…before he is out of office.

That’s just a truism for anything, no matter how long it takes, since he doesn’t intend to leave. Better to say “before the end of his term” or “within a few years” if your estimate is specifically that soon.

Not quite, on a technicality (the kid “voluntarily chose” not to stay in the US with no guardian), but yes.

So does leaving the fascist collaborators in charge. At least my way we’ve got a chance.

From the article:

In addition to Muñoz, USA TODAY has confirmed through attorneys, family members and documents that ICE has detained for weeks:

• a woman in her 30s with proof of valid permanent legal residency,

…

David Rozas, an immigration attorney representing Muñoz, agreed: “Anyone who isn’t a legal permanent resident or U.S. citizen is at risk – period."

Even an immigration attorney can’t keep up with how rapidly the fascists are escalating their persecution.

Soon even citizenship won’t be enough to stop people who ICE doesn’t like the look of from getting deported, if it hasn’t happened already.

So by the time your revolution fails, your campaign gets weaponized by the GOP. Everything negative you had to say about the democrat candidate is now being said by the GOP. And it’s super effective at convincing some democratic voters to stay home because it’s the same talking points used by their own party.

So, let me get this straight: leftists say “don’t vote for Schumer; he’s a fascist collaborator!” And then the fascists say “yeah, don’t vote for Schumer, he’s a fascist collaborator!” And then, according to you, that’s supposed to make Democrats stay home instead of voting for the candidate primarying Schumer from the left?

If you really think Democrats hate leftists so much that they’d refuse to vote for one even when the alternative is somebody both sides agree is fascist, then they’re basically lost to the enemy already and that’s just even more reason to break from them.

You say splitting is a guaranteed benefit to the GOP, but I’d say that keeping the resistance neutered by being stuck behind “leadership” that’s ineffectual at best, or a traitorous quisling at worst, benefits the GOP even more.

Anyway, I’m not arguing for splitting the opposition. I’m arguing for supplanting it so thoroughly that the old guard (Schumer, Pelosi, et al.) finds it untenable to continue.

If that fails, it fails, and we crawl back and support the Democratic candidate as a last-ditch effort at harm reduction, just like before. But we’ve got to try, because otherwise Schumer is going to “collaborate” us straight into the gas chambers.

Sounds like you’re trying to dismiss my argument out of hand by associating me with the pro-fascist concern trolls and their useful idiots who did that in this previous election. You can fuck all the way off with that dishonest, ad-hominem bullshit.

There’s a huge fucking difference between abandoning a candidate in the middle of the election with fuck-all for alternatives, and trying to reform or replace the party with literally as much margin as possible before the next election. If now is not the right time to try to get shit done, when is? Tell me that, O Great Arbiter of Political Acceptability!

You need to quit your bullshit, and on top of that you owe me a goddamn apology.

Why are you posting irrelevant bullshit? We’re not talking about running a “third party” candidate. We’re talking about destroying the Democratic party and rebuilding it into something that isn’t traitorous and corrupt.

it’s time for the Democrats to go the way of the Whigs.

They don’t vote in the general for a neoliberal.

There’s this consistent condescending assumption that the Democrats have that anybody who refuses to vote for a neoliberal would never vote for any possible Democratic candidate, and it just isn’t true.

Shame they didn’t spend 5 minutes to check which way the wind was blowing in November last year.

Which is especially weird, since they should’ve learned the importance of it from the wind in September.

The Democratic Party needs to get it through their thick skulls that the voters who make up the margin of victory do not vote in Democratic primaries.

We are so woefully entrenched in a two party system that we need multiple elections cycles just for a third party to even get a foothold in people’s minds.

No, quite the opposite: we need a whole bunch of non-fascist Democrats to spectacularly defect all at once, such that the public perceives the new party as having captured the initiative and momentum. The loss of that public mindshare and base of support would then cause the remaining dregs of the Democratic Party to collapse.

The US has always had two parties, but it hasn’t always had the same two parties. Creating a new party that’s successful is entirely possible, if doing so completely destroys one of the existing parties in the process.

For example, the Whig Party emerged after the Federalist Party collapsed, and the Republican Party emerged after the Whig Party collapsed.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States

The user who submitted it could fix it, but I don’t think the mod can.

No, that’s not it at all. The real work happens as they quietly make the real problems deliberately worse, in order to enrich themselves and their cronies.

https://archive.is/rYI8A

His Wikipedia page lists his political affiliation as “independent” and he beat a Republican in the runoff.

However, his dad worked for an oil company and his whole page is full of stuff about how super-religious he is. Plus, he beat a Republican in the runoff, in a super-conservative city that had only ever elected Republican mayors up to that point. Frankly, it’s pretty clear which way he leans, and it ain’t Democrat.

So yeah, you’re right: Conservatives are going to eat this story up, and they’re going to be just as dishonest about it as usual.

The oligarchy and right wing propaganda machine successfully turned Liberals against the left for drawing a line in the sand at genocide…

Well, yes and no:

Yes, in the sense that the oligarchy is responsible for constructing the system to create the dilemma (support some genocide by voting for Harris, or support even more genocide by not voting for Harris) in the first place.

No, in the sense that the game theory of the situation (a binary choice between Harris and Trump with no – let me repeat that: no – viable third choice) dictated that the only moral option was voting for Harris in order to minimize harm. People (including liberals and leftists) being pissed off at third-party voters and non-voters for refusing to acknowledge that reality and act accordingly isn’t the result of “propaganda,” it’s the result of having a brain that works properly.

Liberals: “should we blame our party for being bought and paid for by the oligarchy? Should we blame ourselves for failing to motivate the 100M adults who sit out each election? For supporting genocide? No, we’ll blame the radical left “protest voters” for Trumps win, without evidence that they had any meaningful impact! This is all their fault!”

Finally, I just want to make it crystal clear that this isn’t the either/or you seem to think it is. We absolutely can blame both the bought-and-paid-for Democrats and the protest-voting dipshits, and I (being a leftist with a functioning brain) very much do.

I’m genuinely not sure that’s realistic.

You’re just saying that because an AOC win would conclusively disprove the DNC’s mantra that Hillary and Kamala lost because of misogyny and not neoliberalism, so they’ll be desperate to stop her from becoming the candidate.

The censure vote is stupid, sure, but censure is just paper with no teeth.

The fact that the supplication was performative just makes it all the more craven.