Not as if YOU were ever going to vote for the Republican.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Not as if YOU were ever going to vote for the Republican.

---

They're not worthy of my vote.

And the Dems are???????!

Whatever problems the GOP has the fascists are far more problematic: mass murder of babies, mutilation of children, pro-criminal, open borders, socialism, fraud, corruption, and many other crimes. The GOP cannot hold a candle to their level of evil.

historian said:

---

And the Dems are???????!

Whatever problems the GOP has the fascists are far more problematic: mass murder of babies, mutilation of children, pro-criminal, open borders, socialism, fraud, corruption, and many other crimes. The GOP cannot hold a candle to their level of evil.

---

You do realize this is rhetoric, and unhelpful rhetoric at that, right? You're not going to convince anyone of taking your positions seriously by demonizing the "other." When someone earlier in the thread threw accusations at the GOP, you simply responded by denying that the GOP was any of those things. What makes you so sure a Democrat wouldn't do the same to the drivel you just said above? You think if you asked any Democrat if they're pro-crime or pro-corruption you'd get a "yes" response?

And if you do seriously think that, you need to extricate yourself from the brain rot you're consuming and spend some time in the real world.

I'm unwilling to make excuses for or downplay the evils of the fascists. Sometimes it is necessary to tell the truth even if it is blunt. I will always css as ll them out. If a Democrat were honest, they would have to agree that their party is pro-criminal. How is that not an accurate description of the party that wants to abolish the police, abolish ICE, grant amnesty to all illegals, etc?

They repeatedly defend and make excuses for rapists, murderers, and pedos. Look how the idolized Luigi, look at the way they reacted to the Charlie Kirk assassination, look how they fantasize about Trump being murdered. How can anyone not describe that as evil??

Never excuse or ignore evil. It will only get worse, as they keep proving.

This gets to my JD Vance comment: you've successfully identified a problem (corporate consolidation and monopolization), but the policy actions of the people you vote for are making it worse. Trump/MAGA openly encourages further corporate consolidation and regulatory capture (eg look at the recent Taylor Farms cyclospora outbreak where the FDA came out and lied about their innocence after Taylor Farms asked them to, or look at the Ticketmaster settlement).

I keep hearing about the evils of "socialism", which may very well be valid, but then I look over at the "socialists" and it turns out they mostly just want universal healthcare and stronger consumer rights. There is a disconnect between what we are being told they believe, and what their actual positions are. Frankly, I don't see any actual socialist candidates out there who advocating for anything close to what y'all are afraid of, and polling says I'm not the only one noticing.

HuMcK said:

---

This gets to my JD Vance comment: you've successfully identified a problem (corporate consolidation and monopolization), but the policy actions of the people you vote for are making it worse. Trump/MAGA openly encourages further corporate consolidation and regulatory capture (eg look at the recent Taylor Farms cyclospora outbreak where the FDA came out and lied about their innocence after Taylor Farms asked them to, or look at the Ticketmaster settlement).

I keep hearing about the evils of "socialism", which may very well be valid, but then I look over at the "socialists" and it turns out they mostly just want universal healthcare and stronger consumer rights. There is a disconnect between what we are being told they believe, and what their actual positions are. Frankly, I don't see any actual socialist candidates out there who advocating for anything close to what y'all are afraid of, and polling says I'm not the only one noticing.

---

Just go peruse this page of the DSA platform - https://program.dsausa.org/#we-fight-for

Much more than just universal health care and consumer rights.....

Some highlights:

• " Demilitarize police departments, disempower police unions, and redirect funding to public services as steps towards fully abolishing the police and prison system which protects the rich and jails the poor."
• " Expand the House of Representatives, implement proportional representation and ranked choice voting in all elections, and abolish the Senate."
• "Speaking of bills: you don't really have them anymore.
  You have no debt. You don't need health insurance. You don't pay a mortgage or have a landlord, because comfortable housing is a human right. Your retirement is publicly funded. Food, education, energy, medicine, and transportation aren't for-profit businesses; they are common goods and utilities."
• " Abolish the Electoral College. Replace the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress."

A lot about dismantling capitalism. Sounds familiar... Who had a clip go viral for that this week?

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Not as if YOU were ever going to vote for the Republican.

---

They're not worthy of my vote.

---

That is not the question. And since you have inserted yourself into a discussion that did not involve you, let us bring you in then.

Would you withhold your vote from a democrat that you did not find worthy (for any reason) if you knew withholding your vote would assist the Republican in winning the election?

