What exactly do you mean by decentralizes in this sentence? Socialism still has a centralized State structure to enforce the rule of the working class. A centralized State is fundamental to protecting the revolution. No, revolution has succeeded that attempted to completely abolish the state. That would be anarchism not socialism.

But maybe you are just referring to a stateless, moneyless, classless society as a goal of the socialist state? Which would be Communism not socialism.

I’d say it’s because he didn’t have a spine with his own party. He signed an executive order to close it within a year. Which was blocked by his own party members. The Democratic party is a failure for sure. But if the leader of the party can’t get a fundamental thing he ran on passed that’s still something you can blame a politician for. He failed to pass it. Why it didn’t pass is not an excuse for a politician failing. Especially when they hold the highest office in the land.

Obama’s entire presidency is him not acting on popular legislation, attempting to work with Republicans to prevent them from calling him a dictator or terrorist lover, and the Republicans STILL calling him a dictator and terrorist lover anyway.

Edit: downvotes. But everything I said was true. His literally party voted against him closing it. A fundamental part of his campaign. That’s a weak president that can’t even whip his own party. Or he never cared to close it in the first place.

deleted by creator

Man, that’s a lot of words to say “I don’t actually want to learn what you’re talking about”.

It’s not rude to point out what another person may not understand. That’s not stupidity. That’s lacking knowledge.

Stupidity is when someone is addressed with something they do not understand, take it as a personal attack, and then decide they would rather not waste their time to ask a single question.

You wouldn’t look stupid if you asked me something simple like “what do you mean by class?” I’d be very happy to clarify my definition of the word and move forward from there.

But it seems you are too stubborn to do anything simple like that. You’d rather be upset by a condescending tone that I can’t help but let out. If there is something I’m guilty of its definitely that.

Edit: Damn, when they delete all their comments.

Fair enough. My comment was about people constantly calling everything “a distraction” from one specific crime. The article isn’t really meaningful to the comment I made. So not really a part of any of the discussion.

I would say you don’t understand what point I’m making because you are the very type of person lacking class consciousness that my initial comment was frustrated about.

I’m wasn’t really trying to educate anyone with it. It was more venting a frustration.

I’m sorry if I was defensive in my responses. Its usually right wing reactionaries trying to point away from class conflict to something else. It would be better if you have a specific question about what I said. Rather than me trying to “explain connections”. That’s too vague to really answer.

Im sorry if I infered things from what you said. But, I am frustrated with the hoops people jump through to avoid discussing class conflict. You haven’t once responded to the points I’ve made about class conflict and class consciousness. You just said “I’m overcomplicating it” rather than attempt to understand what was being said.

I’m not sure if you’re purposely avoiding it. Or, more likely, you’re just not understanding what is being said and you’re filling it in with your own misunderstanding. But I’m not talking about “the rich” like they need to just pay more taxes and shits good. I’m talking about class not wealth. And more importantly, how that class structure gives only one class access to influence government (power).

I agree, online conversations like this are frustrating. But, you have now multiple times ignored my discussion of class and replaced it with things I didn’t say. Instead you appealed to tribalism, calling people racist, or acting like I’m discussing a conspiracy. Nothing of which I’ve said.

If you want to push back on a perspective someone has, you should probably understand that perspective first. Because it’s entirely based on class conflict. Something you’ve refused to respond to. I would have thought that was obvious from “capitalist Epstein class” that I mentioned in my literal first comment.

I think you’re the one simplifying it and appealing to existing nation structures to avoid addressing class structures. Which is, ironically, exactly the thing I’m critizing. And also trying to appeal to some “human nature” reason for why Americans ignore other crimes.

A distraction would be a form of entertainment. It’s the “bread and circus” of maintaining control. Rounding up people and putting them in concentration camps is not a “distraction”. Killing people that attempt to stop that, or that run away, is not “a distraction”. It’s the form of control that occurs when the “bread and circuses” are no longer able to be maintained.

If you think fascist physically enforcing their power with violence is “a distraction” I don’t know what to tell you.

I’m not sure how you got that connection in your last sentence couple sentences. It’s not a choice between two evil acts. I’m pointing to it because no one ever talks about a “distraction” from Gaza.

The idea that Epstein needs to be “distracted” from is because it’s something that more Americans know and care about. But, more importantly, it’s something that happened TO AMERICANS. So, Americans believe that there is some justice they are due.

The false belief Americans have is that when children are dying and raped in those “savage” countries by our countries direct or indirect actions are just an unfortunate result of “how the world works”. But, Americans, we are special, we deserve justice.

If someone has this false belief they reach a contradiction when addressed with Epstein. That is, if they acknowledge the crimes of the Epstein class elsewhere. They must address this contradiction. So they continue to believe that the justice is just “on hold”. That when Trump is gone or out of power the system will bring justice. They keep reminding everyone of the crimes because they (rightfully) don’t want them to be forgotten. There must be justice FOR THIS!

But there will not be. Just as there has been no justice for Gaza. At least not from the systems of power that are controlled by the capitalist Epstein class. The only justice we will find for these crimes will be found outside of those systems of power.

Just as Gaza will not find justice in the American systems; neither will Epstein. They are crimes performed by that very system. The only justice will come when that system loses its power. By destroying those systems of power.

They aren’t “distracting” you from anything. Because they don’t care. If you think they care or think they worry you are confusing their own delusions of their own narratives with worry. Trump denying Epstein connections is not because he’s worried for justice. He’s doing that for his own narcissistic narrative. That’s why they don’t proudly say they are pedophiles (yet). It’s for their narcissism, not for their worry of justice. Like you said, even they know people don’t like pedophiles. They care as much as that narcissism needs them to.

