"nobody could possibly do what the fediverse and matrix and xmpp and nostr and aether have done! We'd need to become millionaires to do that!!
Trump won the 2024 election which took place last week. In addition to winning the presidential election both by the electoral college and the popular vote, the Republicans took the senate and retained the House.
Many on the left don't understand how someone could vote for someone who they claim is a threat to democracy.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, the "Trump is a danger to democracy" bit is a somewhat of a fabrication of the partisan establishment media, and isn't compelling given the actions of Donald Trump that day, or the Democrats over the past decade.
One thing that a lot of Democrats don't understand is that most people were democrats 15 years ago, and so they know what Democrat arguments are deeply, because they were Democrats. The move right has been people who might have liked Bill Clinton, might have been disappointed that John Kerry lost in 2004, might have cheered for Barack Obama and maybe even thought Hillary Clinton was the better pick for president. 2016 was an upset victory for the Republicans and Trump, but it was a narrow victory. In 2020, he got far more votes, and the increased vote totals essentially remained in 2024. Because of that, they're fully aware of arguments made in 2000, 2004, and 2016 about why the election was stolen and the president was illegitimate.
The riot on January 6th obviously happened and it was obviously wrong. It shocked a lot of people, and it shouldn't have happened. Trump's attempt to delay certification of the election until perceived election irregularities were addressed was ineffective and given that any "rigging" was likely more procedural as a result of changing to universal mail-in ballots at the last second, were unlikely to succeed even if he delayed certification. But ultimately his plan to try to shame the vice president and congress into not certifying the election was a long shot, but possible under the law, and in fact was promoted by election denying Democrats in 2016.
Some Democrats did try to overturn the 2016 election by objecting to the certification of the election despite lacking procedure basis to do so. Barbara Lee, the representative from California, opposed certification of the election on January 6th, 2017 on the grounds of voter suppression and election integrity. MAXINE WATERS of California also opposed certification of the election on January 6th, 2017 on grounds of voter suppression and election fairness. Mr. RASKIN, the representative from Maryland, opposed certification of the election due to objection to electors holding more than one office. Ms. JAYAPAL, the representative from Washington, opposed certification, but the vice president shut down her comment as to why before she was able to say why. Mr. GRIJALVA, the representative from Arizona, opposed certification State of North Carolina based on violations of the Voting Rights Act and confirmed hacking by someone but he was cut off by the Vice President before finishing his sentence. None of these objections moved forward, as they lacked the required support of a senator.
In that sense, they were only doing what Trump was trying to do, overturning election results citing problems with the election, but Trump used protesters to add leverage. Unfortunately, then those protesters turned violent. I can understand an argument that what happened with Trump was way bigger in scope and he pulled every lever he could to win -- He actually treated being cheated out of the election like it happened unlike the token resistance from the democrats who seem to only be doing it to give plausible deniability to the idea of a mandate from the people. If you think you are losing because of a coordinated effort to cheat in an election you're convinced you can win, why wouldn't you use every legal means at your disposal including trying to use peaceful protests to pressure congress and the senate and the vice president? You wouldn't do that if you knew you lost fair and square.
But you can hardly blame those individuals for thinking that employing political violence was ok at that point, and you can hardly blame them for thinking that trying to overturn elections was acceptable to the Democrats!
The democrats spent 6 years, starting before Trump's inauguration and continuing after he left office, trying to overturn the 2016 election.
The democrats fully supported 6 months of violent riots, including firebomb attacks on federal buildings, an attack on the whitehouse so violent the president and his family were moved to underground bunkers Kamala Harris said of the violent riots: "They're not gonna stop [...] and they should not", and the facebook post raising money to pay violent rioters bail after they were arrested is still available to view on facebook. Moreover, Democrat prosecutors decided violent rioters were the test case they were going to use for things like bail reform so they could be arrested and released immediately, leading to an overall impression that violent riots are ok now. Some people may argue that the Democrats supported non-violent protests and not violent riots, but there are several points in opposition to this idea including the trotting out of Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous quote "*riots* are the voice of the unheard", raising funds to release violent rioters, many references to the 2019 book "In Defense of Looting" which as you might expect, defends looting, and the partisan establishment media's reference to violent riots with the text "firey but mostly peaceful protests" against a backdrop of a burning building representing this tacit approval of violent riots. Insurrection is legally defined as "any act of rising against the authority of the state or its laws. Legally, it’s the violent uprising against governmental authority. This includes taking up arms or otherwise actively opposing the government’s power and lawful authority." -- the instances of "Autonomous Zones" popping up in 2020 which claimed to create new zones not under the the control of the established US federal, state, or municipal governments (as the iconic photo saying "CHAZ - you are now leaving the United States" showed) meet this definition, but those insurrections were supported in full by the Democrats.
