No it is democratic, which the KPD at this point was no longer. They were working on setting up a Stalinist dictatorship and no longer a council democracy.

I was going to let it go, but this really bugs me. What are you even talking about here?

This does not read to me as a response

There’s no evidence Trump will be worse on Palestine than the Dems. The idea that Trump is worse than any future frontrunner is myopic alarmism, you’ll be whipped into a new frenzy just the same with most or perhaps all future candidates (some of whom will be substantially worse). Furthermore, most people live in states where their vote doesn’t have any impact on the winner of the election, sothem voting blue only serves to legitimate the popular mandate of the genocidal dems. I don’t know, this is all very obvious but it’s like my 50th time saying it in this stupid thread.

You say we’re on the same side, but your ideology is one of supporting perpetrators into perpetuity because the tautology you’ve been talked into has no off-ramp, no point in the future where you stop taking “emergency” “temporary” “provisional” “compromises” to “reduce harm” and instead make actual positive progress. There will always be a new election, there will always be a new Republican platform that declares an interest in doing heinous shit, and very frequently there will be more sincere fascists than Trump, like if Tom Cotton ever runs, and there will never be some demon democrat you won’t vote for because they are running against someone who is 1% more reactionary, and that thereby necessitates everyone giving them unconditional support.

It’s an unserious strategy based on the panicked mindset of people who are stuck in an abusive relationship with liberal media.

Vote third party, put actual pressure on the Dems to make concessions. If they have your vote no matter what, they have no reason to listen to you.

When did I ever say I would do that? I am plainly not advocating for such a thing.

Biden is already supplying arms and Harris has vowed to do the same and gone on endlessly about Israel’s “right to defend itself” and how anti-genocide protesters are pro terrorism and so on. I’m not saying Trump won’t fully support Israel, I’m saying there is no light between that and the Biden-Harris position.

First in our current system the president needs Congress to get things done

There is quite a lot that the President can do independently using Executive Orders. Even tasks that, on paper, require congressional approval can be subverted, and you can look at the US’s record of entering undeclared wars as evidence of that.

Beyond that, see what I already said about how there’s no such thing as an autocrat.

Second, we’ve seen with the freedom caucus that a small group of congressmen can wield a lot of power

These are people who would do the best in an imaginary Fuhrer Trump political machine. Think of it like getting promoted to a bigger, more powerful Freedom Caucus.

Third, I think we definitely can expect a very different Trump in a second term versus his first term and he definitely HAS expressed an interest in this with all of his dictation envy too become Fuhrer and worse there is a large portion of the population that is content to be rolled under a Trump dictatorship.

People have been talking about him admiring dictators before he was elected and all throughout his first term. There’s nothing new here, no evidence that suggests something has changed.

I promise you it’s just hysteria. So there’s a chance of something beneficial happening in this conversation, I want you to just take note of this conviction you have that Trump will be Hitler and then, if he is elected, just remember it as he blunders his way through being racist and doing war crimes just the same as he did before with no particular change besides Vance leading a new rhetorical tact.

No, I won’t be doing a mirror version of this exercise. I’m a communist, so if I’m wrong and he’s a neo-neo-Nazi, I get the wall anyway and it’s no harm done.

How do you think that will play out with Palestine should he get in again?

Liberals keeps saying that Trump will do genocide x 2, but they have no evidence, nor any indication of how.

Look, it does actually work in Western Europe, the UK, Australia and NZ. All this talk that it can’t work is plainly wrong.

Your courts are mostly more professional than America’s but I don’t find that to be a compelling argument when every country you listed is a reactionary shithole, Australia especially. NZ is the only one that I’d give kind of a pass to there.

It has very little support, it’s DOA. That’s just what happens. Look at all of Bernie’s failed bills; they just don’t push the needle. You can tell me that at some point in the future the Rapture will definitely happen, the righteous will be saved and the sinners will be cast into perdition and so on, but I don’t see any reason to believe it considering the history of the Democrats for the last 40 years and their incredible ability to pretend to want good things while either conspiring with open rightists or making limp gestures like this.

