They’re not mutually exclusive. I’d argue it’s easier to work on the no death solution under a slow death regime than a fast one. We’ve still got a lot of work to do to get to an ideal solution. Lesser evil solutions ensure slightly more favorable conditions while we do that work.
we all are working for it but clearly aren’t there yet, to draw a parallel, we don’t have a cure for cancer YET but you can bet your ass i’m gonna do chemo if i end up with it
But how is liberalism [the slow death cult] going to get us there. Liberalism has been the dominant system for the past 70 years. And I’d say we’re worse off economically then we were in the 60s.
We could squabble about specifics for a long time. But using a broad definition. Yes, you are absolutely 100% correct. I was thinking with a narrow 20th century defintion.
To reuse the analogy, I’m not saying that everyone becoming immortal will happen in a finger snap, I’m saying that “just dying from cancer Vs. chemo for a few wealthy” is a bullshit choice. The first wee basic step we should strive for is to make the treatment available to all those suffering from cancer.
The wee basic step we should strive for is to make the treatment available to all those suffering from cancer.
right. so the slow death. the one you were previously criticizing.
In politics, the first wee basic step we should strive for is not a complete revolution without the support of the masses, but to put in power someone who, if not better, doesn’t ruin more the already tragic and delicate system we have, to give us time to organize better.
Good thing clinton and harris had all that support of the masses, love how they managed to get all that support from the masses. Im glad me not voting for them didn’t matter, because ‘the masses’ supported them so much!
I actually voted for delacruz, and maybe if you fucking liberals had fallen in line and stuck with your natural electoral allies when your literally senile candidate shit himself and asked where he was during a debate, we wouldnt have fascism right now.
But, no, you people couldnt fucking compromise. A vote for the divisive harris was a vote for trump, you knew it, you knew she couldnt win, but you refused to stand with your allies. So here the fuck we are.
Start making your community independent of the government, report to your local central committee, or shut the hell up and think about what youve done.
Offer arrives from global council of oligarchs tomorrow:
Kill all landlords, landback by the end of the month, cops are allowed only two pieces of kit¹, but we keep gig apps cops and for-profit healthcare for at least another decade. No struggle no tear gas no death.
I’d take that deal.
¹pants bullets radio and a car each count for one.
The party doesn’t want medicare4all, hence why they didnt pass it when they had the power to, or use some of the executive’s powers to get as much non-means tested heathcare to the people as possible.
since you all seem to get your one-liner responses from the same text file, i’m gonna follow your example and repost another comment from this post
Democrats haven’t had 60 senators since 1979. They had 58 in 2010 for exactly 72 days and tried to pass public option healthcare but only 1 independent voted with them so they settled for the lesser medicaid expansion that the current Republicans are gutting in the budget. For the record, that medicaid expansion passed with supermajority as every singe Republican voted nay.
You only need a simple majority to remove the filibuster. We elected them to use their power, not to let their hands be tied by rules that never seem to stop them or the republicans from doing bad things.
What about working for the no death ?
Well that’s called necromancy and is generally frowned upon (ofc i get what you mean, avoiding death is the goal)
Not always! If you add the rocket equation it’s called cosmism.
They’re not mutually exclusive. I’d argue it’s easier to work on the no death solution under a slow death regime than a fast one. We’ve still got a lot of work to do to get to an ideal solution. Lesser evil solutions ensure slightly more favorable conditions while we do that work.
Removed by mod
Interesting argument, planet destroying weapon of mass destruction
What can I say, my Gary is called anarchism 😛
The fbi will murder you.
we all are working for it but clearly aren’t there yet, to draw a parallel, we don’t have a cure for cancer YET but you can bet your ass i’m gonna do chemo if i end up with it
But how is liberalism [the slow death cult] going to get us there. Liberalism has been the dominant system for the past 70 years. And I’d say we’re worse off economically then we were in the 60s.
Liberalism is what USA is founded on
We could squabble about specifics for a long time. But using a broad definition. Yes, you are absolutely 100% correct. I was thinking with a narrow 20th century defintion.
8/14 presidents were republican. that’s the majority, for those of you that can’t do math
doesnt take much for a billionaire-backed asshole to undo decades of progress cough trump
Republicans have been broadly economically liberal until Trump’s second term.
To reuse the analogy, I’m not saying that everyone becoming immortal will happen in a finger snap, I’m saying that “just dying from cancer Vs. chemo for a few wealthy” is a bullshit choice. The first wee basic step we should strive for is to make the treatment available to all those suffering from cancer.
right. so the slow death. the one you were previously criticizing.
In politics, the first wee basic step we should strive for is not a complete revolution without the support of the masses, but to put in power someone who, if not better, doesn’t ruin more the already tragic and delicate system we have, to give us time to organize better.
And uhh yeah we kinda failed at that
Good thing clinton and harris had all that support of the masses, love how they managed to get all that support from the masses. Im glad me not voting for them didn’t matter, because ‘the masses’ supported them so much!
Removed by mod
words have meaning. there is a cure for political illiteracy
no, it’s not
I actually voted for delacruz, and maybe if you fucking liberals had fallen in line and stuck with your natural electoral allies when your literally senile candidate shit himself and asked where he was during a debate, we wouldnt have fascism right now.
But, no, you people couldnt fucking compromise. A vote for the divisive harris was a vote for trump, you knew it, you knew she couldnt win, but you refused to stand with your allies. So here the fuck we are.
Start making your community independent of the government, report to your local central committee, or shut the hell up and think about what youve done.
for all you people that can’t do math, all the votes not for trump added together would have been 50,2%
but she didn’t get those, and there is no reason to think she could have
I’m TALKING. Dont interrupt me.
Said it already, the slow death is accepting that the treatment should go to those who can afford it. That’s the unacceptable compromise for leftists…
Offer arrives from global council of oligarchs tomorrow:
Kill all landlords, landback by the end of the month, cops are allowed only two pieces of kit¹, but we keep gig apps cops and for-profit healthcare for at least another decade. No struggle no tear gas no death.
I’d take that deal.
¹pants bullets radio and a car each count for one.
and how does that relate to politics, especially seeing as you are actively sabotaging the party that wants medicare/medicaid
The party doesn’t want medicare4all, hence why they didnt pass it when they had the power to, or use some of the executive’s powers to get as much non-means tested heathcare to the people as possible.
since you all seem to get your one-liner responses from the same text file, i’m gonna follow your example and repost another comment from this post
You only need a simple majority to remove the filibuster. We elected them to use their power, not to let their hands be tied by rules that never seem to stop them or the republicans from doing bad things.