🎓 Doc Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@qoto.org

@louis

No they are trying to dismantle it their way rather than his... Which I will admit is marginally better as it isnt full on dictatorship just yet, but its literally one foot over the line.

Thankfully I dont buy the two-party myth so I have non-radical choices.

@louis

> As long as we have a pro-dictatorship party and an anti-dictatorship party, the choice for every American should be clear.

Only if you buy the two party myth, which most people do, which is exactly why he won once at all.

But the point is when you have a pro-dictatorship party and a slight less pro-dictatorship party (dems arent actively going for dictatorship but they are extremely fascist and a step away) then you just have two extremely radical parties with one slightly more radical than the other.

@louis

> You are literally the only person I know who thinks Biden wasn't a moderate.

Thats funny because while online few people would agree with me in person almost everyone i met said they hated him but those who supported him just hated him less than trump and thought he was one of our worst canddidates.

My maid, who obviously isnt rich or anything, who is a black woman, actually just brought it up today. I generally dont talk politics but she brought up the whole racist thing and how he set black people back decades. In fact I dont personally know a single black person who didnt think he was a racist radical ass, its just that most of them voted for him because Trump is even more of a racist ass. I dont think I ever met a single black person in person who didnt think he was radical... seriously.

That said I dont expect people around me to represent the whole

@louis

> Yeah, I don't agree with that assessment. The Dem party certainly has some radical elements, but describing their core party platform or the majority of their members as radical does not seem to be supported by reality.

To be clear it is NOT their "core party platform", ie their core values, as stated that are radical. They are largely reasaonable even if i disagree with some of it.

The problem is the members, both voters and candidates, have become absolute lunatics, this is **contrary** to their core values if anything. Thats my point, the dems that actually stick to the party's stated values **must** disagree with the majority of the party that has become completely radicalized.

> The Republican platform is currently "let's dismantle the government and constitution in the name of efficiency for our god-king"

They certainly have, and that is why I claim they are radicalized, among other reasons. On the republican side, this time around he is very clearly trained and targeting dictatorship... last time he was just a fool with delusions of granduer. Frankly even the democrats arent seeing the moves it seems. Musk's mass email was an attempt to catalog all federal employees, identify political enemies, and eliminate them. The system is designed that the president does NOT have a list of all employees, he couldnt even send out the mass email directly.

It is right out of Hitler's playbook with one to one matching of events.

False flag: Reichstag fire -> Trump attempted assassination

Removing political enemies: Communists being arrested -> Musk's mass email and control over judicial branch

Disarming the populace: Verordnung gegen den Waffenbesitz der Juden -> Trumps gun restraining order

> the Democrat platform is an incredibly meek "no, please stop, maybe, sir?"

We just had 4 years of a president whose career was entirely motivated by keeping segregation alive. They literally just had the only possible politican more racist than Trump himself.

Not to mention the riots and violence I witnessed... meek is far from the truth, they were radical **first** and managed to radicalize trump supports in response and this is why it turned into this. They just got out radicalized by Trump and their whole response is "clearly we werent radical enough".

@louis

If you arent moderate you are radical. If you follow the majority of your party you are radical as both parties are currently extremely radical.

You didnt have to say it. But I do concede you did not say that.

@louis

Being radical is not integrity, folowing the crowd is not integrity, quite the opposite.

Following the principles is exactly what they are doing by not agreeing with their party when both parties have turned to complete lunacy.

@louis

> If that conclusion were true, it would be a lot easier for NPA candidates to achieve federal office.

Not at all, most americans arent too smart, so they easily bought into the two-party myth and tend to believe it. The two-party myth restricts their votes well within the two parties, but they generally want to see cross-aisle candidates, it was why Obama got such huge support, he was seen as a cross-party candidate and why Biden's was so weak, he was not.

They will always buy the two party myth so they will not vote for a third-party generally, but they absolutely will vote across parties and want their politicians to not be polarized to the absurd ends of either side, such as voting blindly with their party.

> When someone signs their candidacy form with a party next to their name, they're signing on to the party's platform, and voters should be able to expect them to adhere to that.

