It really goes to show how both parties have been captured by corporate and religious interests, and everyone's on the take and making bank on insider trading.
Nearly the entire system is rotten, bar a few who seem to still be holding on to do good for the people (AOC, Bernie, Mamdani, El-Sayed, Tallarico, etc).
Well it does feel like this cycle, more and more of the good folks are winning and showing what government can do for people. Here’s to hoping that they keep winning and take over.
It’s going to be a question of momentum: will those on the left of the party keep pushing back against corporate interests and organising at a grassroots level. I sincerely hope that the momentum grows, but the power of the money being used against them is a pretty terrible beast. It’s definitely an interesting crossroads at the very least.
"Get money out of politics" is only going to increase in popularity until there's some action. My concern is that a faux-populist democrat will become president, pass some empty reforms, declare victory, and then we'll be back here again in 15-20 years, when our democracy might be even weaker. OR that Republicans will end democracy before anything can happen.
Unpopular opinion: AOC, Bernie and Mamdani are at this point preventing a revolution the US so badly needs. As long as there’s a possible progressive win of the Democratic Party, people will live in the delusion that this regime can be uninstalled via democratic processes.
AOC can and Bernie are holding us back from revolution? You are under the extreme delusion that Americans are anywhere near being ready to revolt. They are not and won't be until they're unemployed and starving just like almost every other country that revolts against its government.
You need to get the off the Internet and the mods need to start banning accounts that call for violence. If you think that civil war will make things better you are completely detached from reality.
Yes, let’s ban dissenting voices. The orange man would love you for it.
You’re correct on the revolution needing hunger, but that may be closer than you think.
Even if I were to call for violence, and I’m not, what would it make for a difference if your theory is correct? And what good is sitting idly by and vote if the other side is using serious violence every day?
I don’t mind you having an opinion opposing to mine, I mind you calling for mods becoming thought police, as if we don’t already have enough power tripping mods around.
Nearly the entire system is rotten, bar a few who seem to still be holding on to do good for the people (AOC, Bernie, Mamdani, El-Sayed, Tallarico, etc).
who seem to still be holding on to do good but aren't actually much as they keep using and endorsing the private social network of a nazi where this post is also taken from. Downvote X reposts and don't share them or the rotten system it's on you too.
right, i guess there's no point in continuing this conversation if you've deemed me automatically wrong because of my instance and can't even tell me why i'm wrong
that alongside the fact that when confronted for parroting fox news talking points you attempt shift the conversation to something that happened in china 37 years ago
Very few, if any. Are you talking about the surrounding area where protestors murdered dozens of soldiers and police and then the soldiers finally started fighting back?
Are you parroting long debunked anti China propaganda designed to make you hate and distrust Chinese people? The propaganda that came from the billionaire pedophile rapist country??
AOC? Nah, she's been made to heel to Nancy's and Hakeem's wishes. Buckled at pretty much the first opportunity too. Still says some nice things, but she's useless as a challenge to the status quo. Made a useful tool of the establishment.
Bernie? Well, he tucked tail and quit fighting after the party establishment colluded and sabotaged his campaigns. 2020 was especially egregious, and he still agreed to back Biden. Again, says the right things at times, but far less a real challenge to the status quo now than he ever was.
The others you mentioned? Mamdani can be a good pragmatic example, wish him the best, but he's limited to the Senate at the federal level if he aspires to higher office. El-Sayed, too early to tell. Talarico, I assume you mean? Tough row to hoe for a few months, probably a long shot, but he's been a democrat for years. That party is really irredeemable.
I wish I knew the real solution to this electoral mess. I keep hoping for a really hard charging third party challenge that can bridge the divide. May wait my entire life at this point.
Mamdani can be a good pragmatic example, wish him the best, but he’s limited to the Senate at the federal level if he aspires to higher office.
Mamdani could still be the president. The Constitutional requirements for being president are pretty weak and easily bypassed. You can have someone else officially run, and they run on the platform, "I'm going to hold the pen and do whatever this guy tells me to." You select someone who would have no political legitimacy on their own, so they're completely dependent on the real power behind the throne. If Trump decides to run in 2028, this will be the mechanism he uses. But Mamdani or Obama could use the same mechanism if they wish.
The Constitutional limits on presidential eligibility are pretty trivial to bypass.
This is ridiculous and clearly against the intent of the constitution. I do hope scotus rules against this though I'm not confident they will with trump.
There is precedent and it's been done before. The most famous case was arch-segregationist George Wallace. He had his wife run as Alabama governor to bypass Alabama's constitutional term limits.
There's really no way to prevent this Constitutionally. A core principle of democracy is that voters can elect someone who promises to follow any style of leadership they want. There are limits on what power the leaders have, but they can make their choices however they want. You could run for president promising to make all your decisions by literally pulling options out of a hat at random. You could run for president promising to literally never even do the job. You could tell voters you're going to take the oath of office and immediately go back to your home, close the door, and never walk out again for the next four years. Just let the government run on auto-pilot. You probably wouldn't win an election on either of those, but it would be perfectly Constitutional for someone to do either of those things. There's language in the Constitution about the President faithfully enforcing the laws, but the only enforcement mechanism is impeachment and removal.
It would be nearly impossible to even write a Constitutional amendment prohibiting this. Leaders are allowed to take advice from their advisors. They couldn't govern without advisors. In this case, the person holding the seat just has one advisor they really really trust and listen to on everything.
"Do I own three residences? Yeah, I do," Sanders said. He explained that he lives in Burlington, Vermont, in a "middle-class neighborhood, nice house," and owns another home in Washington, D.C., like most senators do. He also has a summer camp on Lake Champlain. "That's it," Sanders stated, noting that his homes are far from luxurious. "They're middle-class houses."
Bernie’s position isn’t that people should be forbidden from owning multiple homes or that anyone who has money must give most of it away. His argument is about the rules of the system. Higher taxes on the wealthy, stronger wages, worker protections and making basics like healthcare and housing more accessible. “Why doesn’t he sell two houses and feed the homeless?” confuses charity with policy. He could sell them tomorrow and it would have virtually no effect on homelessness. If you want to criticize Bernie, criticize whether his policies would actually work. Owning three homes isn’t by itself a contradiction of what he advocates
Except he didn’t stop. Sanders has continued arguing for higher taxes on wealthy Americans and against extreme concentrations of wealth after becoming a millionaire himself. Becoming wealthy isn’t inconsistent with saying wealthy people (including yourself) should pay more. Criticize the policy if you want, but this ‘he became a millionaire and suddenly went quiet’ line isn't true and just isn’t a serious argument
Can you provide a source on this? Can you show when he became a millionaire and when he stopped talking about millionaires? That's a pretty strong claim to make. Please provide a source.
