Ok, bud.

Wasn’t after midnight for me.

No, I asked for a document comparable to the 2025 plan, go back and reread it. It’s not my fault you misread and gripped to that misinterpretation for too long.

I did give links. Specific ones that actually supported what I had said. Something beyond your capabilities because you’ve just given a bunch of irrelevant information. So what about Obama, VPs don’t authorize drone strikes. The Greens haven’t helped eviction rates ones bit. Your state’s local Green membership doesn’t mean shit.

You love to just make crazy-ass, unsupportable statements. I’ll give it a shot, too. The Greens pass far-right legislation. The Greens love to secretly do poorly on purpose because their goal is to weaken the left from the inside. Article 4 of the Green Party charter is worse than any policy ever enacted by Nazi Germany. Stein wants to launch nuclear war all over the world.

Normally quotes are usually unnecessary because the person you’re speaking to can remember what they themselves said. I suppose I expected too much of you.

deleted by creator

That’s fine, I knew you wouldn’t have the attention span to read it, seeing as you can’t muster a thought longer than an elementary-level sentence. Elaboration is a good thing. You’re still wrong and you still don’t know what a citation is. The last sentence of my comment sums it all up pretty well, anyway.

Your “source” was just a link to the whole constitution of the Confederacy. You didn’t actually cite any specific examples to back up your point, you just said they were comparable without elaborating. Did you even read it before linking? They may be comparable in some ways, but perhaps rather different in others. It’s probably arguable, but you didn’t bother, so I don’t know what your thought process was. It doesn’t matter what it was now, but that’s what citations and sources are for. What specific parts of the constitution are you referencing? Which specific parts are similar to the 2025 Plan or fascistic political ideology and what are the parallels? You’ve already demonstrated for me in practical terms that you don’t know when to use a source or how to cite it. Your only defense is projecting your ignorance onto me. They are not for questions at all, but for statements, of which you make many unfounded and unsupported ones. If I say Ronald McDonald is actually a Mormon and when asked for proof, I simply link the entire Book of Mormon, that wouldn’t prove my point at all and you’d have no idea what I meant.

Also, the CSA was really bad, right? In listing the CSA’s constitution as a kind of predecessor to the 2025 Plan, you acknowledge that this is a big deal. Shouldn’t that make you way more willing to do whatever it takes to defeat the plan, even if it means sucking it up and voting for a centrist if there’s no other chance?

My strategy has worked about 45% of the time in the last 100 years (8/18 times) and yours has worked exactly 0% of the time. The Greens’ membership fell by about 27% between 2004-2009 and has remained mostly stagnant in terms of growth since then (that’s a citation, a direct or paraphrased quote from a source I used so you’d know I didn’t just pull it from nowhere. You haven’t done that, so I don’t know the same for your state Its just the important bit, so you don’t have to read the whole thing, but you are able to go find a cited quote if you feel compelled). Your strategy is failing utterly right before our eyes and all you can do to distract from it is to point at others. My strategy actually accomplishes real harm reduction because during a significant amount of the time, less extreme policies are being passed than if they were under a republican. Dems at least pump the breaks a little bit, while the Greens aren’t there to pump the breaks at all. Don’t worry, though, they said that they would totally have stopped the crash singlehandedly if they were there. The DNC certainly aren’t the revolutionaries I wish they were, but it’s obviously better than letting the right have total free reign. The Greens have never been around to effect any legislation one way or another. Your strategy accomplishes literally nothing as opposed to at least something demonstrable. Failed idealism is still failure.

You seem to be under the impression that the Green Party would stay true to their beliefs better than the DNC, but this also would appear untrue. In the few places where the Greens have won any elections, they have to compromise with the right just as the DNC does. Here they are approving a new lignite mine (very similar to coal, used in same ways) in Germany under pressure from the right and wealthy. If they wouldn’t actually be capable of being much better than the DNC because of opposition, then what’s the point of working so hard to build a party and letting the right take the advantage in the meantime, only for basically the same outcome? Sounds like a whole lot of wasted chances when we could have just voted for the people already doing this.

