“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.
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.
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. 😡
He is afraid of strong, smart women. He is afraid of people who can laugh. And he is deadly afraid of ending up losing the debate and the vote to a black woman, the kind of person that should in his mind be as inferior as a bug.
He’s afraid to compete against a black woman.
Even if Trump says no, Harris should at the very least discuss her opinions and views on camera. It could just be a single person question and answering, a debate other Democrats, or debating a third party candidtae if they don’t want to back other Democrat candidates. Leaving Harris a mystery is the worst thing Democrats can do.
This! Do the debate whether he shows up or not. It will expose him for being a massive pussy
I know it’s hard to believe sometimes but people are slowly realizing what he is. All of my Trumper family are now apolitical all of a sudden lol
Works for me!
pussies are tough. he’s a ballsack: quite sensitive, shrivels up in cold weather, and prone to premature ejaculation
“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?
Paywall
Trump campaign says it won’t commit to Harris debate until she’s confirmed as nominee.
Biden wasn’t confirmed as nominee…
He was presumptive though
Now it’s like if Trump actually wins a debate vs her then someone else would just win the nomination
Really no motivation for his side to do it
Harris has enough delegates to get the nominee. She’s now the presumptive nominee.
Idk what to tell you other than read this again
Now it’s like if Trump actually wins a debate vs her then someone else would just win the nomination
Yep. Democrats could just once again bait and switch. Waste of time and energy.
This is a lame excuse. More likely, he’s just scared of debating her.