A home in his state, a home in the capital and a vacation home.
Why doesn't he sell 2 of them and donate the profits to help feed the homeless?
Because he isn't anti capitalist. He is anti unfettered capitalism.
Homelessness, poverty and hunger are symptoms of the problem of inequality he wants to solve. Selling his vacation home does nothing to solve that problem.
He can have a dozen homes and triple the cars; if hes still genuinely fighting for peoples rights and begging to tax the wealthy, im all for him.
Its not hypocritical for a US senator to have three homes. It is incredibly evil to vote against what is best for your constituents, which is what most other senators seem to be doing.
I begged my congressman to support articles of impeachment. His response was basically that they don't have the votes, so why bother? He even said that if they did, it would be performative and would play into persecution rhetoric for Trump.
So that's where we are now. The only people with the political power to oust a tyrant have thrown in the towel.
I tried to reason with him that it matters. Even if they don't have the votes to convict. Impeach him once a week of you have to. Persecute the motherfucker!
But no, I guess re-election to Congress is more important.
I tried to reason with him that it matters. Even if they don’t have the votes to convict. Impeach him once a week of you have to. Persecute the motherfucker!
100% agree. Performative it may be, but doing it every single time he does something to warrant it, which is daily at this point, at least sends a message that this shit is unacceptable. Doing nothing is tacitly agreeing with it. It's baffling.
And look at the vote for releasing the Epstein files! Obviously, they 'didn't have the votes' for that, either ... but once they tried, even a bunch of Republicans were on board.
a bunch of them are DINOs so i wouldnt call them capable of seizing, they secretely want this to happen, the tax cuts from 2017, no dems tried repeal that at all, or made it thier promise. they benefit from it.
They are complicit controlled opposition. Their only job is to keep the left out of power. That's why they're more upset about socialists than Trump, ultimately Trump is on their side and the socialists are not.
Increasingly more popular opinion: the US government takeover committed by the Trump oligarchy is as much the result of incompetence of the Democratic party as it was a plan of evil 'geniuses'.
I'd say it's entirely dems fault as they were dropping the ball consistently since years. Trump should've been an easy opponent but he ended up as president second time
I think the detrimental part was avoiding any polarising subject that could alienate their core electorate. They wanted to retain it so much that they forgot about the general population. And then came Trump promising changes in areas general public had problems with. He was mostly lying, but he was lying about the right topics.
So it came down to the choice: Maybe a lying republican jackass, or total democrat apathy.
Yes! IMO the 'evil geniuses' had no effect whatsoever. Trump just wins by default when the Democrats run unpopular candidates.
I've been saying this for almost ten years now. Trump is not a popular candidate and never has been. In '16 he got fewer votes than Romney did in '12. If everyone who voted for Obama had voted for Clinton, Trump never would have won. The same is true with '20 vs. '24: if everyone who voted for Biden had voted for Harris, Trump never would have won the second time.
I also don't think Biden was ever that popular; I think any of the Democratic candidates would have won in 2020. I told anyone who would listen at the time, "Biden is a bad choice, some shit could heat up in Israel, and he's very out of touch with the Democratic base on that issue, and it could prevent him from getting re-elected." I will say, I didn't think Trump would get re-elected after J6, I thought it would be some other Republican. But, it also felt like the Democrats also never really went after Trump for what he did on J6 so.
Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is I agree and I'm glad to hear other people say it. The Democrats are too willing to compromise with Republicans who never compromise with them, and it keeps losing them elections. So even though Americans as we actually exist are reasonably progressive on most issues (legalizing weed and having universal healthcare poll higher than any sitting politician, there are about 1.5x as many registered Dems as Reps in this country, etc), we're stuck with an extremely regressive government. That's the context that leads to progressives like Mamdani winning in "upset" victories and the Democratic leadership is all surprised.
Yeah. There was this drunk driver that hit a kid. Stupid parents. It's just the result of incompetence of the parenting party than a result of drunk driving.
Yeah. Except the parents insisted their child play in the middle of the street at 1am and instead of condemning the drunk driver, they claim drunk driving is part of life
I dont think that is a fair comparison. Also i am not saying it is only the fault of the opposing party, i'm saying it is as much as. It is naive to think this would have been able no matter what the Democratic party did in the years/decades leading up to the first Trump presidency. Sure it is easy to talk in hindsight, I'll give them that. I'm also not saying they wanted this to happen. But if the parents of the drunk driver never gave their child a good talk on the dangers of drinking, that accident is partly theirs to blame too.
The D's want what R's want, but they just want to make sure the paperwork is filed properly first, and will probably do it while wearing a rainbow pin.
The United States effectively has a one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats.
Noam Chomsky
Yes, we have one party here. But so does America. Except, with typical extravagance, they have two of them!
Julius Nyerere (first Prime Minister and President of Tanzania)
I think Americans are good, but America will be taken over and destroyed from the inside by the Zionist lobby. The Americans do not see this. They are getting decadent. Zionists will use this to destroy them.
The ratchet effect exists because leftists would rather bitch every general election and allow Republicans to be elected, while simultaneously not participating in the primaries.
The fascists knew the primaries were the secret, and their voters are generally loyal in November. Every member of the GOP that opposes Trump is removed in the primaries, and the party moves further right.
No, but ShitLibs operate on vibes and not facts anyway. If they operated on facts, they'd notice their party has done nothing but help push the Overton Window right for damn near half a century now.
The ratchet effect works because vast swathes of people can't perceive of any way to affect change beyond voting, thus creating a single (recurring) major choke point for going through the 'correct' channels.
That's fine, there are a great deal of more impactful and meaningful things that people can do instead of voting. My point is that if someone's sole contribution is voting, they haven't actually done anything.
The problem is there is no actual choice for progressive leftism on offer. This is the whole issue. The Dems are just Capitalism with cute decorations vs the depraved capitalism of Republicans. If there were actual parties that outside this framework, they can be very successful. That's why DSA is winning. They are at least acting like another option, whether or not they will significantly change things is to be seen, but they are not centrists like most Dems try to be.
The PSL is on the right track. A disciplined socialist party will get the power to change things, or be an object lesson in the necessity of revolutionary organizing to use other means of change.
Obamacare was copied directly from the Republicans, originally called Romneycare. The chance for M4A was completely squandered by the Dems at the time. Have some damn object permance like an actual adult.
Obamacare was broken because the Dems had a filibuster-proof majority in the senate for like 1 month at in the 2009 holidays. By the time Al Franken got to take his seat, Kennedy had stopped showing up for work, then he died, then it took time to seat his temporary replacement, then the Tea Party win their special election.
