.

Consider this a mini-effortpost aggregator. This is not for shitposts, but humor is completely acceptable if it helps make the point.

  • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]
    ·
    15 days ago

    When you run on the status quo, and the status quo sucks, people are gonna turn to whoever manages to present themselves as an alternative.

    When you run to the right, and the people who like right-wing policies already have a party giving them the policies they want, they're not gonna switch parties, and you're just going to alienate the parts of your base/coalition that are affected by those policies.

    Not an effortpost but I think those are two simple, straightforward responses to anyone being like, "How could this possibly happen?"

    I'm also running around countering any "she lost because she's a woman" takes with with Tammy Baldwin in WI and Elissa Slotkin in MI winning despite their states going to Trump, which are two invaluable rhetorical data points, imo.

      • Frank [he/him, he/him]
        ·
        14 days ago

        Did Harris offer any actual concrete plan for legalizing abortion? Like "We're going to do X Y Z?" I imagine at least some people kinda realized it's a sham and they have no route to power that would let them pass legislation.

        • JoeByeThen [he/him, they/them]
          ·
          14 days ago

          There might be something on her website but she didn't run on anything beyond needing to vote harder for it, that I'm aware of.

    • Biggay [he/him, comrade/them]
      ·
      12 days ago

      Not to do apologia for misogynists/liberals, but I do think theres a certain strain of man and woman throughout America that is more than willing to have women at the table but not at the head of it, especially when there's a person like Trump who encapsulates a lot of what is perceived as masculine to our culture.

      • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]
        ·
        12 days ago

        While theoretically possible, I think it's a stretch to say that that represents a significant portion of the electorate that isn't already voting Republican. The only real evidence for that idea is that Clinton and Harris lost, and there are plenty of other explanations for their losses. If you make the claim that specific to where downballot races don't apply, then there just isn't enough data to make that a reliable conclusion. It also feels to me like it's just a talking point to absolve the Democrats of responsibility for running bad campaigns.

        Btw with Nevada being called for Jacky Rosen, that makes three female senators winning in states Kamala lost, and there's Ruben Gallego, a Latino, who's ahead in Arizona.

  • CoolerOpposide [none/use name]
    hexagon
    M
    ·
    edit-2
    15 days ago

    I’ll start by just saying that the classic response to the election results remains timeless:

    If democrats were serious about protecting the things you cared so much about, they would have taken the election more seriously than nominating a candidate who so clearly had dementia that they were eventually forced to pull him from the race. They only pulled him from the race just months before the election because his mental decline was so obvious that it was completely indefensible, and that’s after he did untold damage in both voter turnout and campaign time.

    • mathemachristian [he/him]
      ·
      15 days ago

      Never ever forget that what did Joe in was not him bankrolling a genocide but a bad TV performance. Then they ran his VP. These people were never serious about winning.

      • coeliacmccarthy [he/him]
        ·
        edit-2
        15 days ago

        they get paid either way, and they don't have to pretend to enact policy when they lose

    • culpritus [any]
      ·
      15 days ago

      And he is still in Office too. Really shows how incompetent they are at doing anything political that isn't just civility coronation pecking order BS.

      • CoolerOpposide [none/use name]
        hexagon
        M
        ·
        15 days ago

        Too dementia ridden to run for president, not too dementia ridden to be the president. Make it make sense

        • Frank [he/him, he/him]
          ·
          14 days ago

          idk. I guess Kamala just doesn't have the gonads to 25th amendment him. From what I've read his family and long time allies are wrapped around him pretty tightly, it's hard to get access.

    • Frank [he/him, he/him]
      ·
      14 days ago

      Even post debate there were libs yelling that Biden was fine and it was ableist and ageist to say there was anything wrong.

  • ReadFanon [any, any]
    ·
    edit-2
    14 days ago
    1. The DNC learned nothing from 2016. It is the definition of irrationality to do the same thing twice and expect different outcomes.

