Gimp's sleeping
where unions were destroyed by an overwhelming state violence.
Hitler talked about exactly this - waiting just makes it worse, and your choices are fighting or full submission.
"Only one danger could have jeopardised this development — if our adversaries had understood its principle, established a clear understanding of our ideas, and not offered any resistance. Or, alternatively, if they had from the first day annihilated with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement."
it's quite clear that the regime is looking for an excuse to call martial law, cancel the elections, and unleash the military upon all who oppose it.
They're not going to wait for an excuse, or they'll make one. You're dealing with a false choice here.
, it'd be damned foolish not to even try the non-violent path considering how effective its been demonstrated to be
It hasn't been. I would highly recommend a book called This Nonviolent Stuff'll Get You Killed, which is about exactly the use of non-violence in the US Civil Rights movement - the reality as opposed to the myth that has been forced down since. The tl;dr; is this - the movement was all nonviolent, it was a tactic that also recognized it had violence in riots to offer as another path, and most importantly, the US cared about public opinion internationally due to competition with the USSR. None of that is applicable here.
Uh this is saying that the right wing people yelling they needed guns to stop government tyranny are going away with it. Your conspiracy theory shit isn't even responding to the right comments.
you need to read US labor history if you think it's been unarmed. See Blair Mountain.
There's a reason that the White Rose is celebrated by those who find non-violence worth sacrificing any results to.
Is it ads for paid users as well?
I mean, the proletarinization of the petit bourgeois isn't exactly something nobody predicted . . . 
I think the Digital Euro is going to be a better idea long term - taking off the hidden tax of payment processor fees is going to make businesses and people richer.
I didn't say they would've won, stop moving goal posts.
I said they couldn't have lost more than Kamala did. Because it was a binary thing on three counts?
Did she win the Presidency? No.
Did she keep the Senate? No.
Did she win the House? No.
No matter what you think of Claudia De La Cruz or Jill Stein, it's just a simple fact neither one of them could have given a worse outcome than that one. And given the resources Kamala had, that's particularly pathetic.
do you guys really say that that often? I'm tail end of GenX, so I don't talk to you guys that often
Yeah, SRA member, I don't disagree. But just talking in terms of that comment.