Then be pissed, because Trumpism was never going to go away on it’s own, and is only going to get worse and more powerful with time.

continuing a long-standing agreement with an allied nation that happens to be their most important ally in a specific region of the world

Lol the Zionism is revealed.

Germany was Italy’s ally in WWII so I guess that makes their participation ok.

Just a sling of insults and drivel, if you can’t keep it together and discuss it like an adult then we’re done here.

That “one single issue” being literal genocide, yes. I swear, it’s like I’ve been transported into some satirical work critiquing the two-party system, you’re literally a self-parody. “One single issue,” christsake, the Holocaust was “one single issue too.”

we’d be in the same situation, experiencing the same set of circumstances, whether Republicans or Democrats won?

Yes, we would be. Just on a different time scale, perhaps, but the conclusion is inevitable either way. The only chance of averting that conclusion is by demanding an alternative.

Idiots usually stand by mistakes without admitting fault. That’s how they remain idiots.

I won’t admit fault when I’m correct, that doesn’t make me an idiot.

that clearly is not fascist

Lol, right. The people who were actively supporting genocide, holding alleged migrants in concentration camps, increasing the already bloated military budget to an all-time high, and trampling our rights with the continued use of mass surveillance, “clearly not fascist.”

Even if they weren’t, where the fuck do you think Trumpism came from? The status quo produced him and continuing to sleepwalk towards decline while shutting out any actual leftist vision makes fascism inevitable. The only possibility of preventing it is by forcing the democratic party to change, or replacing it altogether, even if it means making a “tough decision” and accepting the risks of a Trump presidency. Tactically, as well as morally, I made the correct decision and I will stand by that until the day I die.

Being an adult means accepting when you need to make tough decisions and sacrifice.

I did. Trump will be worse for me, but as any halfway decent person would understand, even death is preferable to committing genocide.

Being an “adult” in your mind means completely obliterating your conscience, becoming a twisted, evil being with no remorse, no concern for the lives of others, and engaging in the worst crimes imaginable.

No thank you, I will never become that, if I live to be 100, I will remain a “child.” And you’d better get that fact through your thick head before you blow another election because you refuse to believe that anyone could actually stand by their moral convictions.

Yes, that’s precisely why I didn’t vote for either gradually escalating fascist.

If that’s what being an “adult” means, then I pray that I die a “child.”

It is technically possible to make a smart gun that cannot shoot its owner or a family member.

Is it? That’s an interesting idea if it exists. I assume it would involve a camera with facial recognition. But I’d have to look at it before I really form an opinion. It wouldn’t stop it if the camera was pointed at anywhere besides the face, or if it was shooting through, say, a piece of paper.

We can get rid of our obsolete guns

When you say, “can,” if you mean that people would have to, I think you could run into a lot of the same backlash I was talking about. Probably would have better luck with a voluntary exchange, turn in your old gun and get a free smart gun sort of thing. I imagine the gun nuts would still find reasons to hate it, but hey, could save some lives.

So you have nothing and just want to be preachy and condescending, got it.

And what’s your solution?

Door-to-door gun confiscation? That’s not a policy, it’s a declaration of war. Do you wanna be the one going around to every redneck’s house saying, “Hi, I’m from the government and I’m here to take your guns away?” And if you start a war, who do you think is gonna win: the side with guns or the side without?

Banning gun sales? Too late, they’re already too widespread. The only thing that does is lock in the current situation, where the right has guns and the left (mostly) doesn’t.

If I’m stuck in an elevator with a Nazi, best case I have a gun and he doesn’t. Next is neither of us have guns. Next is we both have guns. And worst is he has a gun and I don’t. That’s where we’re at right now. If a right-winger with 5 guns can’t buy a 6th, it doesn’t matter, but if a leftist with zero guns can’t buy one it does.

Of course, both of those options go directly against the constitution and would be impossible to implement without an impossible supermajority or stacking the Court. And if you violate procedure you delegitimize the government, which is kind of important if you’re planning to fight a civil war.

So what’s left? Ineffectual, half-assed solutions that accomplish nothing other than pissing people off and make them panic-buy more guns.

Go ahead, walk me through what you want and how you’d go about it. I’m all ears.

So, people should be more responsible with their firearms. Like the user you replied to is.

Which is why it’s a good idea keep them in a safe instead, yes.

And that’s what makes it clear you’re not American.

But what if I’m not feeling suicidal?

Serious answer:

Every proletarian has been through strikes and has experienced “compromises” with the hated oppressors and exploiters, when the workers have had to return to work either without having achieved anything or else agreeing to only a partial satisfaction of their demands. Every proletarian—as a result of the conditions of the mass struggle and the acute intensification of class antagonisms he lives among—sees the difference between a compromise enforced by objective conditions (such as lack of strike funds, no outside support, starvation and exhaustion)—a compromise which in no way minimizes the revolutionary devotion and readiness to carry on the struggle on the part of the workers who have agreed to such a compromise—and, on the other hand, a compromise by traitors who try to ascribe to objective causes their self-interest (strike-breakers also enter into “compromises”!), their cowardice, desire to toady to the capitalists, and readiness to yield to intimidation, sometimes to persuasion, sometimes to sops, and sometimes to flattery from the capitalists.

-“No Compromises?” Lenin.

In other words, you can’t really say that compromise in general is good or bad. It depends on the specifics of the situation. There are plenty of cases where compromise is the best way to advance one’s interests, but if you commit to one path or the other, you’re showing your hand too early. If the party you’re negotiating with knows ahead of time that you’re committed to compromising, then they’re not going to offer very much to do it, but if you never accept compromise, then you may miss out on a mutually beneficial arrangement.

There are historical examples where compromise was necessary, but there have also been cases where it wasn’t. If you’re going to take a position that says compromise is generally preferable, I’d ask whether that includes, for example, trying to find a compromise with Russia over Ukraine. Because it seems like the same people who say that the left has to compromise and sacrifice every demand will also call for fighting to the last Ukrainian and not giving up an inch of territory. That makes me think that it’s less about whether compromise is good or bad, and more about what we consider worth fighting for and what points we see as negotiable.

I helped to get them elected but they still lost. What about that are you confused about?

Court rules laws could hypothetically exist.

The person I helped elect lost.