    2. Bernie could garner huge crowds and massive support by campaigning on the basis of policy that has mass appeal, such as universal healthcare. Kamala chose not to do this because she prioritised business as usual over stopping Trump.

    3. You say "things will get worse under Trump". That's true. But things got worse under Biden/Harris after Trump's first term as president - environmental policy, the border camps, reproductive rights, trans rights, cop city, the genocide of Palestinians etc. So when you say "we must vote for Kamala or things will get worse" that line of reasoning is at best unconvincing and at worst it betrays the 4-year state of amnesia you have lived in because you are so politically detached from the consequences of your voting.

    4. Telling people to protect democracy—the system where you vote for the candidate who best represents your political values—by voting for a person who in no way represents your political values in order to save democracy is tortured logic.

    5. No, I'm not an accelerationist. Me advocating for people not to vote for Kamala Harris is not an accelerationist position because we should not be giving a mandate for a genocide, climate change, and civil rights-eroding accelerationist by voting for them.

    6. How many delegates did Harris win in the last primaries? How many did she win in the primaries to get her to run for president this time? Is this what you claim as your democracy?

    7. When I list a number of legitimate grievances with Kamala Harris and Joe Biden's regime and issues with Kamala's election platform, none of which have a single thing to do with her race or gender, and you respond by calling me racist or misogynistic it drives home how little you are willing to listen to my political concerns and how intransigent your favoured party is. When you act this way and then tell me that people have to vote for Kamala in order to push her left while you yourself are unwilling to even acknowledge the fact that Kamala's platform has serious issues, it signals to me that there will be no shifting left on anything. I already knew this fact but you have done an exceptional job of inadvertently teaching other people this lesson.

    8. When entering into negotiations with someone, it's a uniquely terrible tactic to hand over your one state-sanctioned bargaining chip before making even one single demand.

    9. You are chasing the DNC to the right and one day you will wake up and wonder to yourself "How did I end up all the way over here?" I'm not following you into that marsh but you're welcome to go into it yourself, just don't get upset at me when I point out what you're heading into and don't get angry when I refuse to blindly follow you.

    10. Kamala Harris is the only thing that can stop fascism. Kamala Harris cannot do anything to protect reproductive rights, trans rights, Palestinian lives, the lives of Marcellus Williams and Robert Robertson etc. because she is powerless to do anything about it 🫠

    11. Kamala Harris said she would "follow the law" regarding trans people. She was angling to become the primary lawmaker in the US. Not only does this show a lack of whatever libs care about like "leadership" but it shows how cowardly and detestable she is because she understands the law and she is willing to follow it but not when it comes to things like international law, only when it's laws that she can use to hide behind while trans people are subjected to further oppression through legislation that strips them of rights.

    12. Historically, fascism has never been stopped at the ballot box. You being convinced that this is possible does not sway my opinion on any matter aside from my estimation of your political awareness and your ability to achieve change.

    13. You had four years (eight+ if you count Trump's regime and the lead-up to it in this calculation) to "stop fascism". What did you do in this period of time? Did you push Biden and Kamala to adopt policies which have mass support? Did you do anything except go to back to brunch?

    14. When you accuse me of not organising irl, when you say that I'm not doing anything:

    • I'm not about to dox myself

    • I'm not going to make a laundry list of the things that I have done w/organising and activism just to impress (?) you, especially not when you've already told me that I haven't done anything

    • It's a huge self-report and it's obvious that you're projecting

    • You alienate others by telling them "I do not recognise your efforts and everything that you have done is unimportant in my estimation"

    1. You aren't entitled to others' votes. Stop pretending that you are.

    2. We aren't splitting the so-called left, Kamala Harris did that all by herself.

    3. You have no red lines. There is nothing that could make you not support Kamala Harris and we know it. Telling people to drop their standards and ignore their conscience to vote for Kamala is a fatal strategy and you killed her campaign by deploying it.