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Not as if YOU were ever going to vote for the Republican.

---

They're not worthy of my vote.

---

That is not the question. And since you have inserted yourself into a discussion that did not involve you, let us bring you in then.

Would you withhold your vote from a democrat that you did not find worthy (for any reason) if you knew withholding your vote would assist the Republican in winning the election?

---

Absolutely! Easy answer. We fought too hard to get the vote. Unwilling to give it to anyone (Dems included) to let them dishonor it.

I'll make it personal. If you lived in Chicago and ran against Johnson, you'd get my vote. If you ran against Tom Pritzger? You win. If you ran against JB? *****, please!

I will not vote for any Hairy Dick Tom just because of their party.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Not as if YOU were ever going to vote for the Republican.

---

They're not worthy of my vote.

---

That is not the question. And since you have inserted yourself into a discussion that did not involve you, let us bring you in then.

Would you withhold your vote from a democrat that you did not find worthy (for any reason) if you knew withholding your vote would assist the Republican in winning the election?

---

Absolutely! Easy answer. We fought too hard to get the vote. Unwilling to give it to anyone (Dems included) to let them dishonor it.

I'll make it personal. If you lived in Chicago and ran against Johnson, you'd get my vote. If you ran against Tom Pritzger? You win. If you ran against JB? *****, please!

I will not vote for any Hairy Dick Tom just because of their party.

---

And when was the last time you held back your vote in a state-wide or national election because you did not like your democrat nominee, knowing it would help the Republican?

Is Talarico more worthy than Paxton? You can ask yourself the same question with every other candidate and there won't be much difference with the Dems. They are pretty much in lockstep with the leadership who have been pushing the same agenda for years. And the made it reality under Obama & Biden.

Put another way, do you want open borders or closed borders to illegals?
Do you want higher taxes or lower taxes?
Do you want less freedom or more freedom?

Talarico and the other Dems want more government power and higher taxes which will result in less freedom and more economic stress. They favor criminals over victims do they will give us more crime. These are obvious conclusions based upon their stated objectives and the inevitable refills.

HuMcK said:

---

This gets to my JD Vance comment: you've successfully identified a problem (corporate consolidation and monopolization), but the policy actions of the people you vote for are making it worse. Trump/MAGA openly encourages further corporate consolidation and regulatory capture (eg look at the recent Taylor Farms cyclospora outbreak where the FDA came out and lied about their innocence after Taylor Farms asked them to, or look at the Ticketmaster settlement).

I keep hearing about the evils of "socialism", which may very well be valid, but then I look over at the "socialists" and it turns out they mostly just want universal healthcare and stronger consumer rights. There is a disconnect between what we are being told they believe, and what their actual positions are. Frankly, I don't see any actual socialist candidates out there who advocating for anything close to what y'all are afraid of, and polling says I'm not the only one noticing.

---

No, the policy actions of either side make it worse, because both sides are aiming at gaming the system. It can be done through either laxing or increasing regulation.

I'm not concerned about socialism. The US is a quasi-kleptocracy, these lefty candidates want to get rich just like conservatives want to get rich. They're playing the same game and they're all neo conservatives and neo liberals. Its all really just ghetto liberalism, even the MAGA camp.

I've been over politics for a while. You just gotta adapt to whatever BS is happening.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Not as if YOU were ever going to vote for the Republican.

---

They're not worthy of my vote.

---

That is not the question. And since you have inserted yourself into a discussion that did not involve you, let us bring you in then.

Would you withhold your vote from a democrat that you did not find worthy (for any reason) if you knew withholding your vote would assist the Republican in winning the election?

---

Absolutely! Easy answer. We fought too hard to get the vote. Unwilling to give it to anyone (Dems included) to let them dishonor it.

I'll make it personal. If you lived in Chicago and ran against Johnson, you'd get my vote. If you ran against Tom Pritzger? You win. If you ran against JB? *****, please!

I will not vote for any Hairy Dick Tom just because of their party.

---

And when was the last time you held back your vote in a state-wide or national election because you did not like your democrat nominee, knowing it would help the Republican?

---

I've not voted for a Republican since 2008.

You? When have you last not voted for a Republican?

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Not as if YOU were ever going to vote for the Republican.

---

They're not worthy of my vote.

---

That is not the question. And since you have inserted yourself into a discussion that did not involve you, let us bring you in then.