Everything you’ve criticized Biden for, you haven’t acknowledged that Trump would be worse on all accounts, as he’s already demonstrated in his presidency. The Green Party can’t offer an immediate solution for that. As only one example, Trump was setting records for so many drone strikes that he stopped publishing the numbers. In his first year, Biden reduced drone strikes by 54% from Trump’s final year. 100% would be better, but you’d be a fool to reject a reduction that big. That is real harm reduction. Those are families who didn’t get blown up, when they would have under Trump. Biden also made it harder for the Pentagon and CIA to launch their own drone strikes.

Here’s a list of inconsistent thoughts regarding your stated reasons for advocating for the Greens; criticizing the DNC for being ineffective when the Greens have little at all to point to whatsoever; criticizing the DNC for compromises with the right when the Greens would have to make those same compromises; complaining the dems get the right elected and telling people to vote for someone unelectable which only ends up helping the right by diluting votes.

You said it, voting Green really is the least one can do lmao. It might be easier to simply bring down the whole government and start from scratch than it would be to get a Green president elected anytime in the next 20 years. It took me about as long as it takes to vote Green to write this comment and the time I spent was just as “valuable” lol.

There’re those baseless assertions again. It’s like you double down by making a new one every time I ask for sources, or even to merely explain your thinking. Just saying something doesn’t make it true, especially not when said by you lol.

What strategy exactly? How exactly has it failed? I’d argue it’s worked infinitely better than your suggestion because democrats have at least been president a bunch of times and prevented the right from having those opportunities. How many Green presidents (or even house reps) have we had again?What practical pattern or information do you get from looking at past presidents? Again, cite your sources or this is just as false and ill-conceived as everything else you’ve said. I can back up my statement that your strategy is worthless by pointing out that the Green Party is so fringe as to never have won a national election, or even have much awareness among voters. The Green Party would have to do at least 5 times better than it has anytime in the last several elections in order to qualify for federal funding. You’re even more naive than I thought if you’re banking on that. It’s not gonna happen anytime soon, sorry to be the bearer of bad news. It’s also genuinely laughable that you’d complain about democrats being beholden to moneyed interests and then suggesting the Green Party should get all of its money from the federal government, which it would also have to agree to in order to receive that money. Do you have a single consistent thought in your head?

I’m afraid your expectations for the US electoral system is much too high. This is the US we’re talking about, remember? You think they’d let us have someone actually good? Bad or abjectly terrible are your options and always will be. You can say “I refuse to participate in this matter,” but I don’t want to hear any complaints when it turns out the worse one gets chosen for you anyway.

Congrats, you’ve voted for someone else. That person didn’t win and the old people are still in charge, genius. Literally going back to Lincoln times, it’s always been a dem or a rep. That’s what I mean by no escape and all you’ve done this whole time is say “Nuh-uh!” based on nothing at all. You’ve said nothing substantive this whole time and have yet to support a single statement. This is nothing to do with loyalty and everything to do with strategy. So far you’ve proudly declared you have no real strategy and no real basis for your beliefs. At best, you’ve tricked yourself into thinking you’ve escaped the system, but you’re sitting right here in the same sinking boat with all of us. You can try and bail water, or you can complain that a better boat wouldn’t need to be bailed. Grab a bucket or jump out.

Except you often can’t simply just leave an abusive relationship. You can say you’re leaving, but the dems will always be there as one of only two real options; there’s no escape. Just like I thought, you were just making wild, spiteful assertions without even any justification to back them up. The centrists are worse than the far-right because they’re both rich? And you expect to be taken seriously with logic like that? The right is even richer and openly hates you/actively works against you.

And how exactly is a centrist leader worse than a far-right leader? That makes no sense. You’re cutting off your nose to spite your face. It’s like having the choice between being in an abusive relationship where they always tell you they’ll do better next time or being with someone who actually wants to murder you, and you choose the murderer because you’re tired of being manipulated. No one would fault you for being tired of that, but to say that the alternative is preferable is utterly absurd. Lay out for me why Trump would be better than Biden.

Trump is far worse on all those issues. Do you want your life to be merely bad, or completely awful? It’s a shitty choice, but it does actually matter. Sometimes it might feel like the answer is “I don’t care anymore,” but I feel like you’re being careless with regard to the people who’s lives would be unmistakably worse under Trump than under Biden. Not even just here, but in Palestine, in Ukraine, in Armenia, in Tigray, in Rojava, etc.

Stein is strengthening the left, because the Democrats are not left.