    4. Selective invoking of people of colour to advocate for Kamala was ridiculous and disgustingly tokenistic. Yes, Angela Davis is smarter than I am. Telling me that I'm stupider than her and so I should take my political cues from her with regards to electoralism is a losing argument and it's low-key ableist became you're arguing that the person who lacks intelligence also has a commensurate lack of political virtue. Historically speaking, very intelligent people have had absolutely atrocious politics. Also people like Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas are almost certainly a lot smarter than I am. It would be wrong of me not to defer to their superior intellect and their politics, isn't that right?

    5. You say that democracy is going to be strangled in its crib and that fascism has come to town. You are maybe posting about this online in your echo chamber and that's it. You do not take politics seriously, not even your own, yet you demand that I take your politics more seriously than you yourself do. There are things that I am doing right now to avert this trend in politics. There are things that I would do if fascism proper had seized power, none of which I would post about online. We are not the same. Enjoy your brunch though.

    6. Almost all of your arguments for voting for Kamala Harris (aside from the "it will stop Trump" argument which, in retrospect, appears to be a dismal failure) also apply to reasons for voting for Trump. "You can push them left", "By voting we will get a seat at the table", "Voting third party or not voting at all is a wasted vote", "We have to vote this way to protect the country", "Politics is about comprise - you cannot expect them to be your perfect political candidate", and whatever hold-your-nose-and-vote arguments you trot out. Did you ever stop to ask yourself why it is that you do not find these arguments for voting Trump to be convincing?

    7. Last time Trump got elected you were brutally vindictive. You took glee in the thought of people in red states and marginalised groups suffering due to policy and things like natural disasters, regardless of their politics or how they chose to vote. You were excited to tell these people that they were going to get deported and put into concentration camps. You will do it again this time too because you have learned nothing. November came and these people you targeted with your vicious schadenfreude remembered. They aren't going to forget how effortlessly you abandoned them and how you wished the worst suffering and ill-fate upon them.

    8. You said that a non-vote or a 3rd party vote is a vote for Trump. We have been shouting from the rooftops that Kamala Harris is fundamentally unwilling and incapable of stopping Trump. History vindicates this position; Trump managed to win the popular vote while Harris underperformed by millions of votes, even compared to Joe Biden. Thus your support for Kamala Harris was therefore support for Donald Trump's presidency. Congratulations on getting the candidate which you campaigned so hard to get elected.

    9. I don't care about the US. America must die and if Trump is to be its undertaker then I am relieved to hear it. What you have done is to accelerate the destruction of the US. If I were cynical about achieving my political objectives, wouldn't have said any of the above. If I was an accelerationist I would have been pushing for all of the things that you've been pushing for instead of pushing back against them. I would have even gone so far as to furnish your side with more poisoned chalice arguments (I do this with the far right, I exactly know how to do it). Instead I've been defending your political project against your own excesses and self-defeating narrow mindedness. You are right in the fact that I am your enemy but you are wrong to oppose me because you are a far greater enemy to yourself than I could ever have the stomach to be. You won't listen to a word of what I've said because you refuse to learn and to reflect.

    10. A cynical person might argue that my strategy is to oppose you in the knowledge that this will make you react by becoming more deeply entrenched in your position, encouraging a sort of siege mentality in you, so that you see any criticism or difference of opinion as being an existential political threat that must be eradicated as a means to create more disaffected people to radicalise out of bourgeois democracy. This is not my intent. If things improve for the proles and the marginalised because of what I argue for then that's a win for my political objectives. However I can't control your actions and if you choose to respond by taking a hatchet to your precious liberal democracy then, likewise, that's a win for my political objectives. Which way, western man?

    • Frank [he/him, he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      14 days ago

      hero-of-socialist-labor hero-of-socialist-labor hero-of-socialist-labor hero-of-socialist-labor hero-of-socialist-labor hero-of-socialist-labor hero-of-socialist-labor hero-of-socialist-labor hero-of-socialist-labor hero-of-socialist-labor hero-of-socialist-labor

      No, I'm not an accelerationist. Me advocating for people not to vote for Kamala Harris is not an accelerationist position because we should not be giving a mandate for a genocide, climate change, and civil rights-eroding accelerationist by voting for them.

