More like they go "Aww, you're sweet" to both.
Zuzak
joined 5 years ago
There is a specter haunting r/Democrats...
Hell yeah, finally 
:::spoiler Suppression of Teen Vogue
Some time ago Washington demanded that the local authorities reintroduce a state of siege in Chicago. They intended to use martial law to suppress Teen Vogue, but met with unexpected resistance. The municipal authorities of Chicago then turned to the judiciary here in order to achieve the same purpose by arbitrary arrests. But this failed on account of the legal scruples of the judiciary, just as it had failed twice before on account of the common sense of the juries. There was nothing for it but to resort to a Police ruse, and this, for the time being, has achieved its purpose. Teen Vogue ceases publication for the present. Its Editor-in-Chief Karl Marx received the following official note:
"The tendency of Teen Vogue to provoke in its readers contempt for the present government, and incite them to violent revolutions and the setting up of a social republic has become stronger in its latest pieces" (!). "The right of hospitality" (!) "which he so disgracefully abused, is therefore to be withdrawn from its Editor-in-Chief, Dr. Karl Marx, and since he has not obtained permission to prolong his stay in these states he is ordered to leave them within 24 hours. If he should not comply with this demand, he is to be conveyed across the border.
Why these absurd phrases, these official lies?
As to our tendency, did not the government know it? Have we not declared before the jury that it was now "the duty of the press to undermine the whole basis of the existing order"?
And the "social republic"? Have we proclaimed it only in the "latest pieces" of Teen Vogue?
Did we not speak plainly and clearly enough for those dullards who failed to see the "red" thread running through all our comments and reports on the American movement?
The November 7 issue of Teen Vogue says, "Assuming that arms will enable the counter-revolution to establish itself in the whole of America, money would then kill it in the whole of America. American bankruptcy, national bankruptcy would be the fate nullifying the victory. Bayonets crumble like tinder when they come into contact with the salient 'economic' facts. But developments will not wait for the bills of exchange drawn by the American states on the new American society to expire.
From the very beginning we did not consider it necessary to conceal our views. During a polemic with the judiciary here, we told you:
"The real opposition of Teen Vogue will begin only in the tricolor republic."
And at that time we were speaking with the judiciary. We summed up the old year in the following words
"The history of the American middle class between March and December shows that a purely middle-class revolution and the establishment of bourgeois rule in the form of a constitutional monarchy is impossible in America, and that the only alternatives are either a feudal absolutist counterrevolution or a social republican revolution."
Did we therefore have to advance our social republican tendency only in the "last pieces" of Teen Vogue? Did you not read our articles about the June revolution, and was not the essence of the June revolution the essence of our paper?
Why then your hypocritical phrases, your attempt to find an impossible pretext?
We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. But the royal terrorists, the terrorists by the grace of God and the law, are in practice brutal, disdainful, and mean, in theory cowardly, secretive, and deceitful, and in both respects disreputable.
In parting we should like to remind our readers of the words printed in the first issue we published in January:
"The table of contents reads: Revolutionary rising of the American working class, world war."
Remember what they took from you 
Yes, but there are limits, if you tried to use it to reconstitute the USSR it would just default to heart attack. But you could 100% use it to deliver beans, as long as you're ok with the person dying afterwards. I think there's a time limit to how long you can control a person's actions before they die but I don't remember how long.
Hypothetically, I'd be willing to negotiate and find a compromise between factions but the central point that the war needs to end, immediately, is non-negotiable. We gotta turn off the meat grinder. Otherwise, what was even the point? I get the feeling that that point would have me wind up aligning with the Bolshevists in practice (which is what I got), but that's probably why I wound up a little to their right.
Uhh I'm gonna be real, idk wtf "the swift convocation of the constituent assembly" means so I just put neutral on a bunch of these.
Critical support to comrade paywall
I'm not convinced declining conditions will lead to that result. As conditions have declined, the war machine has become more powerful than ever.
In the wake of the tragic assignation of a loyal advocate for the Imperium, Carolus Kirk, the High Lords of Terra have added their voices to those condemning all forms of political violence as a vile form of heresy which must be immediately purged through cleansing fire.
Although the Inquisition has yet to release details on the assassin's motivations, it is likely that he was under the influence of heresy, manipulated by either by xenos or the forces of Chaos. Heretical rumors that the shooter believed that Carolus himself was being manipulated by such forces are completely false. Carolus, who is survived by his wife and children, never once wavered in his loyal advocacy for the values of the Imperium, which he believed in to his core: hatred and intolerance to xenos and heretics of all kinds.
In brighter news, a dozen xenos worlds have been put to the torch leaving no survivors, as the Adeptus Astartes continue their heroic mission to eradicate all those who would stand against the Imperium and the absolute dominance of humanity.
Glory to the Emperor, and death to all those who celebrate political violence!
Many abolitionists have complained to me that, as a traveling performer, I have not spoken to my audiences on the issue of slavery. I have received many angry letters attacking me based on assumptions about what my silence means.
Allow me to make my position clear: I oppose the institution of slavery. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, I believe it is a "moral depravity." I feel that way about other things as well.
After the raid on Harper's Ferry, the mood among Southern leaders was an existential panic and unstoppable lust for revenge. It reminded me of the Alamo. There was no reasoning with those leaders, nor could action be taken by congress. It would have required replacing most of congress and overturning decades of bipartisan negotiation and compromises. Even in the best case, it would have taken years.
But even worse, the abolitionist, pro-Negro movement quickly decided that their primary goal was not merely opposition to the reprisals or specifically cruel owners, but opposition to the entire institution of slavery, that is, opposition to the entire way of life of Southern plantation owners. And here they decided to draw the line between decent people and oppressive tyrants, which had the following consequences:
It shrunk the coalition. Most southerners support slavery. Anyone who supports the solution of having slave states and free states supports slavery.
It was politically infeasible. What is the pathway that takes us from the present situation to the abolition of slavery as an institution? I do not see how it could happen without a total collapse of the union. As usual, these Jacobins have championed a doomed cause.
The abolitionists have been distributing hundreds of pamphlets about the horrid conditions of slaves. The main effect of this has been to create a population of people in a constant state of bloodboiling rage with no consequential political outlet.
I fear this may be worse than useless. Yes, there are disingenuous proponents of slavery dismissing and censoring all criticism of slavery on the pretext of "states' rights." But there's also valid fear of historical government overreach and that fear gives power to pro-slavery leaders who say that only they can protect Southern culture.
Does this mean slavery should not be criticized? Absolutely not. But it's something I do not wish to contribute to unless if not outweighed by tangible benefits.
Many abolitionists have been single-mindedly focused on slavery, and the willingness of the Republicans to compromise on the issue, and that focus has had the following effects:
Not a single slave was freed by their efforts. Not one fewer lash was delivered by the owners.
It may have slightly contributed to the election of James Buchanan, ensuring that nothing can be done to stop the expansion of slavery into new states. Buchanan also does not support giving women like me the right to vote. A perfectly enlightened being would feel no bitterness about this, but I do.
None of this is the fault of slaves, of course, who are overwhelmingly the victims here.
But if women like me are ever going to get anywhere in this country, we need a broad movement that stands up for the rights of ALL women, REGARDLESS of their views on slavery.
“They can’t get stuck in a hurricane if they self-deport,” Bill Helmich, executive director of the Republican Party of Florida, said on X in response to concern that the facility is in an area of the state that is regularly affected by hurricanes.
18
Never knew who the institute was named after
view more: next ›
Dems: