Biden’s numbers among young voters have slid during his presidency from the high margins that helped him beat Trump. Several former supporters explain why.
Nah. This is a circle jerk. I say a thing and then the reactionaries descend to tell me that I’m wrong. Yet nobody has anything to offer beyond “you’re stupid”.
I’ll rephrase: each time it has been attempted it wasn’t really a banning, but rather a group responsible for userbase change using the term as they appoint a new banned user.
The fun for you really is the ability to tell others they are wrong. Then you’re not willing to help others learn things you think should. You must be great at parties.
Oh, you must have missed my comment then. Here you go:
During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum
If they just wanted power, they could have easily joined the very powerful repressive governments that ruled at the time. Castro could have signed on with Batista’s regime. Mao could have joined the ruling KMT. Instead, they risked their lives doing the much harder and more dangerous work of going against the US empire and it’s puppet states.
Nah. This is a circle jerk. I say a thing and then the reactionaries descend to tell me that I’m wrong. Yet nobody has anything to offer beyond “you’re stupid”.
A group of better educated people are telling me I’m wrong, clearly they are just reactionaries.
What a beautiful mind you possess.
>I’ll rephrase: each time it has been attempted it wasn’t really a communist revolution, but rather a group responsible for regime change using the term as they appoint a new elite.
I’ll rephrase: each time it has been attempted it wasn’t really a banning, but rather a group responsible for userbase change using the term as they appoint a new banned user.
even more satisfying after he called us all “reactionaries”
[wheeze]
What are you doing to educate me? What have I learned here other than that a difference in thought offends you?
I’m not trying to, the only thing that can make a person learn is if they actually want to. No point in leading a horse to water.
In the mean time I’ll have some fun.
The fun for you really is the ability to tell others they are wrong. Then you’re not willing to help others learn things you think should. You must be great at parties.
I’m out.
byyeeeeeee
deleted by creator
Oh, you must have missed my comment then. Here you go:
If they just wanted power, they could have easily joined the very powerful repressive governments that ruled at the time. Castro could have signed on with Batista’s regime. Mao could have joined the ruling KMT. Instead, they risked their lives doing the much harder and more dangerous work of going against the US empire and it’s puppet states.
Its interesting how they always seem to miss a comment that is providing what they claim to want. Hmmmmmm