They don’t provide any useful info.

He’s never going to die.

I truly don’t think he is going to die.

The national debt.

A university professor in the UK is likely not making that.

If you had something to say you would say it - you’re just a troll I’ve now blocked. Goodbye.

You’re just stringing together random words in the hope of trolling people?

I have literally no idea what you are talking about. I suspect you don’t either.

So - I’m not sure - but you seem to be saying that no one should dare to disagree with some particular person? Is that what you’re trying to say? FYI- having a discussion is not ‘going to war’. lol

lol - I have no idea what you are talking about.

oh - so funny to be confronted with facts? Laugh it up so you don’t have to confront that you are wrong? How amusing.

Once again you dodge the issue. Why is it my fault for not voting for terrible candidates, rather than the party’s fault for refusing to run quality candidates? Why do you pretend that the question of why the party doesn’t already run real candidates is a silly one? It is actually the central issue here. The democrats won’t run quality candidates while they can be elected running genocidal corporate friendly ghouls. That’s just a fact.

It’s not a bad faith question. You yourself said that the democratic party is like a restaurant that only serves sand. Why is it that the only thing that it’s unreasonable to do in the fight against fascism is demand that the democrats run candidates worth voting for? It’s a fair question. I don’t eat babies. It’s not remotely comparable - we both agree that the democratic party is serving sand. There’s no dispute on the facts. I did not say that people like him never existed in history. My point was that he has not been on the ballot for a century. I was clearly talking about the contemporary democratic party - not ancient history.

I’m really not sure why you won’t answer the very simple question - why is the only course of action that you think is unreasonable the democrats running real candidates? I will not vote for them until they do - if they believe that stopping fascism is less important than stopping real political change then the results are their fault - not mine. What point are you making about FDR? You brought him up as an example of a real democrat - sure - but that was almost a century ago. I think it’s telling that he is your go-to example. What’s funny about that?

OK - so if we agree that what you are proposing won’t work, why are you continuing to espouse that position? OK - so fascists are happy that democrats won’t run real candidates - but it’s somehow MY fault for not voting for them rather than democrats for insisting on running them despite the fact that they enable fascists? I’m well aware of FDR. FYI he was president 93 years ago, and much of the progress he made has been dismantled, a good deal of it by democrats. You are making my point for me.

Look - I don’t think your position is either logically consistent or will lead to the practical outcomes you say you desire. I believe that the only way to create progress in the US is to refuse to vote for genocidal neo-liberals. If we vote for them just because the alternative is a little bit worse, we will literally never get progress. Your dream of a day when the democrats start serving real food will never come - let’s be real - if they wanted to do that they would have done it already. The ONLY way to create real change is to let the democrats know that they will not win until they offer candidates who are committed to real change.

It’s not a straw man. I have told you I will not vote for a genocidal neo-liberal ghoul. Your position is that I must in order to ‘stop fascism’. You continue to side-step the idea of why it is unreasonable to expect the democrats to run an option that is not a genocidal neo-liberal ghoul - why they can’t be expected to serve anything but sand. You don’t think there is any correlation between them insisting on only serving sand and people refusing to eat / vote for them. I think you are deeply confused.

You are confusing living with the results of a restaurant environment that only serves shit, with ordering off their menus. Answer me this - if it is SO important that we defeat the shit serving restaurant that you want me to order sand - why is it so inconceivable to you that the democrats might consider serving real food? If the consequences of not voting are so severe why is the only option that is off the table for you running candidates who serve real food? It seems very odd to me that that is the one thing you think is beyond the pale. Doesn’t it seem to strange to you? Let’s hope that in 2028 the democrats realize that the only way to attract customers is to serve real food. Come on - you can do it to stop fascism!

Actually I don’t have to eat at the restaurant. As much as the restaurant would like to give the impression that there is no choice except genocide, that is not true. The only winning move is to force them to change the menu. Not eating there is the only way to do this. Let’s be real - salad will never be offered while they know they can sell you sand or shit. Let’s look at this the other way - why are you so hostile to the idea of a restaurant that serves real food?

So let’s go with that analogy shall we? What is the winning move in a restaurant that only serves poop or sand? It’s not to order the sand - it’s to tell them that you won’t eat there at all until they offer good food. The democrats won’t change while we keep electing their right-wing ghouls. They need to learn that we will sit it out until they run actual ethical candidates.