      Also, if they did want to put the breaks on they'd have to stop Harris and the DNC from doing this every 4 years. Harris is very much the accelerationist sabotaging whatever isn't rotten in the system to push Trump and company in to power.

      • miz [any, any]
        ·
        14 days ago

        okay fine I guess I'll have to go with FanonTheFlames

  • Cowbee [he/him, they/them]
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    A softer list I made on a Lemmy.ml thread that got a good amount of momentum and very little pushback on what liberals should do in the coming years, a mini What is to be Done?

    1. Get organized. Join a Leftist org, find solidarity with fellow comrades, and protect each other. The Dems will not save you, it is up to the Workers to protect themselves. The Party for Socialism and Liberation and Freedom Road Socialist Organization both organize year round, every year, because the battle for progress is a constant struggle, not a single election. See if there is a chapter near you, or start one! Or, see if there's an org you like more near you and join it, the point is that organizing is the best thing any leftist can do.

    2. Read theory. A good primer is Blackshirts and Reds. It will help contextualize what fascism is, what causes it, and how to stop it. I can offer a good introductory reading list regarding Marxism if you'd like, but this is a good starting point.

    3. Aggressively combat white supremacy, misogyny, queerphobia, and other attacks on marginalized communities. Cede no ground.

    4. Be more industrious, and self-sufficient. Take up gardening, home repair, tinkering. It is through practice that you elevate your problem-solving capabilities. Not only will you improve your skill at one subject, but your general problem-solving muscles get strengthened as well. Theory guides practice, which sharpens theory to be reapplied to better practice.

    5. Learn self-defense. Get armed, if practical. Be ready to protect yourself and others. The Democrats will not save us, we must save each other.

    6. Be persistent. If you feel like a single water driplet against a mountain, think of the Grand Canyon. Oh, how our efforts pile up! With consistency, every rock, boulder, even mountain, can be drilled through with nothing but steady and persistent water droplets.

    Here is the reading list I am working on, open to advice! I copy and paste it whenever it is asked for, which has been surprisingly frequent.

    Edit: Folded the reading list and this list together, I believe that works better.

      • Cowbee [he/him, they/them]
        ·
        15 days ago

        It really is fantastic agitprop. It slips beyond the liberal shields like a slow knife in Dune. lisan-al-gaib

      • Frank [he/him, he/him]
        ·
        14 days ago

        What is the Blackshirts and Reds reading level? Seems to be a lot of agreement that we need theory that's written at a 6th grade level because that's where most American's reading skills are. I'm not entirely sure what htat means in terms of word choice and concepts, since I think what we're going for is present the concepts straight, but using language - words, sentence structures, things like that, that people whose reading skills aren't strong. Like, they're not stupid, they're lacking a particular skill, kind of thing.

        • FloridaBoi [he/him]
          ·
          13 days ago

          I don't think it is a hard read and is quite short so it is rather quick (<160pgs). It isn't theory or a philosophical text. It is easy to read like any pop nonfiction book although the subject matter is sometimes hard to stomach.

          • Frank [he/him, he/him]
            ·
            13 days ago

            https://readabilityformulas.com/readability-scoring-system.php

            I plugged a thousand random words from Blackshirts and Reds in to this thing and it says it's either at 12th grade or college graduate. That means we've immediately lost 50%-70% of Americans. We gotta get a vocabulary, sentence structure, and layout that's approachable with a 6th grade reading level to get to most Americans.

