1063
Trump backs out of debate as camp says it's 'inappropriate to schedule things with Harris'
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
1063 points (98.7% liked)
politics
19090 readers
4046 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
One thing I learned from the Bush II Admin was that you can run on stirring up rhetoric for a while--worked well enough to make him a two term President--but at a certain point, your policies have to align to reality or you will have catastrophic failure. There are also levels of making shit up, and the statement above might be more making shit up than anything Bush II ever pulled.
It's also just chock full of "watch words" for these people. It's like a code that lets them feel like they have some kind of secret inside knowledge. They all repeat the same types of sayings, and methods of (attempting to) insult over and over.
For example:
The use of "Democrat party" is meant as a slight to the Democratic party. (https://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/the-democratic-or-democrat-party/)
That's about as subtle as they ever get, the rest are pretty obvious (using Obama's middle name, calling center-right politicians, "Marxist" as a completely meaningless insult that they themselves can't define, etc.)
Turns out that's all it takes to get 70 million+ Americans to literally worship a real life cartoon villain.
Yeah, I saw the "Democrat Party" thing - which, by the way, wayyyyy too many in the "liberal media" let them get away with. They should be correcting them all the time, or asking them if they don't even know the name of the party.
I also caught the full use of Obama's name - another dog whistle for this bunch.
Listen, I may not like the Marxists but I’ll settle for any communist tradition at this point barring MLs and their intellectual descendants
Based
Thanks, it’s what you get when you’re a syndicalist who marries a mutualist. My issues with Marx are intellectual. My issues with Marxist-Leninists are why I’m afraid to come close to starting to win a revolution with them anywhere near behind me.
Frankly I’d rather fight the capitalists than people who disagree on how the workers should control the means of production. Political pluralism shouldn’t be a casualty of the revolution.
As a Trot, albeit a reluctant and undogmatic one (I think), I also am terrified of winning a revolution with MLs in the mix. They love to talk about how no anarchist/trotskyists have ever had a "successful revolution" and its like no shit you killed them all and took power in the name of socialism.
Curious about your intellectual issues with Marx. No one is above critique, not asking to jump all over ya. I have some criticisms of Marx, namely that he spent the end of his life not finishing Capital and instead working on ethnography and trying to chart a path to socialism through Russian peasant society, and like I'd rather he'd have finished one of those instead of not finishing any of it. His work on ethnography would be really useful to anarchists and mutual aid networks: Anarchist Marxists, how cool would that be? But instead we just have his volumes and volumes of notebooks.
My main issues are that he blatantly misrepresented Proudhon. I also think that he largely overestimated the inevitability in a way that’s been harmful to communists.
And there absolutely anarchist Marxists, I just fall more along mutualist lines
Well as someone who couldn't get through the Poverty of Philosophy, despite having read lots of Marx including Capital: that's fair. He was really gunning for the Young Hegelians. I thought his critique of Stirner was really good, and his debunking of Bauer was essential. But I didn't get into PoP. Maybe some other time. He was too optimistic wrt how capitalism would create "gravediggers." I think its an actual thing that happens, it happened to me for example, but he underestimated ideology, or maybe like over estimated the way capitalism would change people's consciousness.
You're right there are individual anarchist Marxists, I study with one, but I guess I was referring to something more like a movement. I guess the Kurdish liberation movement kind of qualifies? Maybe my views are too west-centric.
Any recommended Proudhon I should read? Maybe take on Philosophy of Poverty before trying Marx's response again?