Since then, the democrats spent 2 years trying to illegally overturn the 2024 election before it started by keeping Trump of the Republican ballot
The Democrats rigged their own primary in 2024, leading to "none of the above" winning one state because no other options were allowed. Joe Biden "won" that rigged primary because of course he did. This is after superdelegates effectively decided 2016 and 2020, which itself is a highly undemocratic process.
The Democrats overturned the results of their own rigged primary, running Kamala Harris by fiat, a candidate who never had to win anything in her life.
Ultimately, the American people made their choice, and not only did Trump win the popular vote and the electoral college, the Senate flipped red and the house remained red, resulting in an overwhelming mandate. It should be noted that some rank and file democrats have been calling for an investigation into voter fraud (because apparently that's not far right and anti-democratic ground for being banned from all social media anymore), and one top Kamala staffer has suggested the results of the 2024 election be effectively overturned by having Biden resign and Harris take over as president, leaving the slot of vice president empty thus allowing the Democrats to avoid certifying the election as is required by law.
Anyway, fundamentally one doesn't need to agree with me or disagree with me, because the results speak for themselves: The American people were obviously not convinced that Trump and the Republicans are enough of a threat to democracy to refuse to vote for him or to go out and vote for his opponent. Some people claim this is due to a fanatical base, but presumably he lost 2020, so obviously he could have lost in spite of that base. The combination of people choosing to vote for him or not vote against him in spite of the media narratives show this argument is unconvincing to many people in the aggregate, so my personal opinion really doesn't matter in the end. On the other hand, many people keep repeating the zeitgeist from their personal echo chamber thinking that's axiomatic truth, which is a problem if the data doesn't support their belief.
Many on the left don't understand how someone could vote for someone who they claim is a threat to democracy.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, the "Trump is a danger to democracy" bit is a somewhat of a fabrication of the partisan establishment media, and isn't compelling given the actions of Donald Trump that day, or the Democrats over the past decade.
One thing that a lot of Democrats don't understand is that most people were democrats 15 years ago, and so they know what Democrat arguments are deeply, because they were Democrats. The move right has been people who might have liked Bill Clinton, might have been disappointed that John Kerry lost in 2004, might have cheered for Barack Obama and maybe even thought Hillary Clinton was the better pick for president. 2016 was an upset victory for the Republicans and Trump, but it was a narrow victory. In 2020, he got far more votes, and the increased vote totals essentially remained in 2024. Because of that, they're fully aware of arguments made in 2000, 2004, and 2016 about why the election was stolen and the president was illegitimate.
The riot on January 6th obviously happened and it was obviously wrong. It shocked a lot of people, and it shouldn't have happened. Trump's attempt to delay certification of the election until perceived election irregularities were addressed was ineffective and given that any "rigging" was likely more procedural as a result of changing to universal mail-in ballots at the last second, were unlikely to succeed even if he delayed certification. But ultimately his plan to try to shame the vice president and congress into not certifying the election was a long shot, but possible under the law, and in fact was promoted by election denying Democrats in 2016.
Some Democrats did try to overturn the 2016 election by objecting to the certification of the election despite lacking procedure basis to do so. Barbara Lee, the representative from California, opposed certification of the election on January 6th, 2017 on the grounds of voter suppression and election integrity. MAXINE WATERS of California also opposed certification of the election on January 6th, 2017 on grounds of voter suppression and election fairness. Mr. RASKIN, the representative from Maryland, opposed certification of the election due to objection to electors holding more than one office. Ms. JAYAPAL, the representative from Washington, opposed certification, but the vice president shut down her comment as to why before she was able to say why. Mr. GRIJALVA, the representative from Arizona, opposed certification State of North Carolina based on violations of the Voting Rights Act and confirmed hacking by someone but he was cut off by the Vice President before finishing his sentence. None of these objections moved forward, as they lacked the required support of a senator.
In that sense, they were only doing what Trump was trying to do, overturning election results citing problems with the election, but Trump used protesters to add leverage. Unfortunately, then those protesters turned violent. I can understand an argument that what happened with Trump was way bigger in scope and he pulled every lever he could to win -- He actually treated being cheated out of the election like it happened unlike the token resistance from the democrats who seem to only be doing it to give plausible deniability to the idea of a mandate from the people. If you think you are losing because of a coordinated effort to cheat in an election you're convinced you can win, why wouldn't you use every legal means at your disposal including trying to use peaceful protests to pressure congress and the senate and the vice president? You wouldn't do that if you knew you lost fair and square.
But you can hardly blame those individuals for thinking that employing political violence was ok at that point, and you can hardly blame them for thinking that trying to overturn elections was acceptable to the Democrats!
