my original comment was just meant to be a playful comment about your meme use rather than any analysis about the speech.
Like: “I agree with you, but can we talk about this thing or that?”
But honestly forget about it, next time I wont bother
I’m literally agreeing with you. Not sure what you’re fixing about my phrasing – I didn’t watch the speech, so yes, I am ignorant, but am willing to guess that your comment was totally correct.
I’m also saying your meme-game disturbs my meme-less brain.
But I guess according to you, I have no idea what I’m talking about so in that case…you’re wrong? Idk what youre trying to say dude all I know is that just because O’Brien spoke at the RNC doesn’t somehow automatically make him a Trump supporter
Full disclosure I haven’t watched the speech, but I can believe it was in good faith, no doubt pro-labor/anti-capitalist. (btw, it’s crazy how bad the Democratic party has alienated the working class)
What I can’t believe is these disturbing-ass memes you’re posting lmao…I hate them very much and wish I could unsee. Good job!
That’s insane.
Like, no 401k or Roth IRA? Dang. I’m fuckin hard.
Sure, but I don’t think they have as much power as you’re making out, not because they don’t technically have that power, but because of the consequences of using it. I.e. the moderate establishment democratic party. I think there are political interests in place that prevent what you’re talking about from happening.
As in, they’d all have to come to a consensus on one candidate other than Biden, and that’s just not a likely thing to happen without Biden stepping aside voluntarily.
I just don’t see the DNC changing rules to choose someone besides Biden, even if that is technically possible. I could see them adding rules for what happens to delegates if a presumptive nominee steps aside before the convention. But hey, I’m a regular person who read a single article on DNC rules and listens to NPR Politics Podcast. Those kinds of analyses aren’t going to delve too far into the, “well, what if the DNC changes the rules, holds a mini primary without Biden, etc, etc.” because they either think they aren’t likely, or because it is simply too early to tell which way things will move as of today.
It does matter if Biden decides to stay in. It makes it far less likely the DNC is able to replace him, because the delegates are already pledged to him, and as far as I understand, in order to replace him they’d need a clear alternative singular candidate to nominate. Plus, they’d need to stop Biden from reviewing and selecting a loyal slate of delegates from each state who will certainly vote for him. It’d be much much more likely if Biden steps down and himself calls for a 5 or 6 week primary. My source, if you want to check it out. There’s a chance I’m misinterpreting but I think that’s the jist of it.
As for those people rigorously defending Biden, I don’t necessarily think they’re automatically pro-Israel. They’re scared, for sure, as we all are. And they’ve probably bought some of, if not all, the Democratic posturing that Biden is just fine, and other writers’ sentiments that doing something like changing the nominee last-minute will be a disaster because it is unprecedented, and so they double down. Like a superfan in sports who is in complete denial that their team has a glaring weakness and probably won’t make it out of the playoffs. You see it all the time. I won’t ever hold it against those people, because it’s easy to be in that state, especially if you love your team. Plus, if you logic it out with them, sometimes they come around and end up seeing the roster change was actually needed. I don’t think deriding them gives them a chance to see your side.
There are actual congress-people talking about a mini primary for Democrats, and that by having something like that right now is going to dominate national news for the party, which right before an election is really good thing. Democrats could even spin it as “We’re listening to you-- you want a younger candidate? We’re gonna give you one,” rather than “We are in complete disarray regarding this upcoming election.” Regardless, whichever nominee makes it out of those is going to have plenty of name recognition by the end of it.
This is not a ridiculous or far-fetched notion, it is being spit-balled right now by congresspeople. Everything hinges on Biden, so we’ll just have to see how his polls look like next week, if any other major voices join in the calls for him to step aside, and how the crises meetings in Congress go.
But Im not sure how people downvoting you are so confident in Biden or why they’re so baffled about this whole thing. Like, “Who’s could possibly be the nominee of it’s not Biden?” Oh I dunno, one of the 15 names national news outlets have been proposing for the last week?
Part of the issue is that Donald Trump isn’t using these words in any factual sense, but in a purely rhetorical sense. He is utilizing them as boogeyman terms to scare people away from Harris. It doesn’t matter that’s it’s not factually correct because average people don’t know otherwise.
That brings me to the other part of the issue, which is fascism is notoriously difficult to pin down. Umberto Eco talks about this in his essay Ur-Fascism. He notes that fascism isn’t actually dependent on one or two attributes, such as complete totalitarianism, or support of capital, and doesn’t necessarily have a single religious philosophy. He notes historical examples of things like anticapitalist fascism, religious fascism, atheist fascism, etc.
Still he notes 14 qualities that are typically associated with fascism
Much of these are relevant to Trump’s campaign, even more than I had anticipated. Definitely give it a listen or check out the Wikipedia page, it’s a worthwhile half hour just to hear the perspective of someone who actually lived through Italian fascism.