Like, just google what happens to most oligarchs when they support any kind of authoritarianism. Whether it’s Mussolini, Hitler, or Putin, they always get shafted in the end.

What on earth are you talking about? The oligarchs who supported Hitler made a bunch of money, saw organized labor crushed, and then did fine after the war. Nazi war criminal Fritz ter Meer, who was a senior board member of IG Farben, manufacturing Zyklon B for the gas chambers, got a couple years in prison and then became chairman of Bayer.

Well, the War Powers Act is unconstitutional - but in the other direction. Deploying military force requires a declaration of war, which requires congressional approval, but the War Powers Act circumvents that by pretending that using euphemisms to describe military actions instead of calling it war makes it different, somehow.

I find it really entertaining when some low information group becomes aware of information that was fully publicly available before, but which the members vehemently refused to acknowledge purely because they hated/distrusted the people saying it and it didn't track with their narratives.

Feddit.org now bans

• The sentence “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”

• Comparing Israel to the Nazis

• Calls to end Zionism

• Calling for the dissolution of Israel

The libs were not happy with my take

There's no need to go around making actionable threats of violence that could be read out in a courtroom, that's called fedposting. Try this on for size:

If the right keeps pushing, eventually someone's probably going to feel like their back's against the wall with no other recourse. For example, if there was, say, a national abortion ban, I wouldn't be surprised if someone tried to kill the people responsible. Tragic, really, but that's just the world we live in. Look, I want to do things peacefully, but if I can't produce results that way, well, it's not about me, it's about what's going to happen if other people lose confidence in my methods.

A prediction isn't a threat. I'm allowed to speculate about other people doing stuff, aren't I? Some historical orgs spoke that way, and their predictions could be eerily accurate.

When did, "End Racism" become a controversial political statement? 🤔

Seems more like the standard fascist approach to me. It's probably not going to stay government owned.

1. Demonize a minority group

2. Government takes control of businesses owned by members of that minority

3. Government gives control of the business to (typically larger) businesses owned by the dominant group, allowing them to artificially produce growth (what Zucc is likely aiming for)

4. Narrow the scope of who is accepted in the dominant group, move on to the next minority, and repeat.

This is why communists often describe fascism as "capitalism in decay." Because of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, it becomes harder and harder for companies to find new ways of producing growth, and have to find methods that aren't involved with actually increasing productivity, which is where you get enshittification. The fascist economic solution is obviously unsustainable, it's like eating your own arm, but corporations that are desperately focused on short term growth (the vast majority of them) will happily sign on.

Socialism, otoh, is not about finding more stuff to feed into corporations, but, upon reaching that point, transforming the economy to remove the need for endless growth through nationalization. But socialism is not synonymous with nationalization, especially when the nationalization is selectively targeted and (most likely) temporary.

You know you're cooked when Bill Kristol is going around like, "Hey, shouldn't you be running a more progressive campaign to turn out more voters?"

Grifters grifting grifters lol.

This has so completely disappeared from discourse over the past four years. I remember when it used to be that "building the wall" was stupid at best and bigoted at worst. But now, it's all, "Of course we agree that we need a strong border, but we're the ones who will actually do it, Trump's all talk."

It's always the Republicans that get to set which values and goals the country persues, while the Democrats just run on pragmatism and efficiency. It's like they're allergic to making moral claims.

>"Nothing justifies genocide."

>Proceeds to make arguments justifying genocide

I have no idea how you could possibly think this supports your position on things.

If Major Kira was living under a government that offered no alternative to genocide, she'd take up a phaser and start killing government officials, you know, like she literally did, in the show. She'd never condone someone who supported genocide, even if it meant resorting to violent opposition instead.