The democrats spent 6 years, starting before Trump's inauguration and continuing after he left office, trying to overturn the 2016 election.
The democrats fully supported 6 months of violent riots, including firebomb attacks on federal buildings, an attack on the whitehouse so violent the president and his family were moved to underground bunkers Kamala Harris said of the violent riots: "They're not gonna stop [...] and they should not", and the facebook post raising money to pay violent rioters bail after they were arrested is still available to view on facebook. Moreover, Democrat prosecutors decided violent rioters were the test case they were going to use for things like bail reform so they could be arrested and released immediately, leading to an overall impression that violent riots are ok now. Some people may argue that the Democrats supported non-violent protests and not violent riots, but there are several points in opposition to this idea including the trotting out of Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous quote "*riots* are the voice of the unheard", raising funds to release violent rioters, many references to the 2019 book "In Defense of Looting" which as you might expect, defends looting, and the partisan establishment media's reference to violent riots with the text "firey but mostly peaceful protests" against a backdrop of a burning building representing this tacit approval of violent riots. Insurrection is legally defined as "any act of rising against the authority of the state or its laws. Legally, it’s the violent uprising against governmental authority. This includes taking up arms or otherwise actively opposing the government’s power and lawful authority." -- the instances of "Autonomous Zones" popping up in 2020 which claimed to create new zones not under the the control of the established US federal, state, or municipal governments (as the iconic photo saying "CHAZ - you are now leaving the United States" showed) meet this definition, but those insurrections were supported in full by the Democrats.
Since then, the democrats spent 2 years trying to illegally overturn the 2024 election before it started by keeping Trump of the Republican ballot
The Democrats rigged their own primary in 2024, leading to "none of the above" winning one state because no other options were allowed. Joe Biden "won" that rigged primary because of course he did. This is after superdelegates effectively decided 2016 and 2020, which itself is a highly undemocratic process.
The Democrats overturned the results of their own rigged primary, running Kamala Harris by fiat, a candidate who never had to win anything in her life.
Ultimately, the American people made their choice, and not only did Trump win the popular vote and the electoral college, the Senate flipped red and the house remained red, resulting in an overwhelming mandate. It should be noted that some rank and file democrats have been calling for an investigation into voter fraud (because apparently that's not far right and anti-democratic ground for being banned from all social media anymore), and one top Kamala staffer has suggested the results of the 2024 election be effectively overturned by having Biden resign and Harris take over as president, leaving the slot of vice president empty thus allowing the Democrats to avoid certifying the election as is required by law.
Anyway, fundamentally one doesn't need to agree with me or disagree with me, because the results speak for themselves: The American people were obviously not convinced that Trump and the Republicans are enough of a threat to democracy to refuse to vote for him or to go out and vote for his opponent. Some people claim this is due to a fanatical base, but presumably he lost 2020, so obviously he could have lost in spite of that base. The combination of people choosing to vote for him or not vote against him in spite of the media narratives show this argument is unconvincing to many people in the aggregate, so my personal opinion really doesn't matter in the end. On the other hand, many people keep repeating the zeitgeist from their personal echo chamber thinking that's axiomatic truth, which is a problem if the data doesn't support their belief.
I'm sorry.... I support you guys(always have), and I've even donated to the Internet archive so I don't have any beef with them, but archive.org is the largest piracy site on earth and if they get shut down forever it's their own damn fault.
I was thinking that 2020 and even 2022 led not just the Democrat party but the media to believe they had a lot more popular support than they really did (both elections were unusual in different ways), and so they doubled down, but in reality they got lucky and most people are sick of this shit.
I saw this too, it was great! The whole channel is pretty good but it's not the sort of thing you binge watch. Only really the one joke over and over.
But from now on mankind is on its path. It shall create bigger and bigger shovels, until the whole earth is a giant shovel!!!
I can stop whenever I want to stop, I just don't want to stop! (Munches on delicious thumb sticks)
Da Mongorians broke down my shitty warr and then established the yuan dynasty! Took 100 years to get dem dam Mongorians out!
The leftists will scream "correlation does not imply causation", but imply with a post like this that leftism causes prosperity rather than prosperity allowing luxury beliefs like postmodern leftism.
It's easy to pretend you're an angel when you're in heaven.
It's easy to pretend you're an angel when you're in heaven.
You might remember I've been making the point of much larger government for months, maybe years now.
My toddler is available to do the rest of their currencies if they want to finish the redesign.
(Didn't expect to effortpost in a joke thread, but oh well. Effortposting is good for the soul)
Actual Marxism (class marxism) was definitively debunked by every example of communism in existence by authors such as Solzhenitsyn. Despite that, it had so enthralled academics, that they tried to apply the concepts of Marxism to other areas that hadn't yet been debunked.