I don’t agree because I feel a far-right Trump presidency would be much worse for the actual left than a centrist neolib Biden presidency. There’s a lot riding on this; access to abortion, trans rights, environmental protections, restricting voter access, etc. I think that a Trump would probably even damage the left more than a miraculous Stein victory would help it.

In what ways is the constitution and the 2025 Plan comparable? I want examples, but I know you won’t do that because you’re just an edgelord who doesn’t actually have anything intelligent to say. The 2025 Plan seeks to circumvent certain parts of the constitution, just so you know. Just like Stein is helping to weaken the position of the left, RFK is thankfully weakening the stance of the right. Trump would be in an even stronger position if he didn’t have so much competition on the right. RFK could be a real spoiler for Trump, especially considering he’s running as an independent and will appear alongside Trump on the ballot. Still no way RFK could win, though, which is why a vote for him would also be a vote wasted.

Have you thought about it for even 2 seconds? The guy who attempted a coup when he failed the election, the guy currently facing a litany of felony charges, the guy able to get republicans to attack their own capitol against democracy is just like any other GOP prez? Get real, dude, this shit is completely unprecedented. The 2025 Plan lays out exactly how the right plans to seize power forever by further packing courts, changing rules, limiting access to voters, and much more. I highly recommend you read it. It’s as close to a path to actual fascism as anything the US has ever seen. Name a single comparable document in all of US history. You can just keep your head in the sand if you want, though.

The real deranged take is to say that people like Biden will get Trump elected, when Biden is literally the only contender to prevent such a thing. Your solution? Vote for a non-contender who won’t even break a million votes. Yes, you’ve clearly thought this through. If you’re willing to take this gamble, you better stay out Vegas or I’d worry you might lose your house. The other team is taking the ball and instead of doing the best bet to maybe stop them, you stand on the sidelines and protest the game itself instead. That’s sure to prevent them from scoring, right? Someone else would be great, but we don’t have one who comes even close to being able to win with less than a year out, now. That’s just the reality. There is a 0% chance that the president won’t be either Trump or Biden, so gun to your head, which would you prefer?

Sure, go ahead and lay out the evidence and the strategies for me.

I can’t wait until 28 when we don’t even have to have an election because Trump has removed term limits and installed himself as President for Life, which he’s literally expressed interest in doing multiple times throughout his presidency and since. You’re being obtuse if you think Trump is anything like Romney, or McCain, or Bush, or anyone else. This ain’t the GOP of your childhood. Pretty ironic to complain about Biden’s popularity and then say that everyone should vote for someone who won’t even get 1% of the vote. Telling people to vote for someone like Stein is just telling people to throw away their vote because you know Stein would never be elected for a wide variety of reasons. Have fun watching your utopianism come crashing down around you as you realize it’s not that simple, though. Every practical leftist has already had that experience. I’m just shocked people are still going with this obvious loser of a strategy.

As long as Trump is running, that’s the reality, though. Trump is nothing like any GOP candidate that’s ever run in anyone’s life. If anything, he seems worse now than he did in 2016. The 2025 plan is an open document from the Trump team about how the right can seize power forever. In just a few short years, he’s completely transformed the GOP into something utterly unrecognizable. If you can’t see that, you’re just being willfully ignorant. To treat him as an ordinary republican is to legitimize him. Hopefully he loses this time and drops dead before the next election, but it’s far too close to say that he won’t win this time.

It’s that polling I’m talking about. It’s a critically close race and even as unpopular as Biden is, I’d still take him over Trump any day and there isn’t a single other viable candidate. He’ll still need people to vote for him, though. For everything that people don’t like about Biden, Trump is even worse and people seem to have forgotten that. With less than a year to go and everyone who isn’t Trump or Biden getting little support, our choices are already laid out for us. As nice as it would be to have a “neither” vote option, we don’t have that luxury. This is could easily shape up to be a repeat of the 2016 election and the only way to fight it is to vote against Trump, whoever that may be. It sucks, but that’s the system we exist in. Every potential voter who abstains only makes a Trump victory more likely, given how strong Trump’s position is. We’re given the choice between the lesser of two evils and to say “I don’t care” doesn’t actually teach anyone a lesson. You might not care, but there are many people whose lives would be made measurably worse if Trump were to succeed.