They aren’t worried because they still see the rest of us pointing to their rigged system as a means of future justice. They laugh as you appeal to it as the solution.

They can keep you fed and entertained just long enough for them to come take you to the camp. Remember that. You’re not waiting for all your neighbors to suddenly “get it”. Everyone is experiencing that to some degree or another. You and I are just torturing ourselves with worry if we’re not doing anything but pointing at each step of fascism. Lead by action not by words.

https://youtu.be/zAthsMSwESE

Don’t be the one that “serves them best”.

They aren’t trying to “distract” from Epstein. This implies there is some form of justice that would come if they didn’t successfully keep “distracting”.

That justice does not exist in the systems of power we have. Obama didn’t put Bush in chains. On the contrary, he continued commiting the same war crimes and didn’t even shut down the very torture camp he ran on closing. Because every politician is just a subject to the ruling Epstein capitalist class.

Epstein was the ruling capitalist class, and the politicians that they own, telling you “we get to do the worst crimes imaginable and there is nothing you will do about it”. They don’t have to pretend anymore. They use to have to pretend “weapons of mass destruction”, “we tortured some folks”, “Rafah is my red line”.

They told you this same thing first when they spent years bombing and mutilating children in Gaza even without the orange man in control.

And they were right. We didn’t do anything.

There is no “distraction”. We give them permission to genocide children every day we keep going to work. We give them permission to keep trafficking children every day we pay our rent. We give them permission to starve children every day we don’t put a fucking [redacted] in their [redacted]'s.

Everytime you hear this same “distraction” comment. I want you to remember that.

Sure. But you’re speaking specifically about grammar. I guess I am speaking more generally about the use of passive language not nessacarily “passive voice”.

The action of violence is placed on the object instead of the person/people. It’s not necessarily about strictly passive voice but removing humanity from the victims of the violent actions.

“ICE fired at innocents fleeing in SUV” is more appropriate. It makes it clear that the intent is to cause harm to the victims. The title infers there is possibly some reason to fire shots at a moving vehicle that could be justified in the scenario. Which there wasn’t.

I’m more for “stand your ground” and shoot back when it comes to ICE.

Thanks. I’m glad that the recognition of passive language titles is becoming more obvious to everyone. I’m seeing comments, like yours, calling it out more often.

After nearly 3 years of genocide in Gaza I was going mad watching people being accepting of the “Israeli citizen kidnapped from tank” style language.

Trying to beat Susan Collins?

I think you underestimate the hatred for the Republican party in this country. Every single time someone fills a tank of gas they are more likely to vote for anyone that doesn’t have an R next to their name on the ballot.

Removing a zionist Republican is not pointless. These people decide if bombs drop on children in Gaza when they go to vote. It’s never pointless to do what we can to remove one vote from that.

Fascist are weak. They rely on the population and their politicians to not expose that weakness by challenging them with strength.

Unfortunately, they are not being challenged with strength. They are being challenged with the existing systems and an appeal to “the process”; and the population maintaining order in hopes they will be brought to heel by the very systems that allowed them to take power in the first place.

We will not defeat fascist by simply calling them weak, or fragile, or waiting for the process to remove them. They will not follow the process and will defeat everyone that attempts to fight them through it. They are breaking the rules of the process. The process itself needs to be changed, not clinged to as some religious doctrine.

The only thing that crumbles them is strength. The only thing that will stop them from returning is a fundamental change to the process that allowed them to rise in the first place.

Unless you actually provide suggestions for individuals to take action you find useful; only providing non constructive criticism is for YOU and you alone. You’re making every conversation about yourself and your feelings and not about actually creating material improvements.

It’s easy to criticize what is not working. It’s difficult to actually have an opinion on what you believe would work. Then someone could actually criticize your ideas or actions. So, you stay comfortable in your finger wagging.

Respect. But, in the context I replied to I’ll still stand behind what my initial comment. Cheers.

Why are people so brain dead with their individualism? It’s not about you! I’m gonna assume you’re white and/or don’t have a family that you support.

You’re not “brave”. You’re either privileged or stupid if you don’t realize that having ICE agents at polling stations is going to intimidate people. Not because they are “cowards” or whatever you’re trying to imply. But because the average mother or father aren’t going to risk their family being separated or imprisoned.

You’re not brave for going to vote. If you want to be brave, go use your privilege on election day, organize with other privileged people, arm yourselves, and remove ICE from your city.

If you’re not willing to take THAT risk. Then stfu about your heroic act of “going to vote” when you clearly have no worry of consequence.

Reading into the Wikipedia sources it seems the type of sealant used was liked not cured sufficiently before it was exposed to the elements. (Makes sense, the average pool isn’t getting cooked in direct sunlight like the reflecting pool was).

It’s like a home chef trying to cook in an industrial kitchen for 1000s of people. Trump’s pool guy just repeated the process used for personal pools on a project way beyond the scale they were qualified for. Shit didn’t work how they expected it to in a completely different climate and and scale.

It short. “Trump’s friend” was completely unqualified. Shocker.

The federal government and the president control the military. You can’t beat Fascism by pointing to “process”.

Like, how the fuck many times does the “process” need to be violated for people to stop pointing to it as their protection?

Fascist take power by exploiting this exact type of thinking you are showing here. They don’t go “all at once”. They take steps forward and steps back. Pushing forward but keeping the idea of “process” for you to cling to.

“They can’t just do X because Y”

Then they do X, and Y is vaguely or partially pandered to by the “opposition”. Y fails to stop X completely, but “don’t worry” we still have Z and Z is really where they’ll be stopped.

Rinse and repeat. That’s how we got to this point.