would of literally their

Rough to just start them off with Kapital, dont you think?

I’d honestly probably start with Lenin. Or at least not the Manifesto if you want anything more than, well, a Manifesto. If you wanna start with Marx/Engels then I would say Engels “On Authority” might be a good place to start. Or perhaps “The 18th brumaire of Louis Napoleon” by Marx.

Or even talking. They just want to argue. Can’t blame them, I also get sweet sweet short term dopamine from a good dunk. I’m just better at it.

They do it all the time. It’s all “harm reduction”, “kicking the can down the road until there’s an alternative” and so on, until you suggest actually working towards an alternative and then it’s all “WELL WOULD I HAVE HEALTHCARE RIGHT NOW???”

both sides ism,

Pointing out the many similarities between the two parties’ policy positions is not the same as equating violent right wing militias with peaceful protesters, learn what the things you say mean.

assumptions and accusations about what I believe and that’s just full on strawmaning.

They’re drawing reasonable conclusions based on your given statements. That’s how reasoning works, you should try it sometime.

Gotten people who can do better into positions of power?

Since when? We’ve come to a point where genocide isn’t even a point of discussion, it’s just something that they all do. How are any of these people “people who can do better”? Trump won the popular vote. Bush won it in ´04 and now he’s being rehabilitated as some quirky old guy. We’ve come to a point where Bush isn’t Bush, but just some fucking grandpa, that’s your idea of “people who can do better”? Administrations that make people yearn for fucking Bush?? Not to mention people yearning for Obama, the guy who bailed out bankers, fucked over ACORN, did fuck all to get progressives into the supreme court, never codified Roe v Wade, bombed more people than Bush, expanded ICE dramatically, put kids in cages (something that never stopped), enshrined the PATRIOT act, and so much more.
We’re at a point where people pretend Bill Clinton wasn’t on the Epstein list. The guy who overturned Glass-Steagal, the guy who wrote NAFTA, the guy who bombed Yugoslavia so his wife would fuck him again, the guy who couped the first election in the Russian Republic (basically giving us Putin), the guy who oversaw the second half of Shock Doctrine in the broken up soviet bloc, the crime bill, deregulation that would give us the financial crisis, and again, so much more. That’s your idea of “people who can do better”? Better than what??? The people we now yearn for??? The people your “people who can do better” rehabilitate? Democrats idolise Reagan FFS, they’re doing reaganomics! This is “doing better”? It’s not even better than republicans.

And again, Trump won. So that’s what your system gives you. Bush won, that’s what your system gets you.

everyone has suffered under this atrocity of an administration.

Just like everyone suffered under the previous one.

I don’t know that Kamala would have called Marxists terrorists.

Her administration used “left wing ideals” as a signifier to find domestic terroists.

will that goal be achieved by, say, early November?

Funny how we can do long-term thinking when it comes to arguing for voting for genocidal fascists, but as soon as anyone suggests an alternative, it suddenly has to be immediate.

The easiest way to put a bump in the road is to vote against Republicans

All you’re doing is changing who drives the car. They’re doing the same shit.

The Houthis are not mls and they are putting up far more.

Alright, then go join them? The houthis do more than the DNC as well, if that is all you care about.
If you want something immediate go do what it is you try to agitate others to do, like some sort of fed. Otherwise help build a feasible alternative instead of making attempts with this tired rhetorical cliché. You’re the only one arguing that whatever the alternative to supporting genocidal fascists is, has to be something with immediate visible results, no matter the long-term benefit. Go do some adventurism buddy.

By voting for genociders you’re not fighting, you’re not even rolling over, you’re helping them.

Except you’re ignoring when I’ve said that we should change voting laws so third parties are viable.

Alright, you’re ignoring they think we should live in a socialist utopia. Neither part is right around the corner or feasible anytime soon. Voting laws will not be changed, and if they did it would not matter. Look at Alaska.

It’s not really going to do anything, but it’s better than legitimising the system and entrenching genociders. Politicians use the amount of votes they receive as an argument for the legitimacy of their policies. The overarching oligarchy will exist wether you vote or not, the individuals in the structure have a much easier time of doing heinous shit if they are perceived as legitimate.
So voting for the people in power will, in a small way, make things worse.

People are arguing voting does not work because if anyone actually leftist becomes popular, then they either get buried or subsumed by the structure - Bernie Sanders is an excellent example of both. In 2016 he got cheated out of the nomination, likewise in 2020. By 2020 he had already become a sheepdog for the left, channelling popular sentiment towards the establishment.
Another example is AOC who worked as a DC staffer for a long while, then took a 6 month gig as a bartender, and then received considerable promotion by the DNC by way of constantly being discussed negatively by the party elite, which then makes her appear as a political outsider - All the while she still supports the fundamental structure of the US as well as the DNC. She was a diehard supporter of Joe Biden as well as voting for Israel whenever it was needed, and running defence for things like the “Iron Dome”.
However, others would argue that voting can function as a tool to build momentum for leftist political organisations.

Here’s some Lenin for you. The text is very specific to the situation his party found itself in in that specific historical moment, but it can still be used to exemplify some stuff:

The principal question for Social-Democrats who value the elections primarily as a means for the political enlightenment of the people, is, of course, the ideological and political content of all the propaganda and agitation to be carried on in Connection with them. That is what is meant by an election platform. To every party at all worthy of the name a platform is something that has existed long before the elections; it is not something specially devised “for the elections”, but an inevitable result of the whole work of the party, of the way the work is organised, and of its whole trend in the given historical period. And the R.S.D.L.P., too, already has a platform; its platform already exists and has been naturally and inevitably determined by the Party’s principles and by the tactics which the Party has already adopted, has already applied, and is still applying, during the entire period in the political life of the nation which in a certain respect is always “summed up” by elections. The platform of the R.S.D.L.P. is the sum total of the work which revolutionary Marxism and the sections of the advanced workers who remained faithful to it have accomplished in the 1908–11 period, the period of the orgy of counter revolution, the period of the June Third, Stolypin regime.