  • Parzivus [any]
    ·
    15 days ago

    Show

    One step closer to revolution. Only time will tell if it's a fascist one

  • TheModerateTankie [any]
    ·
    14 days ago

    A good response whenever you hear someone express shock over voting for Trump:

    “If you were able to overlook a genocide and cast a vote for Harris, you already know how a conservative was able to overlook Trump’s extremism and vote for him.”

    https://xcancel.com/briebriejoy/status/1854548845381787825#m

    • Philosoraptor [he/him, comrade/them]
      ·
      13 days ago

      I've strategically deployed this line a few times since yesterday, and it's like a slap in the face. It wakes people the fuck up.

  • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]
    ·
    edit-2
    14 days ago

    -Can't blame third parties, the margins are too big and they wouldn't have mattered in a single state.
    -Can't blame non-voters, voter turnout was relatively high.
    -Can't blame the Electoral College, Trump won the popular vote by almost twice the difference that Hillary has in 2016.
    -Can't blame it on people being ignorant of the ramifications, Trump had already been president for 4 years, he was the presumptive nominee all along, and throughout election season he actually polled higher than his favorability when he left office.
    -Can't blame corruption or voting machines, the last week of polling had Trump ahead, and the exit polling lines up with the results.
    The only thing the Democrats have to blame is themselves, for running a bad campaign with an inferior candidate and striking out on a softball.

    A close friend of mine was remarking in the last few weeks how the Democrats had pivoted from the "weird" messaging, which seemed to be working, back to the "he's dangerous and unstable and a threat to democracy" messaging, which they knew from experience did not have much of an effect. In fact, from exit polls, out of people who said "democracy in this country is threatened" or prioritized a candidate's capacity to do the job, a clear majority supported Trump! This is yet another damning piece of evidence that suggests that Democrats were actively not doing what they could to win the election. Either they prioritized fundraising at the expense of outcome, or they actually threw it.

    Also, Allan Lichtman BTFO.

    • BeamBrain [he/him]
      ·
      14 days ago

      Can't blame non-voters, voter turnout was relatively high.

      Wasn't turn out significantly depressed compared to 2020?

      • miz [any, any]
        ·
        edit-2
        14 days ago

        this says more about 2020 than 2024 though. 2020 was unusually high turnout (62% iirc), some people think because of COVID and mail-in ballots being widely available

      • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]
        ·
        edit-2
        14 days ago

        I'm not sure if it's that significant, they've still got about 10% of votes to count.

    • CoolerOpposide [none/use name]
      hexagon
      M
      ·
      14 days ago

      The “he’s weird” messaging was legitimately working well and the Trump campaign even knew it. Look how they hid Vance away from the public as soon as people started realizing he was a freak (derogatory)

      And it makes sense that the “he’s weird” messaging would work when targeting the Dems main goal of white suburban moderates. Tell a wine mom to imagine trying to have a real conversation with Trump or Vance and they’ll immediately be able to tell that these are not Normal People™ and theyll be much less enthusiastic to vote for them

    • Doubledee [comrade/them]
      ·
      14 days ago

      What are you suggesting we blame it on? My gut impulse has been to say it was a bad strategy that didn't mobilize the voters Dems won with before, while Trumps turnout was static. Which I think is kinda a turnout based argument but if that's a mistake I want to catch and stop that now.

      • RedWizard [he/him, comrade/them]
        ·
        14 days ago

        Low turnout is a reflection of the campaign and the current administrations favorability. Harris didn't break away far enough from Biden's policies on all fronts which left the base drained of enthusiasm. Turning to the right alienated the progressive wing of voters. Simple as.

        • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]
          ·
          14 days ago

          I don't think it was alienating progressive voters, otherwise we'd see more votes for Stein and West, etc. I think she simply didn't get people excited enough to vote.

          I'd like to think that a plurality of voters are explicitly progressive, but it's a better explanation that popular policy and messaging gets people out, and unpopular policy and messaging doesn't.

          • RedWizard [he/him, comrade/them]
            ·
            14 days ago

            alienating progressive voters
            get people excited enough to vote

            These seem like the same thing to me. Couldn't a progressive who feels alienated by the campaign also fully believe that Stein and maybe even West are agents of Russia and not want to vote for them? Could they have shown up and instead only voted on down ballot races instead?