With that, the broken Senate version that was meant to be reconciled with the House version and cleaned up couldn't happen, so the House had to pass the Senate version verbatim to avoid a filibuster by the Dems.
In what ways has the united states shifted right over the last 20 years? Tbh I've never understood this narrative. To me it's very very obvious that the united states has shifted left steadily for my whole life. Short term there have been rightward shifts, but the overall trend is definitely left.
You probably live in a blue area. (Most people live in a blue area.) The actual situation is that we've polarized. People around you, in the blue area, have moved left. People elsewhere, in the red areas, have moved right.
In certain ways, this has been a victory for civil liberties. Gay people from small towns can move to a place where they might have entire neighborhoods of likeminded people. Trans people from small towns can move to a place where they won't be shot on sight. Hell, someone in NYC who suddenly finds Jesus can go to a smaller town where no one will make fun of them for proselytizing AND they can hang out with likeminded people AND they get cheaper rent.
Depending on whether you're more focused on the kinds of people living around you, or on the wide-reaching systemic changes that have been taking place, you're going to notice different things. The really really important stuff that has shifted to the right is kind of boring, so you wouldn't have seen much reporting on it.
You know what the difference is between a million and a billion dollars? About a billion dollars. The kind of rich people I'm talking about make someone like Schumer look like an absolute peasant.
Winner‑take‑all voting: whoever gets the most votes wins the entire seat. This strongly pushes voters toward two large parties because voting for a third party risks “splitting the vote.
Ballot access laws: Each state sets its own rules for getting on the ballot. Many require tens of thousands of signatures, strict deadlines, or high fees. Major parties get automatic ballot access; third parties must constantly re‑qualify.
Debate exclusion: The Commission on Presidential Debates requires a candidate to poll at 15% nationally to appear on the stage. No modern third‑party candidate has reached that threshold, so they never get mass exposure.
Campaign financing laws: Public funding rules require a party to have earned at least 5% of the vote in the previous election. Without that, they get no federal funding. Major parties have massive donor networks and PAC ecosystems.
Democrats and Republicans control state election boards, local party organizations, volunteer networks, and voter‑data operations. Third parties lack the institutional machinery needed to compete.
Strategic voting psychology: Even voters who like third‑party candidates often vote major‑party to prevent the “greater evil.” This self‑reinforcing cycle keeps third parties small.
Media coverage patterns: News outlets are all owned by the two‑parties. Polling firms often exclude third‑party candidates from surveys, which then justifies excluding them from coverage.
State-level laws Some states have “sore loser” laws, fusion‑voting bans, or rules that make it nearly impossible for third parties to maintain ballot status.
The system is designed to keep third parties at arm's length.
Almost? Politics isn't a sporting event. Seeing them turn everything into black or white is so close minded. Most things have many shades of grey. We should have that many candidates to choose from.
If two parties that have similar ideals (call it A1 and A2) enter an election with another opposing party (call it B1), benefits the opponent, because people who agree with either A1 or A2 can only vote for one.
You can end up in a position where 30% of people vote for A1, 30% for A2, and 40% for B1. Because A1 and A2 were so similar, neither of them can achieve plurality, despite their message itself being more popular, and the race goes to B1.
Btw, back in 2000, the Green party got enough votes in Florida that, had they instead voted for Gore, the whole "chad" debacle would've been a non-issue. I guess Gore wasn't environmentalist enough for them. Bush/Cheney ended up winning...and they certainly were not environmentalist in the least.
I credit this for being the historical turning point where everything really started going to shit. Bush v Gore and the chads. And thus, to this day, I'm a tree-hugging hippy who will gladly say: fuck the green party.
...To take it a step further, in order to attract centrist or opponent voters, the party has to be moderate/centrist. It cannot be exceedingly progressive, or it will lose its more moderate members.
In essence, the voting system causes two party systems, and the "big tent" party causes the big tent to suck and always move opposite the driection it really should.
OR a uniparty/coalition. its 2 right wing parties, 1less than the other joining forces. the less right wing from time to time is allowed to win, throw in some "progress" but not enough to change things dramatically. Also they depend on the right wing for survival as much as the alt-right depend on the dems for survival. its a codependancy.
So long as any parties funding is coming from corporations, and citizens united stands... Not much will be done in terms of bettering society for the working class.
An easy way to look at it is the working class if above the line, the people who own the parties rely on what's below the line.
Those people have proven over and over they believe in making massive cuts to make the numbers below the line go up, even if they were making profit and churning out a good product. Making a worse product, and hurting those who work for you company doesn't matter, so long as number go up.
Israel calling itself Jewish on its own is not anti-semitic, the doing things that makes everybody hate them while calling themselves Jewish is what makes it anti-semitic.
I want to preface this by saying that I think the democrats have no fucking idea how to do messaging and opposition.
But even if they did, we live in a system that wants their message to be ignored. Anything a politician says that is bad for business will not be televised. Or twisted to make them sound crazy. They have to oppose a regime that has nearly 100% of major media at least begrudgingly supporting if not enthusiastically.
I used to work in politics, it is next to impossible to get your message out if people with money don't want your message heard. The most important messaging is free media, as in the news and social media. Both of those have heavy corporate backing trying to control the narrative. Even the most progressive DSA politician has a hell of a time getting their real message through a controlled information stream.
The Dumbocrats are perpetual failures mixed in with some dino's but the media is a bigger issue, imo.
They have to oppose a regime that has nearly 100% of major media at least begrudgingly supporting if not enthusiastically.
This is the biggest problem. And it's not just legacy media, but also modern media. Zuck, Musk, and fucking Spez control basically all the social media that isn't the fediverse. All fascists or fascist-wannabes.
You'll have to expand on that thought because I don't know what you're getting at. People have been angry at the media long before trump, its trump that coopted it to get votes.
Trump is depriving people from affordable healthcare, living environments, food storage, equal rights, sterile air quality .etc, and he's pretty much the ambassador of the many despicably graphic human trafficking ring formed by Epstein that his posse is going out of their way to shun from the public eye.
But oh no! Zohran is chilling with furries!!!!!!! WHAT A FREAK!!!!!!!!!!!!! WORSE THAN A CHILD RAPIST WHO ALSO TARIFFED COUNTRIES DURING WILDFIRES AND BLACKMAIL IRAN AFTER DROPPING COGNITIVE NUKES ON THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!
I suffer heavily from learning difficulties, and even I know Republicans are completely inhuman warmongeries!
"I can't believe you hate us for making the planet inhospitable and starting countless illegal wars of aggression over the past 80 years and genociding multiple peoples in multiple countries and couping socialist projects and installing fascist dictators and.. You guys are just bigoted!! 😤"
Yeah every single American, even those who've put in effort trying to push back at fascism, is at fault for wars caused decades before they were even born.
