“There is a strong sense by many in the Democrat Party - namely Barack Hussein Obama - that Kamala Harris is a Marxist fraud who cannot beat President Trump, and they are still holding out for someone ‘better.’ Therefore, it would be inappropriate to schedule things with Harris because Democrats very well could still change their minds,” the statement said.
This is a statement from a presidential campaign.
The quote should be put with spoiler tags and a surgeon general’s warning that reading the contents has been shown to lower your IQ by at least four percentage points, and prolonged exposure to even seeing the words on the screen could cause permanent brain damage.
It’s okay I already have permanent brain damage, I can translate for everyone.
It says,
Donald Trump is tired of changing his pants every time someone mentions debating Harris, so we respectfully decline.
Thank you,
Your future inmate president.
Implying Trump changes when he shits himself is far too generous. People literally say he smells of shit.
am I reading this right? Republicans are saying that Obama thinks Kamala Harris is too Marxist to beat Trump?
what, and I cannot stress this enough:
What if she started roasting things. Completely breaking down the things they say in front of a whiteboard. I want that to be her entire campaign just… Letting them talk and then talk about it
I get the strategic value, but I’d rather she run on actual policies that help people.
Brave Sir Donald ran away.
Bravely ran away away.
When danger reared it’s ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Donald turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Gingerly taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
Bravest of the brave, Sir Donald!
Sir?
You…
You get the joke, right?
I’d say in this very specific context, it’s appropriate.
If it was any other, normal country, the debate schedule would not be based on whether someone wants to show up or not.
If a canditate doesn’t show up, the other candidate gets to talk about their campaign.
The US is bizarro world in so many aspects. Political Supreme Court appointees that are appointed for life (!), two party system, the electoral college, the absurdly long election cycles…
The fact that the first lady does speeches and the presidents family is in the spotlight at all. (Rather dynastic for a democracy)
The fact that our election is held on one day and that day happens to be a Tuesday. 😡
At least he admits he isn’t in the same class as her.
Chickenshit.
Seriously, just have Kamala call him a chickenshit little weasel in a press conference. Instant ego meltdown and I’LL SEE YOU AT THE DEBATE within the day, I guarantee it.
This is more forced than her ascendancy
“There is a strong sense by many in the Democrat Party - namely Barack Hussein Obama - that Kamala Harris is a Marxist fraud who cannot beat President Trump, and they are still holding out for someone ‘better.’”
One thing I learned from the Bush II Admin was that you can run on stirring up rhetoric for a while–worked well enough to make him a two term President–but at a certain point, your policies have to align to reality or you will have catastrophic failure. There are also levels of making shit up, and the statement above might be more making shit up than anything Bush II ever pulled.
Listen, I may not like the Marxists but I’ll settle for any communist tradition at this point barring MLs and their intellectual descendants
Based
Thanks, it’s what you get when you’re a syndicalist who marries a mutualist. My issues with Marx are intellectual. My issues with Marxist-Leninists are why I’m afraid to come close to starting to win a revolution with them anywhere near behind me.
Frankly I’d rather fight the capitalists than people who disagree on how the workers should control the means of production. Political pluralism shouldn’t be a casualty of the revolution.
As a Trot, albeit a reluctant and undogmatic one (I think), I also am terrified of winning a revolution with MLs in the mix. They love to talk about how no anarchist/trotskyists have ever had a “successful revolution” and its like no shit you killed them all and took power in the name of socialism.
Curious about your intellectual issues with Marx. No one is above critique, not asking to jump all over ya. I have some criticisms of Marx, namely that he spent the end of his life not finishing Capital and instead working on ethnography and trying to chart a path to socialism through Russian peasant society, and like I’d rather he’d have finished one of those instead of not finishing any of it. His work on ethnography would be really useful to anarchists and mutual aid networks: Anarchist Marxists, how cool would that be? But instead we just have his volumes and volumes of notebooks.
My main issues are that he blatantly misrepresented Proudhon. I also think that he largely overestimated the inevitability in a way that’s been harmful to communists.
And there absolutely anarchist Marxists, I just fall more along mutualist lines
Well as someone who couldn’t get through the Poverty of Philosophy, despite having read lots of Marx including Capital: that’s fair. He was really gunning for the Young Hegelians. I thought his critique of Stirner was really good, and his debunking of Bauer was essential. But I didn’t get into PoP. Maybe some other time. He was too optimistic wrt how capitalism would create “gravediggers.” I think its an actual thing that happens, it happened to me for example, but he underestimated ideology, or maybe like over estimated the way capitalism would change people’s consciousness.
You’re right there are individual anarchist Marxists, I study with one, but I guess I was referring to something more like a movement. I guess the Kurdish liberation movement kind of qualifies? Maybe my views are too west-centric.
