Wow, I know some of those words.

I’m the one blind to reality? You actually think Bernie had any sway over any one of the moderates who dropped out to give Biden the win? They were loyal to the Democratic Party, not Bernie, and certainly not to their principles, if truly they had any.

She’s a young woman with strong opinions. That’s enough to make conservatives pop a blood vessel.

It seems like you’re going down the Silicon Valley Techno-Libertarian rabbit hole, so I highly recommend looking into some Anarchist critiques of Libertarianism and reflecting a bit. This is a trap you’re stumbling into.

That’s literally just politics.

This gives the same energy as saying “it’s just business” after doing some heinous shit.

Name a more iconic duo than Marxists and Anarchist-erasure.

You seem to think that Anarchism is just the extreme/pure form of Libertarianism, and that it’s just about more/less government, which couldn’t be further from the truth.

I’ll acknowledge my bias upfront, I consider myself an Anarchist, so keep that in mind as you read my comment.

American Libertarianism presents itself as being about “small government,” which makes it sound appealing to people who are skeptical of authority but have a very shallow understanding of politics. In truth, it’s an ideology that holds individual property rights as superior to all others. To an American Libertarian, any infringement on their property rights is the most egregious possible violation of their freedom.

Anarchism means “without rulers.” Anarchists oppose all forms of exploitation and oppression, which is described as any arrangement in which one person or group exerts authority over another person or group, usually by force. They favor organizing society via “voluntary free association,” which is when people make decisions together on the basis of general consent. To an Anarchist, private property (as opposed to personal property, there is a distinction) is just another way for someone to exploit another, such as when a landlord collects rent.

This text explains what anarchism is pretty well.

A lot of them justify their defense of fascist-imperialist Russia with revolutionary defeatism. It is a much more difficult argument to deconstruct than the argument that Russia is somehow still socialist.

In my view, it is similar to accelerationism, and so the same arguments against accelerationism work against revolutionary defeatism. Marxist theory also argues that improved material conditions result in increased success of liberatory movements, which is in direct contradiction to revolutionary defeatism and accelerationism. For this reason I don’t believe marxism-leninism is internally consistent if it includes support for accelerationism.

It may not be this particular case, but I remember looking into something similar before where an oil and gas company claimed a similar reduction in emissions at one of their plants, but the fine print made clear that the number came from a device installed on only one of several exhaust towers that was only able to operate for short periods of time, and was removed shortly after getting the publicity because it was considered too expensive to maintain.

I see lots of liberals online insisting that the US pulling out of the Paris accord will make everyone else, including China, abandon their climate initiatives.

If any nation does so then - just like the US - they weren’t truly committed in the first place, and they would have quietly rolled back their climate goals like the US has been doing already anyway.

Lefty redneck here, looking forward to receiving my free horse.

Theoretically there’s nothing stopping Trump from being president from prison.

There’s no rule that says a dog can’t play basketball.

The fantasy is the competent opposition to all of those things.

It’s because he maintained plausible deniability, no bribes or kompromat necessary. Fact checkers couldn’t definitively say he supported project 25 because he feigned ignorance.

They also make the mistake of thinking that in order to appeal to conservative voters they have to be conservative. I have more often gotten through to conservatives with socialist economics and anarchist political philosophy than I ever could when I was a liberal trying to sway them on cultural issues and basic welfare.

And after getting through to them they started to come around on the cultural issues too.

Just want to clarify I was referring to the comments and not your post. I will be right there with you.

Everyone here missing the point…

Leftist fascism is called fascism, because the term leftist doesn’t actually mean anything but fascism and communism do.

Because the electoral college was established with the explicit purpose of giving less populated states an advantage, and that would defeat the point. A lot of my fellow Americans don’t know or don’t want to admit that the electoral college was intentionally undemocratic from the start.

Kentucky’s state constitution has uniquely strong protections for public school funding, and amendment 2 nullifies all of them in one go.

Here’s the wording:

To give parents choices in educational opportunities for their children, are you in favor of enabling the General Assembly to provide financial support for the education costs of students in kindergarten through 12th grade who are outside the system of common (public) schools by amending the Constitution of Kentucky as stated below?

IT IS PROPOSED THAT A NEW SECTION BE ADDED TO THE CONSTITUTION OF KENTUCKY TO READ AS FOLLOWS:

The General Assembly may provide financial support for the education of students outside the system of common schools. The General Assembly may exercise this authority by law, Sections 59, 60, 171, 183, 184, 186, and 189​ of this Constitution notwithstanding.

I genuinely think most KY voters don’t know what notwithstanding means, if they even bother to read that far.