They created neomarxism which changes the model from a struggle between economic classes of people to a struggle between the majority and marginalized groups of people, and the ruling class uses hegemony of culture to further marginalize groups. From there, the idea that you start to analyze media through marginalized lenses comes in, and soon you're using those lenses on things like law as well.
From there, people with too much time on their hands, far too much education, but no practical skills came up with ideas like intersectionality which creates an amazing game of ideological whack-a-mole, where if neomarxism is debunked for blacks, what about gay blacks? If not them, what about trans gay blacks? If not them, what about trans gay black amputees? And so on and so forth until society collapses because too many people are worrying about trans gay black amputee midgets and not enough about how to feed, clothe, and house the population.
Now, some people might ask what the purpose of neomarxism is -- why did academia create it? The purpose of academic work is to find ways to pay for more academic work. The most popular phrase in academic works is "more research is required" for a reason. Therefore, the primary purpose of neomarxism is finding more ways to pay for more academic works about neomarxism.
Advocates of neomarxist or intersectional approaches might counter that addressing cultural and systemic inequities is integral to solving those material problems, but they're wrong and stupid and should get back into their box and write more neomarxist papers so we can get funding to write more neomarxist papers. Now you might assume my attack would be based on the idea that it's purely theoretical and thus has no value, but that's untrue -- there are many purely theoretical pursuits that are important regardless, and it isn't purely theoretical because gay race communism has taken hold in the culture as something we have to deal with for a little while longer. My attack is based on the idea that you've got a fundamentally materialist ideology that considers the effects on the material well-being of a group, that destroys the civilization it's a part of, thus ensuring that nobody's material well-being is any good. At least if something isn't purely materialist you could make an argument that it's good for the soul!
The final nail in neomarxism's coffin is the fact that in spite of being materialist and having nothing to do with improving one's soul, people who believe in it end up taking it up as a religion as if it can improve one's soul. Such people can start off as beautiful pure souls of light and slowly fall apart into tar black sludge, filled with hatred and envy and loathing, because they're always looking at most of the population as oppressors
Actual Marxism (class marxism) was definitively debunked by every example of communism in existence by authors such as Solzhenitsyn. Despite that, it had so enthralled academics, that they tried to apply the concepts of Marxism to other areas that hadn't yet been debunked.
They created neomarxism which changes the model from a struggle between economic classes of people to a struggle between the majority and marginalized groups of people, and the ruling class uses hegemony of culture to further marginalize groups. From there, the idea that you start to analyze media through marginalized lenses comes in, and soon you're using those lenses on things like law as well.
From there, people with too much time on their hands, far too much education, but no practical skills came up with ideas like intersectionality which creates an amazing game of ideological whack-a-mole, where if neomarxism is debunked for blacks, what about gay blacks? If not them, what about trans gay blacks? If not them, what about trans gay black amputees? And so on and so forth until society collapses because too many people are worrying about trans gay black amputee midgets and not enough about how to feed, clothe, and house the population.
Now, some people might ask what the purpose of neomarxism is -- why did academia create it? The purpose of academic work is to find ways to pay for more academic work. The most popular phrase in academic works is "more research is required" for a reason. Therefore, the primary purpose of neomarxism is finding more ways to pay for more academic works about neomarxism.
Advocates of neomarxist or intersectional approaches might counter that addressing cultural and systemic inequities is integral to solving those material problems, but they're wrong and stupid and should get back into their box and write more neomarxist papers so we can get funding to write more neomarxist papers. Now you might assume my attack would be based on the idea that it's purely theoretical and thus has no value, but that's untrue -- there are many purely theoretical pursuits that are important regardless, and it isn't purely theoretical because gay race communism has taken hold in the culture as something we have to deal with for a little while longer. My attack is based on the idea that you've got a fundamentally materialist ideology that considers the effects on the material well-being of a group, that destroys the civilization it's a part of, thus ensuring that nobody's material well-being is any good. At least if something isn't purely materialist you could make an argument that it's good for the soul!
The final nail in neomarxism's coffin is the fact that in spite of being materialist and having nothing to do with improving one's soul, people who believe in it end up taking it up as a religion as if it can improve one's soul. Such people can start off as beautiful pure souls of light and slowly fall apart into tar black sludge, filled with hatred and envy and loathing, because they're always looking at most of the population as oppressors
"Now look here, are you really really sorry?"
"yeah...."
"Ok, then I'll let you off the hook this time. I'll see you on Epstein's island, buddy."
"yeah...."
"Ok, then I'll let you off the hook this time. I'll see you on Epstein's island, buddy."