Definitely, and for most people (there are rare exceptions, like seats which aren’t just Dem vs. Rep as the only viable candidates) I’d assume it’s the pragmatic choice for now given the broken system.

I’m going to redact my claim until I find evidence, because I may have just misinterpreted a flag they had up. Outlets are reporting the were a registered Republican.

As an aside, I’ve always found it hilarious when a Faux News host says ‘the media’, as if they’re not one of the biggest media outlets in the world. It’s an amazing disassociation and it seems to land somehow. The television screen tells you "the media doesn’t want you to know the truth!", o fanged poet.

If I’m not mistaken, it was a US Libertarian who attempted the assassination. It’s analytically pointless to group them in with the Republicans, even if they’re both horrible. Infighting is serious business. [redacted: see my reply]

But yes, they’re still going to blame the Dems anyway lol.

Everyone’s blaming the guns, but for the record, I’ll also blame the politicians they’re shooting at.

Maybe take the time to read

Heh, it’s poetry.

Serious replies:

• Developing alternate forms of power to ‘vote once every four years’. Now, I realize it’s probably not the answer you’re looking for as obviously that won’t just happen in time for this election, but it’s necessary to understand the material power we hold as workers in society, unless you’re actually happy with whatever candidates the Democrats run with. There have been times where worker action hindered genocidal regimes and wars by cutting off supply and pressuring our governments into pulling support.

• Pressuring the Democrats away from running certain candidates

• Somehow making a third-party popular enough to threaten your local seat [probably not feasible for most seats?]

• Somehow abolishing the broken FPTP voting system [probably not feasible?]

while right has fully consolidated

Well, apart from the literal assassination attempt…

The right has so much infighting that it’s dirty to even call them ‘the right’ as if it’s a single group. If the US weren’t using a FPTP system with the threat of vote spoiling, it would be much clearer just how split all political factions really are. Neo-Nazis have been calling Trump “Zion Don” for the past ten years and crying about all his links to da jooz and blags, the Libertarians disagree so much that about 2 million of them voted their own party instead of Rep or Dem in 2020. There’s even PACs like the Lincoln Project.

The reason it’s important to recognize this is that it’s important to know their weaknesses. They’re not all one homogeneous group, and many of them literally want to kill each other.

The organization is full of full blown vile Marxists who to “abolish capitalism” and establish socialism

Well, yeah, they’re socialists. Why shouldn’t they want to abolish capitalism and establish socialism? There’s nothing vile about that.

They outright want the destruction of Israel.

The dissolution of the state of Israel. Their worldview understands it as a settler-colonial ethnostate, just like former apartheid South Africa was. Jews, Christians, Muslims and others co-existed in Palestine before the Zionist state of Israel was established, the two-state situation is segregation caused by the establishment of a Zionist regime.

They organized a tone deaf pro-Palestinian rally on Oct 8th right after the attacks when the world was still in shock

That is a perfectly-appropriate time to rally support. They are pro-Palestinian and wanted to make it clear that people believed the resistance was supported, regardless of whether they are critical of the methods. The mass media gets to have its voice immediately, so rallies should not wait either.

They condemn social democracy

Yes. Democratic socialists are not capitalists and would not consider liberal democracy (especially the US version!) a working form of democracy, and don’t consider social capitalist parties within it to be effective because they must work within a broken system. Social democracy is a false hope to them.

And their interests are not with the US succeeding, they are nothing more than assets of our foreign adversaries.

Most socialists will understand the US as a settler-colonial imperialist state from day 1, so yes, their interests are ultimately that the US (as we know it) should stop being imperial terrorists that most of the world (including state allies) hate. But to call that being “nothing more than assets of our foreign adversaries” is ignorant of the very real and growing discontent with the US’s own borders. A lot of US citizens hate the US governments and how they work, and to blame that on foreign adversaries will ultimately prevent them from being solved and prevent their numbers growing.

How will this allow trump and Republican party filth into office?

Maybe I can grift a nice bounty developing AR glasses which patch out all the brands on clothes and places in real-time.