            I'd like to think that a plurality of voters are explicitly progressive, but it's a better explanation that popular policy and messaging gets people out, and unpopular policy and messaging doesn't.

            I agree with this. People either feel like someone has answers to their anxieties about the future, or they don't. When they feel like they don't, they become non-voters.

  • peppersky [he/him, any]
    ·
    14 days ago

    That there are fifteen million people in the US who said "I'm not going to vote for genocide and I'm not going to vote for things to stay the same" is fantastic fucking news. You really can't say it any other way. That's fifteen million people who are prime candidates for radicalization.

    • CoolerOpposide [none/use name]
      hexagon
      M
      ·
      14 days ago

      I haven’t been able to stop thinking about this same exact thing. Most aren’t unconsciously sitting out the election, and many more voters didn’t select a presidential candidate at all.

  • Angel [any]
    ·
    14 days ago

    Harris did not lose (primarily) due to her gender or race. I feel that people who are operating under this assumption need to examine the dialectic here a lot more closely. Kamala's major L is not a testament to Trump being any degree of magnificent but rather a demonstration of how God awful she is. Liberals need to garner far more awareness. If your answer to the question, "Why did Kamala lose?" has anything to do with assuming that it's mainly the fault of reactionary, sexist, and racist white men, you are cutting out a whole bunch of very important factors from this equation. Plenty of marginalized people feel utterly disappointed in the bourgeois, imperialist machine that is the Democratic Party of the United States.

    We've seen that they will truly do nothing to further our rights or even maintain them as they currently stand. They don't care about economic equality, and the most we've gotten from them is lip service. Democrats and Republicans are two heads on a vicious and malevolent double-headed fire-breathing dragon. One of these heads breathes fire of its usual color, and this head will explicitly warn you that this fire is there to kill your ass. The other head, on the other hand, will breathe a mesmerizing, astonishingly flashy rainbow-colored fire instead. On top of that, this head will tell you that if you get touched by this fire, you'll heal from all of the wounds that the other head's fire has given you, but in actuality, it just exacerbates the damage.

    This double-headed dragon has wreaked havoc on marginalized communities, and these marginalized communities know, be they oppressed on the basis of race, gender, class, sexuality, disability, religion, or anything else, that the rainbow fire actually has zero healing properties, so stop acting like they do not know because we do. In addition, stop pretending that you care about us because you liberals have constantly demonstrated to me, a poor neurodivergent transfem of color, that you do not care about my view on bourgeois electoralism. It's clear that I am nothing but a pawn to you, and you seem to want to dispose of me the moment that me being your pawn stops working in your favor. If that were anything but the truth, you'd listen to me on how to be a better ally to the marginalized, but you never do. If your outlook is that you want to hurt marginalized people while pretending that you care about them, it's no wonder that KKKamala HarriSS seems right up your alley.

    fanon “Imperialism leaves behind germs of rot which we must clinically detect and remove from our land but from our minds as well.”

    • Llituro [he/him, they/them]
      ·
      13 days ago

      might i add, the one part of the 2016 campaign that wasn't replicated was the identity politics focus. harris did not lose (primarily) due to her race or gender, in part because she didn't make the campaign about that. i think that part of the reason misogyny had such legs in the 2016 campaign was clinton's choice to make "elect a woman" a core argument. clinton, a clueless white woman, ate shit on identity politics because she hadn't considered the possibility that outside of her own circles that wouldn't perform well. the harris campaign was executed worse, but at least seemed to understand that. anyone who tries to argue that harris lost on those grounds should take a good hard look at what actually happened.

    • Llituro [he/him, they/them]
      ·
      13 days ago

      Harris did not lose (primarily) due to her gender or race. I feel that people who are operating under this assumption

      as support for this to people you talk to, you can point to how harris did not run the same kind of identity-centric campaign that clinton did in 2016. the focus differed substantially in both messaging and media coverage.