Would you withhold your vote from a democrat that you did not find worthy (for any reason) if you knew withholding your vote would assist the Republican in winning the election?

---

Absolutely! Easy answer. We fought too hard to get the vote. Unwilling to give it to anyone (Dems included) to let them dishonor it.

I'll make it personal. If you lived in Chicago and ran against Johnson, you'd get my vote. If you ran against Tom Pritzger? You win. If you ran against JB? *****, please!

I will not vote for any Hairy Dick Tom just because of their party.

---

And when was the last time you held back your vote in a state-wide or national election because you did not like your democrat nominee, knowing it would help the Republican?

---

I've not voted for a Republican since 2008.

You? When have you last not voted for a Republican?

---

You are still ducking the point, Mitch. You implied your vote was based on character, policy, who was better, etc. Turns out you are locked in to the Democrat.

That's fine if you are honest that you are always going to vote for the Democrat. Pretending someone should desert their party because your party's guy has some warts - especially not related to his job - well that's plain dishonest and dirty tricks stuff.

I consider it insane, immoral and stupid to ever vote for a Democrat. I will admit there are some Republicans I have had to hold my nose on, but that's because I know that allowing a Democrat to hold office is insane, immoral and stupid.

You pretended you were making a moral argument, when in fact all you did was try to play some people emotionally to get them to vote for a guy who would be terrible for Texans and far more damaging to our kids than Paxton ever would. That's dirty, dishonest, deceitful ... a typical Democrat, in other words.

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

If you have the opportunity to keep evil out of a position of power, but you refuse to do so... there is just no justification for that.

---

That opportunity ended with the primaries, sadly.

---

Talarico is leading people straight to hell by preaching a false gospel and advocating a false god, while claiming to be a follower of Jesus.

There is nothing more evil than that. Nothing comes close to that level of evil.

If you promote that level of evil or refuse to oppose it... you are bringing God's wrath upon yourself.

---

you are a wierdo! Yuk

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Not as if YOU were ever going to vote for the Republican.

---

They're not worthy of my vote.

---

That is not the question. And since you have inserted yourself into a discussion that did not involve you, let us bring you in then.

Would you withhold your vote from a democrat that you did not find worthy (for any reason) if you knew withholding your vote would assist the Republican in winning the election?

---

Absolutely! Easy answer. We fought too hard to get the vote. Unwilling to give it to anyone (Dems included) to let them dishonor it.

I'll make it personal. If you lived in Chicago and ran against Johnson, you'd get my vote. If you ran against Tom Pritzger? You win. If you ran against JB? *****, please!

I will not vote for any Hairy Dick Tom just because of their party.

---

And when was the last time you held back your vote in a state-wide or national election because you did not like your democrat nominee, knowing it would help the Republican?

---

I've not voted for a Republican since 2008.

You? When have you last not voted for a Republican?

---

I did not ask when was the last time you voted for a Republican. The topic and question is . . . when is the last time you withheld your vote from a democrat in an election when it would help the republican? That is the discussion you joined.

I have never voted for a democrat in a state-wide or national election. Down ballot, I tend to know several of the candidates and do vote for democrats.

historian said:

---

I'm unwilling to make excuses for or downplay the evils of the fascists. Sometimes it is necessary to tell the truth even if it is blunt. I will always css as ll them out. If a Democrat were honest, they would have to agree that their party is pro-criminal. How is that not an accurate description of the party that wants to abolish the police, abolish ICE, grant amnesty to all illegals, etc?

They repeatedly defend and make excuses for rapists, murderers, and pedos. Look how the idolized Luigi, look at the way they reacted to the Charlie Kirk assassination, look how they fantasize about Trump being murdered. How can anyone not describe that as evil??

Never excuse or ignore evil. It will only get worse, as they keep proving.

---

You realize that fascism is a right wing extremist viewpoint, yes? And you're assigning that label to anyone not in the GOP. For someone who calls themself "historian," you sure don't seem to know much about history.

New --> MAGA Inc. & Elon have established an arrangment to spend big on 2 Senate races to start.

1) MAGA Inc. to aid Whatley with sizable $$ in North Carolina.
2) America PAC to handle most of spending in Texas for Paxton.
W/ @alivitali & @mychaelschnell:https://t.co/LvNtHxm9Rf

— Vaughn Hillyard (@VaughnHillyard) September 4, 2026

Trump: 'If you want your house to be more valuable, you want a data center. If you want to go through poverty, crime and squaller, don't approve data centers.'