Again disagree. This signals only that they adhere to the core values of the party. Not that they need to exist on the extreme end of it and blindly follow with the most extreme and harmful policies others in their party vote for. If someone says they are a democrat they expect them to support taxes on the rich, and healthcare reform, and similar tenants, but not necessarily to vote however the majority of the party votes, in fact, I would argue they want the exact opposite, they want someone who can compromise across parties while still staying true to their parties core values.

> What I'm pissed off about is shitty politicians in swing districts betraying their own to avoid offending the moderates on the other side.

If you arent moderate in your opinions you should absolutely be out of politics... it isnt about pissing off the moderates, its about not being an extreme polarized radical person, but rather a moderate person who considers the nuance of a situation and picks rationed and logical decisions. There should not exist a single politician that is not moderate. The majority of people I would imagine tend to agree.

@louis Just a quick look, 53% of active voters do not declare a party affiliation. While they still may vote a straight party ticket that seems unlikely if they dont declare a party. It would seem, at least on a cursory glance, the majority of voters do not want party-politics.

@louis

I'm not so sure about that, possibly. I would **hope** most people want them to vote ethically and by the principles they espouse, and not by a party. Most people seem to vote for the individual not for the party. I know very few people who will exclusively vote one party or another and expect party loyalty. Most people I know will lean towards one party or another but generally will vote for the individual and not the party. That said, doesnt mean the people I know represent everyone so i cant make a strong assertion here of what most people want.

@louis I totally vote for democrats specifically when I think they will vote against other democrats... I rarely vote for republicans but do the same there. I vote for people who vote for what is right, not what is popular.

@ct_bergstrom

"AI computing" lololol

All marriage is gay marriage if your happy enough.

@garyackerman You should do both. The point of a presentation is to educate, being clear in doing so is important. Being interesting is also important. You need both, a story, but also a clear summary of goals.

@walkman

Racism is certainly real and a very valid issue we need to address. That said this meme has a point and Democrats absolutely do amplify it 1000x and imagine it everywhere it is not as well.

Just a reminder, Palestinians show 81% to 87% genetic heritage with natives who lived on the land from the time Ancient Israel existed. In other words, they literally have scientific proof they are natives from the land that continued to live in the area for over 4400 years.

To quote wikipedia:

Palestinians, among other Levantine groups, were found to derive 81–87% of their ancestry from Bronze age Levantines, relating to Canaanites as well as Kura–Araxes culture impact from before 2400 BCE (4400 years before present)

https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30487-6

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Palestinians

#Palestine #Israel

@Greengordon

Again you have it backwards, Billionairs dont result from an oligopoly, quite the opposite, they result from highly competitive markets. Though you are right an oligopoly often can form when rich people take advantage of the short comings of a society and use it to corrupt said society, just as the middle class in such a society also take advantage over the poor.

The problem is having a society with a flat that allows people with money to corrupt society, if thats the case you have an issue regardless of if billionaires exist. If you have a healthy society then you have no such issue even when billionaires do exist.

@chrismarkevich

@Greengordon @chrismarkevich

Only if there are fundemental problems inthe society to begin which is built to unfairly give advantage to the wealthy. If that exists the problem is severe at any level of wealth inequality, and in fact is **more** noticable at the divide between poor and middle class in such a scenario.

While you are right, that inequalities exist in that situation the solution isnt "dont let some people be more successful financially than others". The solution is to make sure society doesnt get built in a way that the rich have an advantage.

One simple example, if you have tickets taht are fixed rate fines (like $500), that gives the middle class power over the poor. However when the punishment isnt financial (like a week community service) then no matter how much money you have you arent at any advantage in that scenario. You dont fix the problem by preventing people from being financially successful, you fix the inequalities in society that allow the middle class to take advantage over the poor.

@chrismarkevich Wealth inequality is NOT a problem. A low quality of life for the poorest in society is. These are not the same thing. Other people having more money doesnt mean you have less, wealth is not a fixed quantity where you have to take from one for another to have, thats not how wealth works.