You will not see the Democratic Party vote its own power away, it just won’t happen.

Making a declaration is worthless. This is three people saying that they’d like to do something and they will fail just as these attempts have always failed. I can give them as people some amount of credit for trying to make the world better, but that does not exonerate the system! The system – including the rest of the Democratic Party – will still put their attempt down regardless.

Do you not see the difference here? The fact that people can and do propose to do good things now and again and those attempts are shot down even by the so-called left wing party is not a defense of the republic, but an indictment!

I said

admitted that there may be

Which is what you said. I characterized your statement correctly.

Campaigning on the issues will lock judges into their biases.

What does this mean? Everyone has biases, I don’t see how campaigning matters for that. Do you mean, perhaps, that it prevents judges from changing for branding purposes? Because that objection has two serious problems: 1) what the public wants will change over time and 2) people should do what they’re elected to, so what does it matter if someone keeps getting elected for maintaining the same popular platform?

There’s no need to be so smarmy. Anyway, the individuals may behave in aberrant ways (or perhaps as a red herring, up to your interpretation), but the Democratic Party will reject it just as the Republicans will. I’m talking about classes and political parties, not every person as an individual.

If it passes, I’ll eat my hat, but it doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell.

But you yourself admitted that there may be no such thing as “neutral,” “apolitical” justices. If there aren’t, what good does pretending do?

It seems to me like all it’s accomplishing is another layer of abstraction rather than a real mechanistic distinction, but I’ve seen what “bipartisan” action looks like in the US, and the billions in arms given to Israel are a decent start. Republicans and Democrats absolutely have the capacity to collaborate and, when they do, it’s monstrous.

Voting at least gives the people a chance to resist the machinations of the bipartisan consensus and get progressives installed.

If making a given ruling is political, it stands to reason that a contrary ruling would also be political. It’s not like slavery is political and abolition is apolitical, it’s just that one has a positive character and one has a negative character (in the mathematical sense).

Some things are dangerous to the people and political, some things are beneficial to the people and political. We should support a system that encourages judges to do promote the latter.

No, judges are mostly appointed in the US

Slavery looks a lot more popular when you don’t let the slaves vote. If the slaves could vote – i.e. if there was a greater degree of democracy – there would surely be no slavery. It was the repression of the political power of a large segment of the population that enabled slavery.

Surely, if we educate people on class consciousness, they will generally act in alignment with the common interest, right prole? Certainly it’s not a better solution to dictate morality to them unilaterally through some technocratic institution (that’s rather like what the aristocracy was), because we have no particular way of ensuring that they will act in the common interest – which is not especially their interest – unlike the common people, for whom the common interest is their interest.

Not doing that is also political

Between these two options:

1. indulging in the delusion of neutral judges and letting the elite pick the ones who do the best job of pretending to be neutral while representing their interests

2. discarding the illusion of neutral judges and picking ones who openly state (and ideally have a record) that they will seek to pursue and enact justice as both they and the better part of the population interpret it

I think one of these is clearly superior for “promoting justice”. Do you disagree?

both the Communist and the Nazis were against democracy

This is ridiculous, the Communists opposed the Weimar Republic, but they absolutely supported democracy. In their view, in fact, they supported a much more authentic form of democracy by extricating private interests from the process.

Hindenburg used decrees to work with the Nazis so they could form a government.

We keep glossing over this “liberals siding with Nazis” thing

The Communists however never tried to work with the democratic forces.

I really think the word you’re looking for here is “liberal”

Point should be obvious.

You’re making significant assumptions, such as any of the liberals actually being willing to work the with the Communists, which would be a hell of a change for the SPD after that business with the Freikorps. Otherwise, the argument is just “join the SPD” and assume that they can bring their voters with them while completely abandoning their revolutionary project and putting themselves under the discipline of a liberal party. I feel that this is something of a muddy issue that you’re interpreting in a convenient way.

“Aren’t you as well?” Fair question, and there’s a lot about this situation that I can’t speak to, but what I said before I am completely sure holds, which is that Hitler gained power, on the most proximate level, because of liberal collaborators.