You can NOT make it up. pic.twitter.com/LCyCznLQhY

— ThePatrioticBlonde™🇺🇸 (@ImBreckWorsham) September 4, 2026

Mitch Henessey said:

---

historian said:

---

I'm unwilling to make excuses for or downplay the evils of the fascists. Sometimes it is necessary to tell the truth even if it is blunt. I will always css as ll them out. If a Democrat were honest, they would have to agree that their party is pro-criminal. How is that not an accurate description of the party that wants to abolish the police, abolish ICE, grant amnesty to all illegals, etc?

They repeatedly defend and make excuses for rapists, murderers, and pedos. Look how the idolized Luigi, look at the way they reacted to the Charlie Kirk assassination, look how they fantasize about Trump being murdered. How can anyone not describe that as evil??

Never excuse or ignore evil. It will only get worse, as they keep proving.

---

You realize that fascism is a right wing extremist viewpoint, yes? And you're assigning that label to anyone not in the GOP. For someone who calls themself "historian," you sure don't seem to know much about history.

---

Actually, fascism is a movement of the Left. It always has been. The "fascism on the right" myth began with the Bolshevik attempt to explain Mussolini. As with everything the Marxists do, they were wrong.

I assign the label who talk and act like fascists, including some in the GOP. It's about ideas, agenda, and actions that sometimes transcend party.

I have come to this understanding through studying history, politics, and economics.

" history, politics, and economics"

Contestant: what are 'things Democrats avoid learning'

Host: Correct.

historian said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

historian said:

---

I'm unwilling to make excuses for or downplay the evils of the fascists. Sometimes it is necessary to tell the truth even if it is blunt. I will always css as ll them out. If a Democrat were honest, they would have to agree that their party is pro-criminal. How is that not an accurate description of the party that wants to abolish the police, abolish ICE, grant amnesty to all illegals, etc?

They repeatedly defend and make excuses for rapists, murderers, and pedos. Look how the idolized Luigi, look at the way they reacted to the Charlie Kirk assassination, look how they fantasize about Trump being murdered. How can anyone not describe that as evil??

Never excuse or ignore evil. It will only get worse, as they keep proving.

---

You realize that fascism is a right wing extremist viewpoint, yes? And you're assigning that label to anyone not in the GOP. For someone who calls themself "historian," you sure don't seem to know much about history.

---

Actually, fascism is a movement of the Left. It always has been. The "fascism on the right" myth began with the Bolshevik attempt to explain Mussolini. As with everything the Marxists do, they were wrong.

I assign the label who talk and act like fascists, including some in the GOP. It's about ideas, agenda, and actions that sometimes transcend party.

I have come to this understanding through studying history, politics, and economics.

---

It's not a movement of the Left. While Mussolini originally considered himself a Socialist, he made a hard shift rightward prior to the Black Shirt movement - as I'm sure you are well aware. You saying otherwise goes against pretty much every serious academic treatise ever written on the topic.

I know it is inconvenient for you that you cannot assign every thing that is wrong with the world to your political nemesis, but you can't just change the meaning of a word because you feel like it.

But, yes. Marxists are wrong about nearly everything. On that we are in agreement.

Fascism is a movement of the Left. Mussolini left the socialist party because he was kicked out. So he created a new party with basically the same ideas but suitable to his ambitions for power. Tyrants always want power above all else so they can impose their will on everyone else.

The National Socialists tried to combine two ideologies. Socialism had been an international movement under Marx and his successors but socialists throughout Europe stopped that emphasis when WWI began. Only the most radical remained steadfast such as Lenin and Trotsky. It worked for Hitler as his party won more and more elections. The policies were not much different than Mussolini's as they were also based partly on traditional socialist ideas.

Fascism isn't all that different economically than traditional socialism except the goal is not to seize the means of production and eliminate all private property. Those ideas are too radical for the large middle class to accept (& many working class). Fascists are content to allow individuals to own their own factories and businesses. However, the government imposes tons of rules and regulations to control what they can do with their property. So the distinction becomes meaningless. Success becomes far more difficult, especially for entrepreneurs and small businessmen, while power is concentrated at the top. It's much easier for larger corporations to comply because they can absorb the costs and pass them on to the consumer. They are fine with this because it eliminates some of their smaller competitors and they make more profit in the long run. They support the fascist dictators for this reason creating a corrupt symbiosis. The appearance of capitalism is only superficial.