Bigots love to justify their reasoning. Yes, you're bigoted, and I'd tell you the same for generalizing everyone in any country as such. Want to go do some "pattern recognition" too while you're at it?
Oh, they were losing while Obama was president too. A Supreme Court Justice and the Heritage Foundation's health insurance reforms (aka Obamacare/ACA) come to mind.
Last I checked there were about 50% more registered Democrats than registered Republicans in the USA. Given those kind of numbers, it's actually impressive that the Republicans ever win any elections at all; and it takes a lot of both Democratic incompetence and Republican gerrymandering.
not only gerrymandering, but voter suppression laws. most targeting blacks, latino democratic areas. propaganda helps even some dems turn to republicans last election.
Agreed, Even then, it wasn't really the Democratic party that wanted him. Hillary was the frontrunner through the primaries and into the convention. He barely bested her. He only got the nod because the rest of the country revolted against the party leaders from the traditional blue states, and the party had no choice but to follow.
She was such a terrible choice for Democrats that Rush Limbaugh supported her in the primaries!
Had she won the convention (and had McCain picked anyone but that tea party pinhead), the GOP would have likely prevailed, even after Dubya. She couldn't win against a moron like Trump; she didn't have a chance in hell against one of the last good Republicans this country has seen.
I'm agreeing with you, but I'm also pointing out that "too little, too late" is being very, verrrrry generous.
Biden had the perfect slam-dunkingly solid golden sure win opportunity(s) to take out FatCunt ChildRaper for a myriad of blatantly illegal things. The main stars of which were the televised attempt at an insurrection, and the stealing of top secret documents which were stored in an unlocked room next to a fax...A FAX!!!.
Plus many other things that would be just as easy to prosecute because, let's face it, the orange imbecile and family aren't criminal geniuses.
But, no, instead of going for the tRUMP from day one the old dipshit just slow walked that bullshit for years...then it wasn't his problem anymore.
I didn't exactly like Biden when he was elected, but I now actively hate the guy for doing fuck all. The whole world is a much worse place because Biden is a coward.
There was no small amount of obstruction from the Republican party and SCOTUS. It was a while before Garland was appointed AG. Judge Cannon raised some weird challenges to the investigations and indictments against Trump, including his unlawful possession of classified documents.
And then SCOTUS gave Trump immunity for everything he did in office, essentially requiring any challenges to that immunity be taken up with the captured Supreme Court itself.
There were a tuckfun of shenanigans played to delay until Biden's term was over. And then the voters had the audacity to elect Trump for a second term, with full awareness of what kind of monster he was.
Essentially, the voters of the US decided to let him get away with it, and take over the federal government to rob the treasury.
To quote Jamille Bouie, To think that the American people did that [elected Trump as President], to think that is the reality of the situation, raises difficult questions about this country, difficult questions about our capacity for self government.
So you want the president to seize more power than they legally have and for that escalation to continue whether a fascist is in office or not. Yeah great plan.
That's the problem. The gop is always in control whether they have a majority or not.
Democratic party with a supermajority: can barely pass a conservative health insurance reform bill with zero repub votes after bargaining themselves out of any actual good parts.
GOP with a one vote majority: mandate of the people; they get everything they want and there's nothing the dems can do to stop it.
Again, I understand that they're controlled opposition, but the "wHy doNt dEms dO sOmeThIng" is just useless hot air when they aren't in a position to do anything.
pretend to tackle actually. its called wet your appetite, or throw the dog a bone. its limited by design, so they dont lose thier political capital in getting elected next election.
I haven’t really seen anyone try to run against him. They’ve put people on the same ballots as him, but none of them have run a serious campaign that attempted to connect with voters.
Here is the advice of James Carville, a highly respected political consultant for the Democratic party. He recommends that Dems roll over and play dead.
The man is responsible for the Democrat's major shift towards neoliberalism, as well as a key figure in killing all progressive movement in the Dem party. He's even doing it now, saying the people do not want progressive policies like taxing the wealthy or cutting weapon shipments to Isreal.
You think that's bad? The rest of the world is waiting for the next president to continue sucking the imperialist dick. Apparently this one was in too many children.
Democratic party doesn't care about the country. They are all just sitting there raking in a paycheque and getting rich off insider trading all while someone else gets blamed for the bad shit happening. This is their perfect scenario. Why would the actually work and bring attention to themselves when they can just ride the wave for four years and get rich.
Democrats respond to political money but they feel an obligation to support the workers who allowed them to be in their positions, whereas Republicans feel absolutely no obligation to their none rich constituents, instead they feed the their minions BS. Both parties are basically on the same page otherwise.
That is why the Democratic party would like to get rid of AOC, Bernie Sanders and Mamdani. The solution is to replace enough Democrats until the party actually represents the people. There is no hope tor the GOP.
Democrats think republican voters are paying attention as closely as they do and not, in fact, just waiting to be told what to believe and how to think about it.
There the old saw about not interrupting your enemy when he’s making mistakes. But if the tables where turned the Repugs would be screaming holy hell non stop.
Heh, you and me both buddy, mystery of the fucking century, either epic levels of incompetence, or collusion. Haven't decided which is more likely yet, maybe bits of both.
If what's going on at the local levels is considered "quietly sitting there", I'd love to hear a few realistic and effective suggestions for what you think the party should be doing.
I’d love to hear a few realistic and effective suggestions for what you think the party should be doing.
You know for example ditching the private social network owned by a nazi and promote the open and decentralized alternatives that millions of people are already using
So you don't think the party members should be reaching out to people where they are? They should instead stick to social media platforms that practically nobody is using and therefore stifling their ability to communicate with not just supporters but also undecided & unaffiliated voters as well as all the people that they're representing? Fascinating.
If their goal was to reach out to people, wouldn't it be useful for them to spend 2 minutes to create a free account on the fediverse where millions of people are? Go ahead and explain why they are not doing that
Democrats in their eyes mean closeted fascist rethuglicans who are all talk and no action, hardly do any work to confront those less fortunate and both parties are willing allowing hundreds of innocuous Palestinians get brutally disembowelled and tooled into human shields.
The same kind of gutless white trash dirtbag that Tyrant Trump and his fascist regime of bloated war criminals and planet killers choose to dominion over
Democrats hate DSA because they are Democrats
Democrats in this case being truly devoted and compassionate leaders and activists who are actively trying to undo the intensive damage and corruption done by conservatives and conservative embezzler, vouching to lower prices, sending fresh supplies and insurance for those in need, trying to keep out highly dangerous and homicidal officials, taking a stance on Republican policies and how imperialistic and tyrannically sadist it is, they are everything a moderate chunk of the left side of the party are SUPPOSED to do!