Any recommended Proudhon I should read? Maybe take on Philosophy of Poverty before trying Marx’s response again?
Hold the debate anyway. Have Kamala appear next to an empty chair.
Moderator: giving Trump a couple more minutes to appear.
(~5 min later)
Moderator: Trump is a no show. Hmm… he originally eagerly agreed to this September debate with Biden. It’s unclear why the change of heart, but I have to say he forfeits by default.
Kamala (interrupts): Hold on, please call Trump’s probation officer to verify his attendance permission while we wait a few more min. He’s understandably a bit skiddish with prosecutors lately but I would like to yield some of my time & do him this courtesy since he donated to my campaign in 2011 & 2013.
(~5 min later)
Moderator: no go, but would you like to answer the questions next to an empty chair to have your answers heard anyway?
Kamala: yes, this way he can take all the time he needs to prepare a scripted response later given his cognitive challenges….
Funny comment, but why the tor link?
NY Times is a closed website. Paywalled or something? I could not reach it from Tor at least not with my browser. Could be a popup-blocker blocker, not sure. Anyway, the link I gave is a NY Times front-end that is openly accessible, though clearnet users might have to append a
.cabor something. There are probably NY Times FEs on clearnet but I don’t know of any ATM.(edit) actually I think that’s NY Times official onion server. Anyway, for whatever reason it has better accessibility than the clearnet version.
Ha! I predicted this!
I also predicted Biden’s disaster and asked people around me why the fuck is Biden going to debate Trump. People said “he has no choice”. I found that quite questionable. Now Trump seems to be proving that candidates have a choice.
Sure Trump’s cowardice will damage his campaign. But getting an ass-beating in the debate is even more damaging, as Biden proved. So Trump is making his best tactical move for his ability.
(edit)
I would like it if the headlines were “Trump forfeits the debate” to rightfully emphasize the lossy nature of the decision.The problem with the Biden debate situation is that he was trailing in the polls, so he needed a debate with a strong performance in order to win over voters. Obviously, the opposite of that happened.
Trump’s margin against Kamala is likely smaller, but he’s still slightly ahead. It’s probably much more prudent for him to avoid a debate given that Kamala would probably perform much better than him. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose.
There was a time where it was a given that we’d have x number of Presidential debates… I can’t believe how far we’ve sunk.
Normally you don’t have a debate against an Alzheimer patient from a party that denied how bad it was for years. Remember when his senility was fake news, like…3 weeks ago? Exact same arrogant bastards are risking a trump victory again while they play their stupid games. Harris is looking coronated, same as Biden and Hillary before. That they don’t have a real open primary is pathetic. The one party state yall say you want to prevent arrived ten years ago, now you’re just the north american equivalent of Jackie Chan supporting the communist party. Yknow they vote for left and right factions inside the overarching party there, right? People vote with a choice of conservative communist member or liberal communist member, they all belong to a second party under the main one.
I feel like I could almost understand what you tried to communicate.
Lol. Nice try. I realize you can’t argue the points, but playing dumb is really, really obvious. Better to say nothing and all
Felon, pedophile, rapist, coward.
There are so many ways to describe this man
Orange.
Kamala Harris is the candidate. Everyone knows it, including him. He’s just scared
Everyone knew Biden was too.
I disagree, there were a million people saying that Biden was unfit to run for president and/or should exit the race.
Sigh. And yet, what was the party line until 3 weeks ago?
All joking aside, you have to assume they’re going to challenge her candidacy and eventual legitimacy in court. Debating her is not only politically ill advised, but also a tacit agreement that she’s a legitimate candidate.
She’s been vice president for the past 4 years, so she already meets the legal requirements for office, and Republicans haven’t ever challenged it.
The DNC is next month, and the party has every right to make her the nominee if Biden isn’t running for reelection.
I don’t see any actual legal battle here. There’s absolutely zero legal precedent for blocking a party nomination before the convention or any of the relevant state deadlines pass.
They’re just running their mouths about this switch-up being improper because they’re panicking. They spent the last 4 years priming their base to care about one thing and one thing only: getting rid of the “Biden Crime Family”. Now that it’s down to the wire, Biden isn’t their opponent anymore.
They’re in the bargaining stage of grief, since Trump’s chances of winning have pretty much been killed, especially after introducing professional wet blanket J.D. Vance as Trump’s running mate.
When has Precedent mattered to Robert’s Extreme Court?
Trump campaign says it won’t commit to Harris debate until she’s confirmed as nominee.
I’m a Free Thinking Republican and I think this is a GREAT and STRONG move by a FEARLESS LEADER who is trying to take down the DEEP STATE! Kamala is the DEEP STATE so Debating her would be STUPID even though it would be a PERFECT opportunity for Trump to Attack the Deep State like the Strong Man he is!
