Saint_La_Croix_Crosse @ Saint_La_Croix_Crosse @midwest.social

Posts

0

Comments

92

Joined

2 yr. ago

Dude, this is a socialist publication and "tankies" have hated Musk before he explicitly tied himself to Trump and made liberals hate him. What are you talking about? After Clinton, the liberal orthodoxy had been that Reagan had a point with small government and deregulation.

It is not satire, it is usually just that the blood sacrifices are usually more obfuscated and hidden.

"The Bourgeois are not human animal". Though calling them vegetables is still too demeaning to the celery and carrot, who never did anything wrong. Maybe they are mineral? Lead and mercury caused a lot of suffering, and I don't feel bad about insulting them.

This is the only reason I accept to refusing to call cops "pigs". The humble swine does not deserve such a comparison.

But we are capitalists, chasing profit is the highest morality and human calling. It is killing without direct investor profit that is immoral.

There wouldn't be any outrage outside of 100s of the wealthy donors. Liberals would completely be more outraged because of norms and civility. The entire point of "drain the swamp" was that most people hate oligarchs, the point of Republicans is to redirect this off into racist and unproductive channels, where nothing ever comes of this hate for corporate and wealthy overlords.

These god-damn violent tankies. Vietnam should have just fined her a much smaller amount than the corrupt practices made them, like how the West handles corrupt oligarchs.

Purged the Anarchists? No you are the lying disingenuous person here. If we were talking about the Russian Civil War, you might have something approaching a point.

Edit: proving the point, hatred over "tankies" is just that you don't want your own positions or viewpoints challenged or questioned

yes they are, Tankie has become so abused and meaningless as now only means anything to the left of Dick Cheney or not going along with US foreign policy.

Spanish Civil War, where the Soviet Union was the only foreign power to give large amounts of aid to the Republicans and France and Britain sat out, and US oil and other business interests backed Franco. Where there were divisions over tactics and priorities but where communists fought with the Republicans, and it is largely after the defeat and popularizers like Orwell that a stabbed in the back myths about communists came to prominence. Yes, the liberals were not a complete monolith, so there were some liberals with the Republicans.

Also, in an underdeveloped, still mostly feudal society, liberalism can still be a progressive force.

I am being short and glib since I was just responding to an epically dumb post. but if you want to know how fascism is a necessary outgrowth of liberalism and the need to protect and serve capitalism leads liberalism towards fascism in crisis.

https://www.amazon.com/Apprentices-Sorcerer-Tradition-Critical-Sciences/dp/1608462021

Damn, 55% of Brits are tankies

Unless you are a diehard right-winger, Liberals will always be more likely to betray you than anyone on the left. The causality is backwards here, liberals will always side with fascists over the left, thus they are identified as moderate-fascists. Just like how the Democrats want nothing more than to just be polite Republicans.

The Winnie the Pooh stuff is just completely made up by Western propaganda. Also, how hard is "yellow face is racist", when saying an Asian looks like a cartoon with yellow skin?

Free speechers on .world can't handle interacting with any dissenting opinions to the left of the Bush Administration.

Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar drastically outperformed Harris.

It is not the candidate's job to appeal to voters. The Democrats should just be owed votes from all non-MAGA, and they should never have to put forward any policies or effort for voters.

She seems to have lost worse than Hillary...

No, at no point did the Centre try to form a coalition with the KPD, but were turned down. In the Weimar system, it is the Chancellor that is in charge of forming coalitions, so even if the KPD, SPD, and Centre had enough seats to form a majority (which they didn't), they couldn't just form a coalition. This is why Franz Von Papen was appointed by Hindenburg, since he was expected to be able to convince the Centre party and Nazis to form a coalition with the conservatives and monarchists. And why when that failed and there was a failure to form a ruling coalition that Hindenburg appointed Hitler as chancellor to create a Nazi lead coalition.

A vote for third party is a vote for Harris. You have to hold your nose and vote Trump!

But seriously, Libertarians are the largest third party by quite a margin. So third parties actually help Democrats. It is just the Democrats mentality that they are owed votes for not being Republicans, rather than a candidate's or party's job to try to appeal to voters that this narrative is pushed forward.

Particularly, there was huge overlap in membership between the Freikorps and the Stürmabteilung. So it is important to note that the Freikorps was a direct precursor to the Nazi brownshirts.

The only part that is wrong is that Nazis did not have an overall majority, it was because of Hindenburg, monarchists, conservatives, and right-wing liberals deciding to side with the Nazis.

No, that still incorrect. First, KPD, SPD and Centre did not have an outright majority together. Second, it is the Chancellor that is in charge of forming coalitions, they can't just form a coalition if they had an outright majority anyway in the Weimar system and at no point did Centre try to form a coalition and was turned down by the KPD. The entire point of Hindenburg appointing Franz Von Papen was that he thought that he could convince both the Nazis and Centre to form a coalition with the conservative and monarchist parties. And the reason later to appoint Hitler as chancellor was to form a Nazi led coalition.