Hakeem Jeffries trying to distance himself from them really show which political ideology he really represents.
Lets just say it's incredibly wrong, yet also presented as the opposite of "wrong"! You know who I'm talking about.
I think we aren’t politicians. For good reason. None of us want to listen to constituents or go yo speeches or give speeches or dress up and clap for budget wins.
So, why aren’t they doing what we’d do? Shit on trump at every opportunity? Spend days flaming everyone who’s a complete fascist fuckwit?
Yeah i dunno. I think they imagine themselves doing it as much as we imagine ourselves writing legislation, getting whip counts, and deciding who’s going to be the next thing.
Dems have been behind the eightball on communications forever, in part because progressives hate being told what to think. Republicans have it easy: create the talking points, roll it out on your networks and let the flag-wavers do the rest.
If the DNC did that - with anti-trump rhetoric - I think we’d love it at first, and then wonder what their game was. By sticking to real-world criticisms, it’s not fun or exciting and it gets zero press; but it’s real.
211 replies
It really goes to show how both parties have been captured by corporate and religious interests, and everyone's on the take and making bank on insider trading.
Nearly the entire system is rotten, bar a few who seem to still be holding on to do good for the people (AOC, Bernie, Mamdani, El-Sayed, Tallarico, etc).
Well it does feel like this cycle, more and more of the good folks are winning and showing what government can do for people. Here’s to hoping that they keep winning and take over.
It’s going to be a question of momentum: will those on the left of the party keep pushing back against corporate interests and organising at a grassroots level. I sincerely hope that the momentum grows, but the power of the money being used against them is a pretty terrible beast. It’s definitely an interesting crossroads at the very least.
"Get money out of politics" is only going to increase in popularity until there's some action. My concern is that a faux-populist democrat will become president, pass some empty reforms, declare victory, and then we'll be back here again in 15-20 years, when our democracy might be even weaker. OR that Republicans will end democracy before anything can happen.
Unpopular opinion: AOC, Bernie and Mamdani are at this point preventing a revolution the US so badly needs. As long as there’s a possible progressive win of the Democratic Party, people will live in the delusion that this regime can be uninstalled via democratic processes.
AOC can and Bernie are holding us back from revolution? You are under the extreme delusion that Americans are anywhere near being ready to revolt. They are not and won't be until they're unemployed and starving just like almost every other country that revolts against its government.
You need to get the off the Internet and the mods need to start banning accounts that call for violence. If you think that civil war will make things better you are completely detached from reality.
Yes, let’s ban dissenting voices. The orange man would love you for it.
You’re correct on the revolution needing hunger, but that may be closer than you think.
Even if I were to call for violence, and I’m not, what would it make for a difference if your theory is correct? And what good is sitting idly by and vote if the other side is using serious violence every day?
I don’t mind you having an opinion opposing to mine, I mind you calling for mods becoming thought police, as if we don’t already have enough power tripping mods around.
I think they would if they had a leader to say, hey… enough is enough the government is filled with fucking pedophiles!
But we don’t have that leader. So now it’s sticking your neck out to get shot by ice and democrats won’t even defend your dead ass when it happens.
A revolution still needs leaders.
I'll follow ms rachel not those
who seem to still be holding on to do good but aren't actually much as they keep using and endorsing the private social network of a nazi where this post is also taken from. Downvote X reposts and don't share them or the rotten system it's on you too.
nonsense the dems are hard at work getting power back in the midterms
it is you with your both side crap that is feeding the apathy that might save this admninistration in november
same as the last election. useless commie nonsense. the DSA is even worse with their unelectable policies
do you not question the fact that your talking point is directly from fox news?
so the answer is no i guess
right, i guess there's no point in continuing this conversation if you've deemed me automatically wrong because of my instance and can't even tell me why i'm wrong
that alongside the fact that when confronted for parroting fox news talking points you attempt shift the conversation to something that happened in china 37 years ago
clearly not acting in good faith, have a nice day
Very few, if any. Are you talking about the surrounding area where protestors murdered dozens of soldiers and police and then the soldiers finally started fighting back?
Are you parroting long debunked anti China propaganda designed to make you hate and distrust Chinese people? The propaganda that came from the billionaire pedophile rapist country??
How many people do you think were killed in Tiananmen Square on that day and what are your sources?
AOC? Nah, she's been made to heel to Nancy's and Hakeem's wishes. Buckled at pretty much the first opportunity too. Still says some nice things, but she's useless as a challenge to the status quo. Made a useful tool of the establishment.
Bernie? Well, he tucked tail and quit fighting after the party establishment colluded and sabotaged his campaigns. 2020 was especially egregious, and he still agreed to back Biden. Again, says the right things at times, but far less a real challenge to the status quo now than he ever was.
The others you mentioned? Mamdani can be a good pragmatic example, wish him the best, but he's limited to the Senate at the federal level if he aspires to higher office. El-Sayed, too early to tell. Talarico, I assume you mean? Tough row to hoe for a few months, probably a long shot, but he's been a democrat for years. That party is really irredeemable.
I wish I knew the real solution to this electoral mess. I keep hoping for a really hard charging third party challenge that can bridge the divide. May wait my entire life at this point.
Mamdani could still be the president. The Constitutional requirements for being president are pretty weak and easily bypassed. You can have someone else officially run, and they run on the platform, "I'm going to hold the pen and do whatever this guy tells me to." You select someone who would have no political legitimacy on their own, so they're completely dependent on the real power behind the throne. If Trump decides to run in 2028, this will be the mechanism he uses. But Mamdani or Obama could use the same mechanism if they wish.
The Constitutional limits on presidential eligibility are pretty trivial to bypass.
This is ridiculous and clearly against the intent of the constitution. I do hope scotus rules against this though I'm not confident they will with trump.
There is precedent and it's been done before. The most famous case was arch-segregationist George Wallace. He had his wife run as Alabama governor to bypass Alabama's constitutional term limits.
There's really no way to prevent this Constitutionally. A core principle of democracy is that voters can elect someone who promises to follow any style of leadership they want. There are limits on what power the leaders have, but they can make their choices however they want. You could run for president promising to make all your decisions by literally pulling options out of a hat at random. You could run for president promising to literally never even do the job. You could tell voters you're going to take the oath of office and immediately go back to your home, close the door, and never walk out again for the next four years. Just let the government run on auto-pilot. You probably wouldn't win an election on either of those, but it would be perfectly Constitutional for someone to do either of those things. There's language in the Constitution about the President faithfully enforcing the laws, but the only enforcement mechanism is impeachment and removal.
