You're just spewing lies left and right without defending yourself at all. You know that every word you're saying is a blatant lie and you just don't care.

The only blatant and deliberate lie here

This is just you going "nuh uh" again. You can't defend what you said at all, so you just assert it wasn't a lie without backing it up at all.

In fact you demonstrated yourself how, historically, it’s led to fascism every time.

I haven't actually done this. Of course, what you lie and call a """strategy""" is actually just a recognition of trends beyond my ability to control. Those trends do not always lead to fascism, but when fascism emerges, it's generally because of a failure to stop that trend.

To be clear, your blatant, knowing lie is claiming that by recognizing a trend I'm somehow responsible for it.

Absolutely incredible for you to accuse me of being unreasonable, or a class traitor, or being paid off, when you're defending the powerful through lies and bad faith.

So you've given up even trying to argue now.

Your strategy is for people to get fed up with the status quo (Dems) and unseat them for good.

Liar. Where did I claim this?

What I've said, that you're deliberately mischaraterizing, is that people will inevitably get fed up with the status quo (Dems) and turn to fascism, unless something is done to stop it, either the Dems enacting the necessary policies or people moving to a new party, which are what I advocate for. In other words, the exact opposite of what you're characterizing my position as.

Is this all you have? You can't actually find fault with my reasoning, so finding yourself backed into a corner you just try to lie and slander your way out of it?

That's a deliberate mischaraterization of my position. There is not a single thing I've said anywhere that could possibly be construed into what you said.

Obviously, people flocking to fascism is bad. But that is what's going to happen so long as what passes for the left is aligned with the declining status quo. That's why the only two possibilities for stopping fascism are implementing policies that will actually stop the decline, or creating a leftist party that can criticize the establishment while offering a non-fascist explanation of the decline and how to fix it.

Since you retracted your disagreement with my third statement, I'll ask again - which of my three statements is wrong?

That's a pretty strange thing to disagree with. It's very straightforward logic so it would take quite a bit of evidence to put it in doubt.

And I have no idea what evidence you're looking at but I know what evidence you're not looking at, for example, the rise of Hitler in Germany. As the status quo became worse and worse, more people turned away from the establishment parties and to the far-right (and to the far-left, unfortunately to a lesser extent), which brought about the end of the republic. You can see similar cases in most every fascist state that has ever existed. I would very much like to know which historical examples you are looking at that don't support my third statement.

This is such a condescending form of analysis that totally misses the mark. It's basically just, "Trump was bad, but some people still like him. Why? Must be because they're just too dumb to remember things." There's no actual evidence that people have forgotten any of the stuff they mention, it's purely just that.

To attribute the issue to memory would imply that there was widespread agreement while he was in office that he was bad, which has faded over time. But Trump's approval rating for most of his time in office hovered around 40%, similar to Biden's. So what's actually happening is not that people were on the same page about Trump being bad when the events of his presidency were fresh in their minds, but rather, that his supporters never agreed with/cared about the things the article is saying in the first place. Framing it around memory is nonsense.

I've seen too many examples throughout history of people trying to use nonviolence and do things the right way and just getting slaughtered because the other side simply does not care to be a pacifist. The world is clearly a better place because people employed violence in WWII to stop the Nazis. And street fighting in the 30's was one of the ways that the Nazis secured their power in the first place.

Nonviolent methods are tools that are useful to have in your toolbox, and in many situations, they are more practical in achieving your ends. But there are cases were violence is more practical, even necessary, and one shouldn't shy away from it when it's needed. You gotta have your head in the game, the stakes are too high. A diversity of tactics is best.

The logic that violence is oppressive so it should be renounced in all cases in order to reduce oppression is idealist. You have to look at the actual evidence and material situation to evaluate what effects violence will have in a given situation.

Punching Nazis is cool and good. Just try not to get arrested for it because it'll take you out of the action longer than it will them.

The median age of the senate is 65. The article is just cherry picking.

Antinatalism is reactionary and incorrect.

At least 2 previously undecided voters now support Biden so I suppose this headline is technically correct, it's just completely meaningless and insignificant statistically.

raspy voice

The gaslighting will continue until morale improves.

"Pro-democracy conservatives" in an antifascist coalition, y'all crack me up sometimes.