Considering I’m registered in NY, my vote for De La Cruz was the best possible use of it.

Weird, was JUST thinking about that . . .

Sorry Dr NAS, no time for love

Wasn’t that what the capitalists claimed communists wanted to do?

At least that was happy - seems now it’s “you will own nothing and it’ll keep getting worse, so number go up”.

But we don’t live in the might’ve world, we live in the world of what is.

Yes, and the current world - with an unrestrained GOP bringing open fascism without resistance from the supposed opposition party - is exactly the product of the strategy you’re advocating continuing. That’s the issue. This didn’t come out of nowhere.

heh yeah, Lemmy gives me old phpBB vibes sometimes

Exactly. It’s like people that move to Bluesky, which is under private control, and then are shocked when abuses start there.

The problem is exactly that social spaces shouldn’t be privately owned and a source of profit. Until you address that, the slop hellsites will always wind up that way.

Yeah, people seeing pictures of children being killed in a genocide and reacting badly is obviously just a conspiracy!

the equivalent of going to rancher’s market

A few more bugs, way less poison?

You’re point is you want to claim people that don’t vote for the Democrats are stupid, because you think that’s the best way to stop the GOP.

The problem is the whole Vote Blew No Matter Hoo strategy has been failing for 25 years. It’s what brought you here, and yet you don’t want to accept that.

And again, you’re pretending that the Democrats didn’t lose as well. If there was no way for a third party candidate to win (because they didn’t) there was also no way for the Democrats to win with how they ran.

They do in every other country. Heard the same about Mexico for years.

Yes. You need to look at the cost of stocks in constant dollars to avoid measuring inflation.

Trump is the symptom, not the disease

They didn’t have a better chance though - they lost to a historically bad candidate. Multiple times.

The Democrats are a problem precisely because they occupy the line of resistance to the GOP. You want to stop the GOP, you’ve got to stop their enablers first.

I’m saying it’s literally impossible for them to have performed worse.

So talking about how third party candidates “can’t win” is nonsense, since the Democrats apparently can’t win either.

In addition to This Nonviolent Stuff, please go read The Death of Democracy, about exactly how the Nazis took power.

Contrary to Cold War revisionism (which had to paint the commies as villians), the tactic of the SPD to avoid violent confrontation with the right (which is why they unleashed the Freikorps on the left) was never going to work. The conservatives, and crucially Hindenberg, saw any democratic or socialist government as unacceptable. Compromises and attempting to keep the peace actually just let the Nazis gather strength and normalize their own violence.

The lesson here is clear - deciding to unilaterally reject violence against a violent opponent just means you give them the luxury of deciding when to strike, and that is usually fatal. Ask the dead in MN if the US administration is non-violent.

Yeah, SRA member, I don’t disagree. But just talking in terms of that comment.

where unions were destroyed by an overwhelming state violence.

Hitler talked about exactly this - waiting just makes it worse, and your choices are fighting or full submission.

“Only one danger could have jeopardised this development — if our adversaries had understood its principle, established a clear understanding of our ideas, and not offered any resistance. Or, alternatively, if they had from the first day annihilated with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement.”

it’s quite clear that the regime is looking for an excuse to call martial law, cancel the elections, and unleash the military upon all who oppose it.

They’re not going to wait for an excuse, or they’ll make one. You’re dealing with a false choice here.

, it’d be damned foolish not to even try the non-violent path considering how effective its been demonstrated to be

It hasn’t been. I would highly recommend a book called This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed, which is about exactly the use of non-violence in the US Civil Rights movement - the reality as opposed to the myth that has been forced down since. The tl;dr; is this - the movement was all nonviolent, it was a tactic that also recognized it had violence in riots to offer as another path, and most importantly, the US cared about public opinion internationally due to competition with the USSR. None of that is applicable here.