It would be nearly impossible to even write a Constitutional amendment prohibiting this. Leaders are allowed to take advice from their advisors. They couldn't govern without advisors. In this case, the person holding the seat just has one advisor they really really trust and listen to on everything.
Lol nice try
Not that hard to find the answer.
Bernie’s position isn’t that people should be forbidden from owning multiple homes or that anyone who has money must give most of it away. His argument is about the rules of the system. Higher taxes on the wealthy, stronger wages, worker protections and making basics like healthcare and housing more accessible. “Why doesn’t he sell two houses and feed the homeless?” confuses charity with policy. He could sell them tomorrow and it would have virtually no effect on homelessness. If you want to criticize Bernie, criticize whether his policies would actually work. Owning three homes isn’t by itself a contradiction of what he advocates
Except he didn’t stop. Sanders has continued arguing for higher taxes on wealthy Americans and against extreme concentrations of wealth after becoming a millionaire himself. Becoming wealthy isn’t inconsistent with saying wealthy people (including yourself) should pay more. Criticize the policy if you want, but this ‘he became a millionaire and suddenly went quiet’ line isn't true and just isn’t a serious argument
Can you provide a source on this? Can you show when he became a millionaire and when he stopped talking about millionaires? That's a pretty strong claim to make. Please provide a source.
'Murican oligarchy owning pretty much the entire country
This mf: "WHY DOES BERNIE HAVE THREE HOUSES??? WAAAAH!!!!"
You're not great at trolling
I mean sure, just make shit up I guess why not
He has a home in Vermont, his primary residence. He has a home in Washington DC, where he works. He has a home on Lake Champlain, where he vacations.
The first two are necessities. The third, a small, reasonable luxury.
What answer were you hoping for?
A home in his state, a home in the capital and a vacation home.
Because he isn't anti capitalist. He is anti unfettered capitalism.
Homelessness, poverty and hunger are symptoms of the problem of inequality he wants to solve. Selling his vacation home does nothing to solve that problem.
Conservatives are evil and not welcome here.
Now sum up them in value
So do I and I’m not rich.
Three day old account. Perhaps this is not the place you belong. Might wanna find a different social media to infect.
He can have a dozen homes and triple the cars; if hes still genuinely fighting for peoples rights and begging to tax the wealthy, im all for him.
Its not hypocritical for a US senator to have three homes. It is incredibly evil to vote against what is best for your constituents, which is what most other senators seem to be doing.
Another piece of shit to block!
I'm seeing a lot of words, so that begs the question: what have you done to support socialist policy in your national government?
I begged my congressman to support articles of impeachment. His response was basically that they don't have the votes, so why bother? He even said that if they did, it would be performative and would play into persecution rhetoric for Trump.
So that's where we are now. The only people with the political power to oust a tyrant have thrown in the towel.
I tried to reason with him that it matters. Even if they don't have the votes to convict. Impeach him once a week of you have to. Persecute the motherfucker!
But no, I guess re-election to Congress is more important.
Fucking joke.
100% agree. Performative it may be, but doing it every single time he does something to warrant it, which is daily at this point, at least sends a message that this shit is unacceptable. Doing nothing is tacitly agreeing with it. It's baffling.
The whole fucking point of him doing the persecution rhetoric is to stop people attacking him, and they've played right into his hands.
And look at the vote for releasing the Epstein files! Obviously, they 'didn't have the votes' for that, either ... but once they tried, even a bunch of Republicans were on board.
At least fucking try.
FTFY. It's only "persecute" if it's unjust.
It’s why democrats lose as much as they do, they don’t seize opportunities
a bunch of them are DINOs so i wouldnt call them capable of seizing, they secretely want this to happen, the tax cuts from 2017, no dems tried repeal that at all, or made it thier promise. they benefit from it.
This kind of Dem is such a fucking pussy. Literally more worried about offending constiutents who would never vote for them in the first place.
If only we lived in a democracy and could give people power with our vote...
you did? this is what you voted for?
They are complicit controlled opposition. Their only job is to keep the left out of power. That's why they're more upset about socialists than Trump, ultimately Trump is on their side and the socialists are not.
Increasingly more popular opinion: the US government takeover committed by the Trump oligarchy is as much the result of incompetence of the Democratic party as it was a plan of evil 'geniuses'.
I'd say it's entirely dems fault as they were dropping the ball consistently since years. Trump should've been an easy opponent but he ended up as president second time
People wanted change. Trump promised change, the democrats promised more of the same.
Maybe democrats should promise change?
I think the detrimental part was avoiding any polarising subject that could alienate their core electorate. They wanted to retain it so much that they forgot about the general population. And then came Trump promising changes in areas general public had problems with. He was mostly lying, but he was lying about the right topics.
So it came down to the choice: Maybe a lying republican jackass, or total democrat apathy.
Yes! IMO the 'evil geniuses' had no effect whatsoever. Trump just wins by default when the Democrats run unpopular candidates.
I've been saying this for almost ten years now. Trump is not a popular candidate and never has been. In '16 he got fewer votes than Romney did in '12. If everyone who voted for Obama had voted for Clinton, Trump never would have won. The same is true with '20 vs. '24: if everyone who voted for Biden had voted for Harris, Trump never would have won the second time.
I also don't think Biden was ever that popular; I think any of the Democratic candidates would have won in 2020. I told anyone who would listen at the time, "Biden is a bad choice, some shit could heat up in Israel, and he's very out of touch with the Democratic base on that issue, and it could prevent him from getting re-elected." I will say, I didn't think Trump would get re-elected after J6, I thought it would be some other Republican. But, it also felt like the Democrats also never really went after Trump for what he did on J6 so.
Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is I agree and I'm glad to hear other people say it. The Democrats are too willing to compromise with Republicans who never compromise with them, and it keeps losing them elections. So even though Americans as we actually exist are reasonably progressive on most issues (legalizing weed and having universal healthcare poll higher than any sitting politician, there are about 1.5x as many registered Dems as Reps in this country, etc), we're stuck with an extremely regressive government. That's the context that leads to progressives like Mamdani winning in "upset" victories and the Democratic leadership is all surprised.
My opinion on that is totally relevant to my opinion on this. /s
Next time we disagree, please bring a valid argument instead to discrediting because of something i said somewhere else.
Yeah. There was this drunk driver that hit a kid. Stupid parents. It's just the result of incompetence of the parenting party than a result of drunk driving.
They lost to Donald fucking Trump. The biggest loser of all time. And they lost twice.
Yeah. Except the parents insisted their child play in the middle of the street at 1am and instead of condemning the drunk driver, they claim drunk driving is part of life
I dont think that is a fair comparison. Also i am not saying it is only the fault of the opposing party, i'm saying it is as much as. It is naive to think this would have been able no matter what the Democratic party did in the years/decades leading up to the first Trump presidency. Sure it is easy to talk in hindsight, I'll give them that. I'm also not saying they wanted this to happen. But if the parents of the drunk driver never gave their child a good talk on the dangers of drinking, that accident is partly theirs to blame too.