If someone’s take on 9/11 doesn’t go back to at least the early 1980s, it’s probably not worth taking too seriously. It didn’t start on 9/11, that’s just the date millions of people were forced into hearing about the messy and complex conflicts. A witness on ground zero doesn’t become a 9/11 expert.

The 4th season of the podcast Blowback does an excellent job of covering the background, both within and beyond the borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan. I highly recommend it.

It’s disingenuous to assume the Soviet Union is representative of communism or even the Western communist movement at the time or afterwards. It would be similar to pointing to the unique horrors of the United States history and claiming therefore all those supporting capitalism are disturbing.

Ah, that sucks to hear about.

I was initially siding with Israel as they were hit first, but their response has made me rethink things.

To generalize this out to other wars and conflicts, even regular old arguments, there are almost always pre-existing conditions and tensions leading up to the first major attack. Even things like WWI, where the catalyst was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. But there is quite obviously more to the atmosphere, national ambitions, etc. etc. that make it so that the separatists wanted to assassinate him, and make it so that Austria-Hungary wanted to invade Serbia and used this as an excuse. A war would have happened anyway, no matter who attacked first.

Is it even safe to start from the Ottomans?

For me, it was the palmy beach.

And I’ll have you know that I’m still under 30 and do regular back extension exercises!

I had decided to abstain from commenting on this subject further. Pretty much every reply I have received is a variation of ‘fake news’ or ‘racist cunt’.

Yeah, kneejerk reactions get tiring. I tend not to use reddit-like or twitter-like forums much because of how low-effort and unempathetic most posts are. ‘Read the news title, get angry’, might as well be the motto. I’m glad you appreciated it.

Affirmative action based on […] economic prosperity would help the most people in need and capture many more who would otherwise fall through the gaps.

This absolutely is and should be fought for, alongside other movements. The concentration of wealth at the top has just accelerated after the main COVID crisis. Our whole economic system funnels wealth to those with capital, and their influence on our political system and mass media is the root cause of most issues in our society. My caveat is that affirmative action re: economic prosperity won’t solve this, the problem runs so deep that affirmative action will ultimately be inadequate, treating the symptoms rather than the cause. We need a systematic overhaul… far far far far easier said than done.

That said, economic equity doesn’t cover everything, as many Indigenous people have other priorities that aren’t strictly economic, a major one being land rights. A somewhat-known recent example of the issue is mining companies destroying sacred land or historical artifacts, another is traditional use of the land to live off of. I admittedly don’t know enough about land right to explain in proper detail, but it’s one of the main demands that protesters have demanded for decades and decades.

I would argue that abolishing slavery, universal suffrage, and anti-discrimination laws have done far more to solve systemic racism than racial affirmative action.

I agree, and I would say that this doesn’t mean affirmative action isn’t still important. To take a metaphor from the Civil Rights struggle, that anti-discrimination is taking the knife out, there is still a need to heal the wound before we can say things are fine. We’ve abolished the most blatant aggression like non-suffrage, but done very little to make amends on things like colonisation and centuries of repression and land possession.

Generations of loss and disadvantage evidently still exist, and will remain without positive interference. Disadvantage is cyclical, it doesn’t heal by itself, poverty is an self-evident example of the cyclic nature of powerlessness. And to re-emphasise, this applies generally to disadvantage, not just disadvantage caused by colonisation or racial disadvantage.

As a side note, I’m not sure if it’s even correct to frame this as about race, Indigenous classification just inherently matches up with race since the historical inhabitants of Australian land were all, to use a racial term, Black indigenous Australians, and we’ve historically just grouped them all together when it comes to the social concept of race because they’re not White or Asian. The ill-advised and quite frankly worthless Voice proposal was about them being the native peoples, not about them being a certain race or having been racially discriminated.

Given this definition of racism, it creates an interesting problem: how can one solve systemic racism, without doing actions which take race into account? If someone needs help, is it unfair to treat them the same as someone else who doesn’t need help? Or would it be more unfair to treat them the same as someone who doesn’t need help, and therefore keeping things the same, leading to them still needing help? And, regardless of whether it’s fair or not (subjective morality), is it more beneficial to society (material outcome)?