She’s not an idiot, her father was almost certainly a spy and she’s always said he was killed instead of a heart attack.

She knows as soon as she says what trump wants, he never wants her to say anything again. And there’s only one way he can be sure she doesn’t talk.

There’s no “carrot” worth that, you only do it to avoid a worse negative consequence.

Trump’s DOJ is 100% evil and corrupt enough to flat out say to her:

Either say what we want and take the easy way out, or say nothing and we make sure you live a long horrible life.

She’s 63 and has like 20 more years, 83 on release.

After a couple years locked up and it sucking a normal amount, being told you can die “easy” or be in a much worse situation for 20 years…

I can see the motivation to agree.

Then it’s not really on topic…

As much as I could care less for her

I could care so so much more about Kamala…

But I don’t see any reason to.

hated by a lot of people, and there’s nothing you can do about it.

She could absolutely do something about it.

She could retire and drop out of the public eye. That’s it, same thing Hillary could have done a decade ago.

If they every stopped writing books, giving interviews, going on TV, and all the other bullshit; the vast majority of Americans would just forget about them in a year or two.

They just can’t do that, they can’t stay out of the public eye.

DSA used the phrase knowing very well what it means and knowing what they support

Bruh…

You keep saying DSA, when it’s a very very small chapter for the “Twin cities” which is a single metro area.

I don’t know if I’m doing a poor job of explaining the difference between the two or what.

But you are taking:

Phrase used by extremists

And insisting it means:

Only extremists ever say this

I’m sorry I can’t help you with this, I legitimately thought that last reply had a chance tho.

Yes he called DSA extremists.

He did not, he said it was a phrase used by extremists…

Here’s a hypothetical:

Let’s say I was born in 1988, and my ancestors were Swedish, something that is very important to my family.

So I make an account named “NorsePride88”…

I would absolutely appreciate someone pulling me aside and saying:

Some extremists use those phrasing to support shit I hope you don’t support.

I would not get defensive and claim I was “attacked”, I would thank someone for informing me that while I thought I was using as a benign phrase, a lot of people were going to assume I was intentionally using Nazi dog whistles.

So obviously, the correct response would be not using that account/phrase anymore, because of connotations I wasn’t aware of when I typed those words.

I’m trying to help, this really just seems like miscommunication is the only issue here.

Attacked?

If he attacked anything it was the phrase. But very few social media disagreements count as “attacks”.

But he didn’t attack “DSA twin cities”

https://twincitiesdsa.org/steering-committee/

An organization so professional they don’t even disclose their leaderships last names btw.

And definitely did not attack the national DSA.

But like, you think him disagreeing with the phrasing of one tweet made by one member of a city chapter of a nationwide organization is an “attack” on the entire national organization?

You…

You insist any member of the party never questions the party?

Not just the party, they can’t question any other member?

If anyone disagrees, are you going to label them a “suppressive person” for life?

Cuz uh…

You just realized that?

So…

Two days after 10/7 he said a slogan was problematic because it could be interpreted as a call for genocide…

And then on Thanksgiving he thanked Biden for working on expanding aid to Gaza and facilitating release of prisoners? (Which reads like a bit of a jab towards Biden honestly)

I dont understand the single word you put with that

Did you mean “pass” as he “passes” your standards?

Or you think those two tweets from 2 years ago mean you won’t support the Dem party?

Because if so, Im really curious who you support. For pretty much any position anywhere.

It seems Democrats are finally coming to terms with the fact that they need to appeal to people if they want to win their votes.

They did over 6 months ago when they stopped electing neoliberals for DNC chair, and elected the head of Minnesota’s Working Families Party to DNC chair…

Because they are still working against Mamdani and other progressives in full force.

A new DNC chair who is excited about Mamdani, and wants to take his strategy because that’s what Dem voters want:

Well, first, it was a brilliant campaign. And there’s a lot of lessons.

One is, he campaigned for something. And this is a critical piece. We can’t just be in a perpetual state of resisting Donald Trump. Of course, we have to resist Donald Trump. There’s no doubt about it for all the reasons we just talked about. But we also have to give people a sense of what we’re for, what the Democratic Party is fighting for, and what we would do if they put us back in power.

And that’s really critical. And I think that’s one of the lessons from Mamdani’s campaign, is that he focused on affordability. He focused on a message that was resonant with voters, and he campaigned for something, not against other people or against other things. He campaigned on a vision of how he was going to make New York City a better place to live.

I think that’s one of the lessons. The other lessons, of course, is the tactics he used to get his message out, both a very aggressive in-person campaigning, meeting voters where they’re at, and then also in those digital spaces, using very creative messaging to cut through the noise and to get to voters in an inexpensive but authentic way.

