𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍

In good faith: did you hear anyone actually say this? Biden’s a Clinton Democrat: more friendly to big business than to the working class. He was never going to be a class-leftist, and nobody promised he would be.

But he has been socially liberal, and he didn’t need any nudging. He was always socially liberal.

And those are your choices, for better or worse: an economically right-leaning, socially left-leaning old white man; or an economically hard-right, socially hard-right old white man.

The only way to fix this is to get rid of the electoral college and implement something other than first-past-the-post voting. Not voting is not going to fix it. In the meantime, you try to get the guy elected who isn’t trying to instigate a dictatorship.

They should get their assess back in the kitchen, and let their husbands do the voting. Uppity women.

/s, just in case

Put me down as preferring to no be bitten by anything.

That’s one unattractive fish.

God, I hope you’re not joking. I can’t tell; that could be an Onion title.

Fucker grabbed that tail, and once he had a hold, he couldn’t let go lest he be eaten.

I hate the comparison; Trump’s as much a tiger as I am a blancmange. But his base are like pirhanna, and there’s no apt metaphor involving dumb, swarming fish.

I’m only ignoring it because what you’re saying isn’t in the dictionary definition of “fascism,” and I’m not a political theorist. I’m just going by what the good book says.

belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and/or race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy

What about Stalin makes you think he demonstrated any of this?

I could never make a comprehensive list; fascism has been all-too common.

Well, I probably_could_ make a comprehensive list, but I’m not. But Franco was another prominent one, so that was a good catch.

fascism

1. A political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)
2. Extreme right-wing, authoritarian, intolerant, racist or nationalistic views or behavior

How do neither of these apply to Stalin? Note the “or” in the second definition. The “Nazi” party was the “National Socialist” party. You have to look at the actions, not just the labels, right? Stalin was authoritarian, intolerant, and nationalistic. He created an authoritarian hierarchical government.

Stalin fits both definitions of Fascism. It doesn’t matter that he was at war with other fascists; monarchies had for millennia fought other monarchies - it didn’t make them not-monarchies.

You are right, but many Americans probably wouldn’t get it if you used Stalin. For better or worse, Hitler is the face of fascism; Stalin the face of communism. They were both fascists, as were Mussolini, and Stalin.

It’s just short-hand imagery; everybody knows what you mean. Pinochet was a fascist dictator, but he was also a brutal sociopath, so he’s confusing, even if people recognized him.

Gotta love the Satanists. They’re fighting the good fight.

Wasn’t his corruption already disturbing?

Full-torso resistance training. Sissy joggers in their lightweight tank-tops; do your 5k in full combat kit and be a real wo/man.

Do I need to add the “/s”?

Can we still presume that black votes are necessarily going to go Democrat? There have been some weird minority voting outcomes in recent years, with e.g. Hispanic communities voting red despite the strongly anti-minority and anti-immigrant planks in the Republican platform. Democrats are more liberal on LGBTQ and pro-choice, and these are likely single-issue voters driven by religious decisions. We saw the same thing to a lesser degree in black communities, less starkly contrasted because of what’s at stake for Hispanic communities.

Is the evidence this is going to benefit Democrats?

Yeah, and I’ve said this before, but you quoted the relevant part: he’s not taking action against Israel because he’s stands to lose more in the election than he gains. And if Trump wins the election, he will absolutely give Israel explicit support for going all-in on the genocide, including expelling from Gaza all Palestinians that they don’t murder.

You could argue that maintaining a supportive posture for Israel at this juncture benefits the Palestinians. There’s simply too much lobbying money, and still too much voting solidarity, at stake; and Biden’s bad for Palestine, but Trump is worse. We could hope that is Biden wins he’ll take a firmer stance against the genocide, but I’m hoping it quietly.

What shocked me was that The Party had a backup plan.

Nate Silver is the founding, or one of the original founders, of 538 - which has, I see, been acquired by ABC News. He’s a statistician of some repute, and competent; he’s pretty good at explaining and summarizing stats to non-math types. He’s gotten a lot of heat for forecasting results that were wrong, starting with the Clinton/Trump election in 2016, but if much of that is because people are terrible at understanding probability, and if you tell the average person something has an 80% chance of happening, they take it at a guarantee.

The issue is that 538 was pretty reliable at the start, but then something happened with polling and things started to go against predictions frequently enough that they sort of became just another voice - instead of a source you might use to bet on. The ABC acquisition probably didn’t help.

Anyway, I digress. Nate was the statistician face behind 538. I don’t know what he’s doing now.

I think he’s walking a line. On the one side are people who want the US to stop all support until Israel stops, want the US to stop threatening the international courts seeking to hold Israel officials accountable for war crimes - essentially, want the US to treat Israel like we are treating Russia. On the other side is a powerful, well-funded pro-Israel lobby (which the Palestinians don’t have) and a traditionally fairly cohesive and influential pro-Israel voting block. Plus, Israel is our Ally, like officially; Palesteine is not.

He’s slowly, slightly shifting from full-throated support of Israel, but so far all he’s doing is withhold some ordinance. It feels as of all he’s doing is pissing off both sides, rather than shifting some support.

Honestly, I think he’s in a no-win situation. It’s critical for the USA that he win this next election - Trump is an existential threat to Democracy in the US. There’s a lot of money and influence he loses by not getting the pro-Israel lobby on his side, and who does he lose by continuing support? Are the disenfranchised youth going to vote for him if he pivots on Israel? All the folks who’ve been complaining (rightly) about the cost of living, housing prices, healthcare costs, loss of rights over their own bodies - all these folks who protest-voted in the primaries and are threatening to protest-vote in the general election… they’re all suddenly going to jump on Team Biden if he cuts off Israel? In enough numbers to counter what he loses from the pro-Israel lobby?

So I think the irony is that if standing with Israel means he can win the election, it’s still a better outcome for Palestine than if he loses. If he loses the election, Trump will tell Israel to just go ahead and glass the area.

Edit: Came across this article here today, which I think has basically the same view.