  • Cowbee [he/him, they/them]
    ·
    15 days ago

    (On Democrats running to the right to appease donors, rather than left to appease voters, and losing the election)

    They always will, they serve the same donors and bourgeois powers. Marx and Lenin are vindicated by the passage of time. They were not clairvoyant, they just accurately analyzed the systems around them and saw what necessarily follows from their directions.

    Everyone, get organized, read theory, learn self-defense and self-sufficiency. A good primer is Blackshirts and Reds. Defend yourselves and protect each other.

  • Adkml [he/him]
    ·
    15 days ago

    We've barely gotten past processing democrats third once in a lifetime fuck up in recent memory but I think we are missing out on imagining ehat a Trump presidency actually looks like.

    That motherfucker is already doing interviews by refusing to respond to questions and slowly swaying to yacht rock, imagine when he's president for a week and he has to make a decision and hee settles it by a ymca dance competition with the joint chiefs of staff.

      • Adkml [he/him]
        ·
        15 days ago

        There's a very slim chance something happens to Biden (or he steps down to let kamala be pres for a day) next January, Trump is sworn in and then ousted and we get our very own 4 empowers in one year.

        Plus it would be hilarious if going forward the numbering of president's was fucked up because one person was pres for one day in a purely symbolic gesture half the country refuses to acknowledge and half the country decides is incredibly important.

      • Mindfury [he/him]
        ·
        14 days ago

        tfw Thiel sidelines Musk completely yet again because Vance is nominally in charge

    • PaX [comrade/them, they/them]
      ·
      15 days ago

      when he's president for a week and he has to make a decision and hee settles it by a ymca dance competition with the joint chiefs of staff.

      Critical support for making the Empire slightly more dysfunctional /joking

      spoiler

      Ofc the national security state does what it wants regardless, any actual resistance to that gets you JFKed

  • RedWizard [he/him, comrade/them]
    ·
    14 days ago

    There has been a silent protest voter class ignored by mainstream reporting, tabulations, and analysis that can be found hidden within ballot reader error rates. These voters are casting ballots with no presidential candidate, but potentially ballot questions and down ballot votes filled in. They are consciously abstaining from all candidates for president and represent a active but non participating voter. There must be a reason these people cast a vote for no one right? Because they're not "selfishly voting 3rd party" after all, and not voting for their "unicorn" candidate. The only conclusion is that no one is winning these people over with their policies at the federal level, and know local races matter to them more.

  • real [he/him, comrade/them]
    ·
    14 days ago

    Maybe this isnt the place to have this discussion, but I think it would be great to make these mega threads a regular thing. We have a lot of work to do, people to radicalize, etc.

    It begins now.

    • Cowbee [he/him, they/them]
      ·
      14 days ago

      More accurately, it was always here, but now is an opportune moment now that liberals are disillusioned. This is an opportunity we must take.

    • CoolerOpposide [none/use name]
      hexagon
      M
      ·
      14 days ago

      I was thinking about this but think it would be hard to not just recreate the news Megathread if we did that. Maybe a thread like this one for individual large events though

      • real [he/him, comrade/them]
        ·
        14 days ago

        Perhaps we could rename the news mega thread to the “news and agitprop thread.” I dunno just a thought.

        • CoolerOpposide [none/use name]
          hexagon
          M
          ·
          14 days ago

          I was thinking something along the lines of a “News with nuance” thread for more in depth analysis or for people to request nuanced analysis of news articles. It would fall under agitprop in the sense that it allows you to go forward with conversations elsewhere much more principled and informed on the issue

  • buckykat [none/use name]
    ·
    14 days ago

    The Democrats did not treat this as the most important election of our lifetimes. They did not even seriously treat it as an election at all.

    They treated it as a protection racket. "Oh, it'd sure be a shame if ol' cousin Donny broke your kneecaps. Now, I can keep him away from you but I'm gonna need a little something from you first."