There’s a lot to learn from that campaign, and I’m excited to learn more.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/dnc-chair-on-the-path-to-winning-back-voters-and-lessons-democrats-can-learn-from-mamdani

It makes zero sense to bring back extinct species who have zero chance of surviving the current and future environment.

If anything we should be trying to adapt modern existing endangered animals so they can survive the coming decades.

Cool…

So you understand this would have caused more death on both sides…

You just still want it to happen

That’s your opinion, but I’m definitely not spending more time here.

Right…

Like I said, stopping all weapons is the right answer.

But if you’re going to defend bombs or missile defense…

It makes zero sense to only remove defense unless your goal is more death on both sides rather than lessening the current amount of deaths.

Her statement:

Marjorie Taylor Greene’s amendment does nothing to cut off offensive aid to Israel nor end the flow of US munitions being used in Gaza… What it does do is cut off defensive Iron Dome capacities while allowing the actual bombs killing Palestinians to continue. I have long stated that I do not believe that adding to the death count of innocent victims to this war is constructive to its end… I remain focused on cutting the flow of US munitions that are being used to perpetuate the genocide in Gaza.

The author says she wrong and we shouldn’t give them any arms… Which I agree with.

But MTG’s amendment apparently defunded Israel’s defense, but let them keep offense?

And yeah…

That sounds more in line with what MTG wants in this genocide: she wants both sides to suffer massive civilian casualties.

That’s obviously just going to make everything worse.

Quick edit:

Website is for a Koch funded think tank with the goal of America ignoring foreign conflicts…

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quincy-institute-for-responsible-statecraft-bias-and-credibility/

The institute is funded through contributions from philanthropic donors; some well-known donors include the Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and Stand Together Trust, which is associated with the libertarian-leaning Koch network.

Can we please stop listening to billionaires who say we should stop liking progressives?

South Park already covered this…

Everyone uses the T.M.I. formula but you tell everyone that anything about 1.5" qualifies as “nice” on the new scale.

Boom, everyone chills the fuck out.

I mean, the phrase is for associates and random people you run into for one specific interaction

Basically:

Give em the benefit of doubt

It doesn’t mean if your neighbor kicks you in the balls everyone morning, you still try to shake his hand tomorrow.

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetentance

Is the saying, but it’s definitely not always true.

This isn’t a conspiracy…

It’s the reality of using Hotmail as a business account in 2025.

Which is frankly nuts.

But the author even says the same thing happened to them before too

There’s no need to be racist and that wasn’t what the civil war was about.

There was no threat of slavery being federally outlawed, Lincoln’s entire inaugural address was about how slaves were property and no one was going to fuck with the institution of slavery.

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/1inaug.htm

The South wanted a “strong” federal government that could force Northern states to “deport” any Black people in the North to the South where they’d be made slaves.

And Lincoln wouldn’t do that either. He felt the federal government had no say on slaverly.

So the South seceded, and when the federal government said they couldn’t that was the official cause of the war. Whether or not states had the option to leave the union.

Repeating that the Civil war was about if slavery could be legal, is not only reductionist it’s repeating century old propaganda spread by wealthy slave owners to make it sound better than reality.

Lincoln did t even start thinking about outlawing slavery until the war was starting to drag on, and that was solely as an economic sanction because wealthy Europeans had started buying up Southern plantations and those funds were being used to prolong the war.

By explicitly outlawing slavery, it cratered the speculative real estate market and those funds being cut off shortened the war.

Shits more complicated than what they told us in sixth grade.

They’d effectively be abandoning their properties,

They wouldn’t…

They can’t take a fucking skyscraper with them, and they still pay property tax where it’s at.

That’s why I’m saying if you wanted to keep them, you’d drastically raise property tax, with a reduction for states residents. Especially when talking housing, that would be huge.

A homestead taxed at 5% or an investment property at 25% means investment firms aren’t just going to stop buying, they’ll start selling. Which would solve but at least alleviate the housing crisis.

Like, specifically NYC, they’re in a weird situation they want to reduce the price of real estate. It can’t happen too fast tho or it 08 all over again.

But the best thing to reduce real estate prices, is taxing the fuck out of investment properties. Maybe throw a multi-year plan out there so it gets more and more painful every year. That way it’s not a fire sale all at once.

We have plenty of options, we just need to elect politicians willing to use them

Disappointed to see Jacobin taking the threat of the wealthy leaving seriously…

It’s fucking New York, raise property tax and raise it more for any person (or corporation without a majority of owners) that lives outside of New York.

Stop fucking acting like we can’t do shit, because the wealthy might retaliate. They haven’t stopped the class war, they’re fighting as hard as possible and willing to cross any line.

Anyone saying we can’t fight back because they might retaliate is ignorant of the entire history of America. They’re already doing everything they can to fuck us over.

If the wealthy say they’ll leave because of progressive the response should be only:

K

And then go back to talking about progressive policy to voters.

Don’t let them stop what’s working by changing the subject.