The three main items that make up this total are: (1) the programme of the Party; (2) its tactics; (3) its appraisal of the dominant-ideological and political trends of the given period, or the most widespread of them, or those which are most harmful for democracy and socialism. Without a programme a party cannot be an integral political organism capable of pursuing its line whatever turn events may take. Without a tactical line based on an appraisal of the current political situation and providing explicit answers to the “vexed problems” of our times, we might have a circle of theoreticians, but not a functioning political entity. Without an appraisal of the “active”, current or “fashionable” ideological and political trends, the programme and tactics may degenerate into dead “clauses” which can by no stretch of the imagination be put into effect or applied to the thousands of detailed, particular, and highly specific questions of practical activity with the necessary understanding of essentials, with an understanding of “what is what”.
(…)
Consider the question from, so to speak, the general historical standpoint. It is obvious (to all, except Larin and a handful of liquidators) that the bourgeois revolution in Russia has not been consummated. Russia is heading for a revolutionary crisis. We must prove that revolution is necessary and preach that it is legitimate and “beneficial”. This being the case, we must conduct our propaganda for political liberty so as to pose the question in all its aspects, formulate the goal for a movement that is bent on victory and not one that stops half-way

Basically: Elections can function as a platform for a well-organized, principled leftist party to agitate to the masses and legitimise itself in the popular culture. So in the current day if you vote, you should vote for a leftist third party to help them build momentum.

Here’s another snippet I think would be a good starting point for you, if you actually wish to understand the leftist position on elections, and not just argue against ridiculous strawmen. Really the whole book this second snippet is from is a good start. It’s not too heavy either.

But very tl;dr:

• Elections are controlled by capitalists and cannot be used to leave capitalism.
• If you have a principled leftist party, then elections can be used to build popular support and momentum, but change will still be wrought from outside the electoral system
• The democratic party is not a principled leftist party
• Capitalist parties cannot be changed from the inside
• If you vote, vote third party to help build alternatives

For reading:

• Lenin “The Election Campaign and the Election Platform” and a snippet from "Leftwing Communism - An infantile Disorder](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch07.htm) and here’s The book
• Luxembourg “Reform or Revolution”

“Fighting” and it’s voting for fascist genocidal geriatrics.

You aren’t fighting, you’re rolling over and yelling at people who say “hey how about we try something other than rolling over? Seems like it has only made things worse so far”

You just said the alternative to voting democrat was doing nothing. That’s like a picture perfect example of defeatism.
In your eyes “Hey let’s see if we can’t improve things somewhat!” is defeatist while “You have to vote for the democrats, no matter how much they suck, you have to, you cannot do anything else, there is nothing else to be done” is not defeatist. Look in the mirror, please.

Funny how, as soon as an alternative is suggested, it has to solve everything immediately, but voting for genociders does not hold the same requirement.

Im sorry, did the genocide end?

We went from democrats covering their ears at the sound of protesters for Palestine, the democratic nominee yelling “I am speaking” against protesters, the democratic president siccing cops on peaceful protesters, to democrats having to at least pretend like they give a shit, if not outright actually give a shit. Receiving money from AIPAC is now a black mark, supporting Israel is one likewise in most areas. This would not have happened without Kamala losing. Your position seems to be “I’m sorry if the problem isn’t immediately solved by doing one thing, then what does it matter?” which is very fitting for someone who puts all their faith into voting, I suppose.
We are far closer to the genocide ending than we ever were under Biden. There is far more popular and international resistance towards Israel. This would not have happened if the democrats just got to keep on truckin’

One could ask the reverse however. Your side argues for the democrats as “harm reduction”, so lets look at the reduced harm we’ve gotten for voting for the “lesser evil” over the decades:

• Roe v Wade overturned
• Democrats support genocide
• More money for the military
• More wars
• More money for cops
• More surveillance
• Still making the environment worse and worse
• Still letting infrastructure fall apart, giving a good section of an already insufficient bill to military projects
• Queer people thrown under the bus
• BLM completely sidelined
• The party tries to push out any and every “progressive” it can
• No universal healthcare
• Every election is between democrats (fascists) and fascists, and we have to vote for the democrats (fascists) otherwise democracy dies!
• The fascists win the popular vote
• Voter participation keeps falling
• We destroy ACORN
• We bail out bankers in financial crises
• We fuck up and ignore COVID

So how’s that “lesser evil” going for you? How’s that “kicking the can down the road” going for you?

1. Doing nothing is better than further empowering those doing harm.
2. You’re acting as if all one can do is vote. This seems more telling about you than anybody else.
3. You’re acting as if the alternative to voting for genocide is to join houthis. Be serious.

It seems like you just want to argue, since the way you’re presenting yourself isn’t convincing for anyone reading, nor to the people you are engaging with, and you don’t actually engage with the arguments of those you disagree with, rather just saying nonsensical shit. Why even write at that point?

Yeah let me leave the door open for crusaders who extra want Gaza destroyed in office

You’re right, much better to leave the door open for neoliberals who want Gaza destroyed. I’m sure the people getting bombed will be able to feel the difference when the Secretary of War doesn’t have an Iron Cross tattoo

“Purity testing” is when you don’t think people should vote for genocide or more deportations or people who do fuck all to protect marginalised groups, while increasing the police state and furthering the climate apocalypse and warmongering. At this point, what’s left for you?