And yet, for everyone to sit back and not vote for Biden would be to allow Trump to win, a much bigger deal than possibly being taken advantage of in some vague and nebulous way. Are you so upset at the DNC that you’d accept fascism as an alternative? As awful as Trump is, the GOP is largely united behind him and rabidly loyal to him. You aren’t going to beat them by splitting the vote and bringing in relative unknowns. I’m registered Green myself, but Stein got 1.1% of the vote in 2016 and less than half that in 2020. They’ve never won a single national election, never even a single seat in Congress. As great as it would be, there is just no way the Green Party will be able to pull something like that off.

In the face of an intolerable and catastrophic alternative such as Trump, Biden not being amazingly popular unfortunately means we actually have to act more decisively in support of him instead of less. I’m not saying you have to like him, but this is perhaps one of the most important elections of our lifetimes and worse yet, the outcome is far from certain. If Trump wins, being able to say, “Well, at least I didn’t vote for Biden!” would be a very hollow victory.

Last time was literally a choice between Biden and Trump. You’re saying by voting in the guy who wasn’t Trump, we gave Trump the presidency? So, we should have simply allowed him to win with his highly mobilized and motivated supporters? That’s a brilliant strategy, I wonder how that would have played out. Surely, an awesome third option would have magically appeared at the last second and won it all, right? Like, what do you even want from people? You don’t like Trump, but you also don’t like when people vote against him. If people hadn’t voted Biden in, though, we’d already be in another Trump presidency right now.

It sounds like what you’re advocating is that we had a better front-runner than Biden in the first place, one so amazing that they’d obviously blow Trump right out of the water. I also want that, but we didn’t/don’t and we as voters have no control over who runs, that’s just wishful thinking. Yes, we should have better candidates. Where are they? In the meantime, we have no choice but to take the reality that we have, even if it means biting our tongues and voting for Biden again. It will once again come down to Biden vs Trump and to let Trump run away with this one would be a big mistake.

When I was a kid, I definitely remember a more history-centric focus on the History Channel, although I remember even then (early 2000s) that they seemed to lean pretty heavily on WWII documentaries. It seemed every time I switched to the channel, one would be playing. It’s more or less been the way it is for the last decade or so, though.

Nah, it’s not much better during the day, either. HC runs either crackpot history/paranormal docs, reality shows, discussion about niche topics such as toys/modern architecture/etc., or war docs almost 24/7. In case anyone is wondering, here’s the next three days of programming scheduled for History Channel.

Saturday (Veterans’ Day):

12:03-1:06am - The UnXplained

1:06-3:04am - The Proof is Out There

3:04-4:01am - The UnXplained

4:01-7:00am - Paid Programming

7:00-1:00pm - WWII in HD

1:00-7:00pm - Vietnam in HD

7:00-8:00pm - Special, Variety Salute to Service 2023

8:00-10:03pm - Beyond the Battlefield

10:03-12:03am - Special, 761st Tank Battalion: The Original Black Panthers

Sunday

12:03-2:04am - Beyond the Battlefield

2:04-4:01am - Special, 761st Tank Battalion: The Original Black Panthers

4:01-7:00am - Paid Programming

7:00-3:00pm - Modern Marvels

3:00-12:03am - The Toys that Built America

Monday

12:03-4:01am - The Toys that Built America

4:01-7:00am - Paid Programming

7:00-12:00pm - History’s Greatest Mysteries

12:00-4:00pm - Ancient Aliens Special Presentation

4:00-9:00pm - Ancient Aliens

9:00-11:05pm - Ancient Aliens Special Presentation

11:05-12:03am - Ancient Aliens (continues until 4am Tuesday)

Meanwhile, human feet.

Humans evolved to walk on Earth

Human feet curved

Round Earth confirmed

Checkmate, flat-earthers!

This chart really makes no sense at all. How does Lord of the Flies lie at the intersection of The Handmaid’s Tale, 1984, and Fahrenheit 451?

One’s about an ultra-conservative theocracy, one’s about government surveillance and propaganda, and one’s about destroying books because people’s attention spans have reduced past the ability to read and they’re too long/confusing/depressing. I guess authoritarianism might lie at the heart of all these? Meanwhile, though, Lord of the Flies is more about the dangers of unchecked groupthink and how it can lead to violence and cruelty.

Whenever I get a capcha of anyone on a vehicle, I always make it a point to highlight the entirety of the driver too because I’m not going to just let Google train its self-driving vehicles to just ignore that every motorcycle has a rider on it.