The D's want what R's want, but they just want to make sure the paperwork is filed properly first, and will probably do it while wearing a rainbow pin.
The democratic elite are in bed with Epstein
but but but.... the lesser of two evilss!!
Because they are, for the most part, wealth class. Average citizen getting robbed or screwed over isn't a concern.
Why rock the boat and risk getting noticed in a negative way when you can do nothing and enjoy your privileged place!
The duopoly of 2 pro-capitalist parties must end.
During the general election: Easy there friend, I agree with you but now is not the time. Do party building during midterms.
During midterms: Oh this is the time for a united front. Simply promote third parties between elections.
Between elections: You're taking momentum away from smaller local challengers right now.
The ratchet effect exists because leftists would rather bitch every general election and allow Republicans to be elected, while simultaneously not participating in the primaries.
The fascists knew the primaries were the secret, and their voters are generally loyal in November. Every member of the GOP that opposes Trump is removed in the primaries, and the party moves further right.
Are there any statistics about people who complain about nominees not participating in primaries?
No, but ShitLibs operate on vibes and not facts anyway. If they operated on facts, they'd notice their party has done nothing but help push the Overton Window right for damn near half a century now.
The ratchet effect works because vast swathes of people can't perceive of any way to affect change beyond voting, thus creating a single (recurring) major choke point for going through the 'correct' channels.
If all you do is vote, you can't complain.
Vast swathes of people don’t vote though.
That's fine, there are a great deal of more impactful and meaningful things that people can do instead of voting. My point is that if someone's sole contribution is voting, they haven't actually done anything.
The problem is there is no actual choice for progressive leftism on offer. This is the whole issue. The Dems are just Capitalism with cute decorations vs the depraved capitalism of Republicans. If there were actual parties that outside this framework, they can be very successful. That's why DSA is winning. They are at least acting like another option, whether or not they will significantly change things is to be seen, but they are not centrists like most Dems try to be.
The PSL is on the right track. A disciplined socialist party will get the power to change things, or be an object lesson in the necessity of revolutionary organizing to use other means of change.
Obamacare was copied directly from the Republicans, originally called Romneycare. The chance for M4A was completely squandered by the Dems at the time. Have some damn object permance like an actual adult.
Obamacare was broken because the Dems had a filibuster-proof majority in the senate for like 1 month at in the 2009 holidays. By the time Al Franken got to take his seat, Kennedy had stopped showing up for work, then he died, then it took time to seat his temporary replacement, then the Tea Party win their special election.
With that, the broken Senate version that was meant to be reconciled with the House version and cleaned up couldn't happen, so the House had to pass the Senate version verbatim to avoid a filibuster by the Dems.
In what ways has the united states shifted right over the last 20 years? Tbh I've never understood this narrative. To me it's very very obvious that the united states has shifted left steadily for my whole life. Short term there have been rightward shifts, but the overall trend is definitely left.
How many changes over the last 20 years have:-
increased social spending
reduced wealth inequality
favored consumers over corporations
improved environmental protections
reduced health care costs
reduced authoritarian power
It is very common for privileged liberals to barely notice the rise of fascism. This has been the problem for quite a while.
You probably live in a blue area. (Most people live in a blue area.) The actual situation is that we've polarized. People around you, in the blue area, have moved left. People elsewhere, in the red areas, have moved right.
Pew Research for some graphics.
In certain ways, this has been a victory for civil liberties. Gay people from small towns can move to a place where they might have entire neighborhoods of likeminded people. Trans people from small towns can move to a place where they won't be shot on sight. Hell, someone in NYC who suddenly finds Jesus can go to a smaller town where no one will make fun of them for proselytizing AND they can hang out with likeminded people AND they get cheaper rent.
But it's also more dangerous than it has ever been to be an immigrant. Wealth inequality has been rising. Increases in wages has been vastly outpaced by increases in the cost of housing and healthcare, and combined with inflation, we're making more units of USD, sure, but we aren't able to sustain any better a quality of life. Corporate Taxes were increased for small companies, and cut for large companies.
Depending on whether you're more focused on the kinds of people living around you, or on the wide-reaching systemic changes that have been taking place, you're going to notice different things. The really really important stuff that has shifted to the right is kind of boring, so you wouldn't have seen much reporting on it.
Trump helps rich people. Establishment Dems are either owned by, or terrified of rich people.
That's it. Simple.
hakeeem , schumer are wealthy asf from various industries that donated to him.
You know what the difference is between a million and a billion dollars? About a billion dollars. The kind of rich people I'm talking about make someone like Schumer look like an absolute peasant.
it's almost like a two party system was a bad idea
It's not a two-party system. It's a one-party system disguised as a two-party system.
It's not the Democrats vs the Republicans
It's the oligarchs vs the people.
The democratic party is overflowing with oligarch sychophants.
Congress is full of people who will talk about progressive points, then vote the other way.
why no one create a third one? is it blocked somehow?
Winner‑take‑all voting: whoever gets the most votes wins the entire seat. This strongly pushes voters toward two large parties because voting for a third party risks “splitting the vote.
Ballot access laws: Each state sets its own rules for getting on the ballot. Many require tens of thousands of signatures, strict deadlines, or high fees. Major parties get automatic ballot access; third parties must constantly re‑qualify.
Debate exclusion: The Commission on Presidential Debates requires a candidate to poll at 15% nationally to appear on the stage. No modern third‑party candidate has reached that threshold, so they never get mass exposure.
Campaign financing laws: Public funding rules require a party to have earned at least 5% of the vote in the previous election. Without that, they get no federal funding. Major parties have massive donor networks and PAC ecosystems.
Democrats and Republicans control state election boards, local party organizations, volunteer networks, and voter‑data operations. Third parties lack the institutional machinery needed to compete.
Strategic voting psychology: Even voters who like third‑party candidates often vote major‑party to prevent the “greater evil.” This self‑reinforcing cycle keeps third parties small.
Media coverage patterns: News outlets are all owned by the two‑parties. Polling firms often exclude third‑party candidates from surveys, which then justifies excluding them from coverage.
State-level laws Some states have “sore loser” laws, fusion‑voting bans, or rules that make it nearly impossible for third parties to maintain ballot status.
The system is designed to keep third parties at arm's length.
Almost? Politics isn't a sporting event. Seeing them turn everything into black or white is so close minded. Most things have many shades of grey. We should have that many candidates to choose from.
i should've added an /s
It's a consequence of our voting system.