This isn't always taught in schools because too many academics are socialists or communists. Academics tend to accept the Bolshevik propaganda completely.

It's the Left who is always changing the meaning of words: recent examples include freedom, marriage, woman, man, justice, etc.

I think the problem is trying to place every political philosophy on one straight left-to-right line. A two-axis chart is more useful. One axis measures economic policy, while the other measures personal freedom versus authoritarian government.

Fascism and communism are different economically and ideologically. Fascism kept private ownership but put business and labor under heavy government direction. Communism sought collective ownership. However, both became highly authoritarian, with centralized power, censorship and suppression of political opposition.

That similarity does not make fascism a movement of the Left. It means the traditional left-right scale leaves out an important question: not only what economic policies a government supports, but how much power it exercises over its citizens.

historian said:

---

Fascism is a movement of the Left. Mussolini left the socialist party because he was kicked out. So he created a new party with basically the same ideas but suitable to his ambitions for power. Tyrants always want power above all else so they can impose their will on everyone else.

The National Socialists tried to combine two ideologies. Socialism had been an international movement under Marx and his successors but socialists throughout Europe stopped that emphasis when WWI began. Only the most radical remained steadfast such as Lenin and Trotsky. It worked for Hitler as his party won more and more elections. The policies were not much different than Mussolini's as they were also based partly on traditional socialist ideas.

Fascism isn't all that different economically than traditional socialism except the goal is not to seize the means of production and eliminate all private property. Those ideas are too radical for the large middle class to accept (& many working class). Fascists are content to allow individuals to own their own factories and businesses. However, the government imposes tons of rules and regulations to control what they can do with their property. So the distinction becomes meaningless. Success becomes far more difficult, especially for entrepreneurs and small businessmen, while power is concentrated at the top. It's much easier for larger corporations to comply because they can absorb the costs and pass them on to the consumer. They are fine with this because it eliminates some of their smaller competitors and they make more profit in the long run. They support the fascist dictators for this reason creating a corrupt symbiosis. The appearance of capitalism is only superficial.

---

Yep, that's your MAGA movement in a nutshell. "Ex-socialist" neocons in alliance with the Neanderthal nationalists.

I have to admire your efficiency. In one sentence, we traveled from early-20th-century fascism to MAGA, neocons and Neanderthals. I'm not sure that settles the historical question, but it certainly covers a lot of ground.

It's not one similarity that makes fascism a movement of the alert. It's the ideology, the history, the politics, the economics, the tactics, and much more.

I wonder if people in general tend to dwell too much on the question of private property. Capitalism is about economic freedom in the broadest sense, not only on who owns things although that key freedom is essential. Maybe this narrow focus is why so many people are confused about fascism, along with decades of propaganda. As I've said before, fascists don't care who owns things so long as they control it all. Actually, it's quite clever: by maintaining private property they can deflect the blame when the inevitable failures arise. It's still socialism, it's still tyrannical, it still fails every time.

Polling starting to move back toward Paxton, who hasn't unlimbered his campaign yet. When that happens, expect his numbers to improve.

Oof. When even Nate Styrofoam can’t aDjUsT the polls to favor the Democrat much or get him to 48.0, you know it’s time for Talapico to downsize his expectations. Should’ve gone for an Austin House Seat. https://t.co/YQYE4vrkoW

— Chris (@chriswithans) September 5, 2026

Duh,

Texas voters aren't stupid like virtually everywhere else

There are plenty of stupid voters here too. And there are plenty of smart voters in every other state. The re as pity is more complicated.

Flunaticbear comes to mind

Tim Scott on Talarico: Not only does he believe that god is non-binary, not only is he a vegan in Texas, he is still a socialist. So his philosophical position is one driven by taking money from people who work and giving it to everybody else. pic.twitter.com/3WwiYQxXpO

— Acyn (@Acyn) September 5, 2026

The Texas Tribune and ProPublica found what ethics experts call significant errors and omissions in Ken Paxton’s federal financial disclosures. https://t.co/8c3A6rYk8P

— FOX 4 NEWS (@FOX4) September 5, 2026

#TXSEN: James Talarico’s campaign names three new senior advisers for Black voter outreach. The campaign’s also hiring three-Black owned media firms: pic.twitter.com/Pt22oIg1Ag

— Patrick Svitek (@PatrickSvitek) September 4, 2026

I know Musk is pledging a lot also

President Trump says he will spend up to $500 million of his money to help Republicans in midterms, per CNBC.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) September 5, 2026