It's embarrassing how horrifically you have misread this comment thread.
You're being antagonistic with someone who agrees with you.
Their point is that vote blue no matter who is an empty slogan that is only applied when the centrist is the blue candidate. Now that a socialist is the candidate, the Democratic Party will abandon the vote blue no matter who logic. Because it was always just a pretext to force the left into supporting neoliberals, it was never actually about actual party unity
Within the context of US politics, the center left/Democratic Party is the largest political obstacle for socialists. So antagonism towards the center left seems to be rational within that
Democrats hate progressives
Democrats hate socialists. Their job is to ensure that the leftward fringe of the party, and of acceptable mainstream discourse, never moves past progressive/social democracy. The Democratic Party serves capital by ensuring a neutered American left
Hopefully this can be changed
The current structure of society is wrong and is extremely harmful. Oligarchy is an abomination which produces terrible outcomes.
You wouldn't choose this system in a vacuum. Therefore, the system must be fundamentally altered. To oppose this restructuring is both cruel and irrational. It is the epitome of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good - you're so afraid of change that you'd rather keep an evil system in place.
Such paralyzing cowardice is not reasonable, and it is even less reasonable to feel smug about such cowardice. If you are going to protect this harmful system, then the more appropriate emotion to feel is shame.
Lots of people die in the United States as it is. Homelessness is rising drastically. How long until you're next to be put out onto the street? Your employer can't wait until they can automate your job and fire you.
Also, the United States has a long history of carrying out genocide even prior to Gaza. Odd given your fallacious implication that capitalism is peaceful
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_1965%E2%80%9366
Looting may be warranted or unwarranted. But, because majority support is not relevant, we shouldn't evaluate the propriety of looting based on this metric
The point is that majority support is unnecessary for a thing to exist. In fact, it increasingly appears to be an irrelevant metric in general
He doesn't focus on any of those things though, and instead talks about prioritizing anti-poverty and anti-hypocrisy.
The line that the Gospels are the why and socialism is the how appears to be apt. Liberation Theology is based on this principle. Which is the sect of Catholicism that clearly has heavily influenced both Francis and Leo
That link states that no federal reform occurred. Which supports my point.
Of the state level changes, they are all aesthetic and surface level changes - and even those are now being undone.
So I'm not seeing the real change. Which demonstrates that the protests were not effective
Isn't this just admission to stereotyping which is inherently illogical?
The US is an oligarchy. Any actual threat to that would be suppressed. Because these protests were not suppressed, what conclusion can be drawn?
What I said would be true of Russia. This is because Russia is an oligarchy and this is how oligarchies operate.
The United States is an oligarchy as well.
Therefore what I said applies to the United States.
The goal of law enforcement is to preserve the existing social structure. American social structure is that of oligarchy. Therefore law enforcement exists to preserve oligarchy.
American law enforcement is immensely well funded. These protests did not all encounter law enforcement opposition. Therefore, law enforcement must have determined that these protests did not represent a threat to oligarchy. Therefore the protests were toothless because they did not represent a threat to the existing social structure
Yes please
I've seen nothing but criticism of Ken Martin
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/19/dnc-chair-ken-martin-infighting-00413409