If two parties that have similar ideals (call it A1 and A2) enter an election with another opposing party (call it B1), benefits the opponent, because people who agree with either A1 or A2 can only vote for one.
You can end up in a position where 30% of people vote for A1, 30% for A2, and 40% for B1. Because A1 and A2 were so similar, neither of them can achieve plurality, despite their message itself being more popular, and the race goes to B1.
Btw, back in 2000, the Green party got enough votes in Florida that, had they instead voted for Gore, the whole "chad" debacle would've been a non-issue. I guess Gore wasn't environmentalist enough for them. Bush/Cheney ended up winning...and they certainly were not environmentalist in the least.
I credit this for being the historical turning point where everything really started going to shit. Bush v Gore and the chads. And thus, to this day, I'm a tree-hugging hippy who will gladly say: fuck the green party.
...To take it a step further, in order to attract centrist or opponent voters, the party has to be moderate/centrist. It cannot be exceedingly progressive, or it will lose its more moderate members.
In essence, the voting system causes two party systems, and the "big tent" party causes the big tent to suck and always move opposite the driection it really should.
OR a uniparty/coalition. its 2 right wing parties, 1less than the other joining forces. the less right wing from time to time is allowed to win, throw in some "progress" but not enough to change things dramatically. Also they depend on the right wing for survival as much as the alt-right depend on the dems for survival. its a codependancy.
The Democrats and Republicans are owned and controlled by the same wealthy douchebags.
With a high degree of overlap to the Epstein client list.
They're doing exactly the job they're being paid for.
This is absolutely on to something. Trump should not stand a chance against a viable opposing party.
So long as any parties funding is coming from corporations, and citizens united stands... Not much will be done in terms of bettering society for the working class.
An easy way to look at it is the working class if above the line, the people who own the parties rely on what's below the line.
Those people have proven over and over they believe in making massive cuts to make the numbers below the line go up, even if they were making profit and churning out a good product. Making a worse product, and hurting those who work for you company doesn't matter, so long as number go up.
Democrats are controlled opposition, and have been for a long time.
https://ia800503.us.archive.org/5/items/mirage-of-dissent-the-mechanics-of-controlled-opposition/Mirage%20of%20Dissent_The%20Mechanics%20of%20Controlled%20Opposition.pdf
The Dems exist to prevent the rightward slide from ever shifting back. That is why they fight harder against progressives than Republicans.
Exactly. They are being quiet because they are being told to do so.
they saw what happen with zohran, and they tried railing on El-sayad, with islamaphobic inneundos.
the DINO party serves the billionaires, and israel mostly.
Until the genocide, everyone served Israel.
I stand by my observation Israel is not a Jewish nation, it's a owner-class nation.
Israel is a terrorist state and the fact they call themselves Jewish is antisemitism.. They kill Muslims is also antisemitism.
I'm an Australian and I hate every religion!
Israel calling itself Jewish on its own is not anti-semitic, the doing things that makes everybody hate them while calling themselves Jewish is what makes it anti-semitic.
I want to preface this by saying that I think the democrats have no fucking idea how to do messaging and opposition.
But even if they did, we live in a system that wants their message to be ignored. Anything a politician says that is bad for business will not be televised. Or twisted to make them sound crazy. They have to oppose a regime that has nearly 100% of major media at least begrudgingly supporting if not enthusiastically.
I used to work in politics, it is next to impossible to get your message out if people with money don't want your message heard. The most important messaging is free media, as in the news and social media. Both of those have heavy corporate backing trying to control the narrative. Even the most progressive DSA politician has a hell of a time getting their real message through a controlled information stream.
The Dumbocrats are perpetual failures mixed in with some dino's but the media is a bigger issue, imo.
This is the biggest problem. And it's not just legacy media, but also modern media. Zuck, Musk, and fucking Spez control basically all the social media that isn't the fediverse. All fascists or fascist-wannabes.
It's always funny to see DSA types coopt Trump language.
You'll have to expand on that thought because I don't know what you're getting at. People have been angry at the media long before trump, its trump that coopted it to get votes.
I have to explain why Dumbocrats is Trump speak?
I don't make a point of explaining things that are obvious.
They not just sitting there.
Lawrence,Massachusetts Democratic Mayor Brian DePenna was just arrested for stealing over $1.2 million of Covid relief funds.
Democrats have been hard at work enriching themselves.
The mayor of a town was arrested? Who fucking cares?
Do you have any fucking idea how large this country is and how many people call themselves "Democrat".
Shit like this doesn't work when people actually live in the place you're talking about.
Try harder.
Instead of attacking? Are you cowboys ok? Apparently you still don’t understand shit if this is the trash that gets posted. Wake. The. Fuck. Up.
You live in a violent dictatorship, there is no voting system you fucking dipshits.
Yeah ikr.
Trump is depriving people from affordable healthcare, living environments, food storage, equal rights, sterile air quality .etc, and he's pretty much the ambassador of the many despicably graphic human trafficking ring formed by Epstein that his posse is going out of their way to shun from the public eye.
But oh no! Zohran is chilling with furries!!!!!!! WHAT A FREAK!!!!!!!!!!!!! WORSE THAN A CHILD RAPIST WHO ALSO TARIFFED COUNTRIES DURING WILDFIRES AND BLACKMAIL IRAN AFTER DROPPING COGNITIVE NUKES ON THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!
I suffer heavily from learning difficulties, and even I know Republicans are completely inhuman warmongeries!
I’m mostly bothered by OOP tweet. Evan here is cosplaying Dora the explorer. Like, really Evan, you don’t have any fucking clue why?
I can’t believe this post is one of the top ones. What fkn discussion can we start from here?
Just say you despise Americans and stop pretending to want better for them
Yes I do from the bottom of my heart, especially because my country is a US colony. Am I not allowed to hate burgerman?
If we didn't despise you before, we do now.
Trust me no one missed that. Bigots can get fucked.
American education system at work of you think that's what a bigot is.
"I can't believe you hate us for making the planet inhospitable and starting countless illegal wars of aggression over the past 80 years and genociding multiple peoples in multiple countries and couping socialist projects and installing fascist dictators and.. You guys are just bigoted!! 😤"
Fuck off, lmao.
Yeah every single American, even those who've put in effort trying to push back at fascism, is at fault for wars caused decades before they were even born.
You're bigoted.
Where's the effort, lmao?
I don't see any striking, rioting or vigilantism.
I'm bigoted against the country who's threatening to invade my country and who continues to spread terror around the globe?
Fuck off too, lmao.
Bigots love to justify their reasoning. Yes, you're bigoted, and I'd tell you the same for generalizing everyone in any country as such. Want to go do some "pattern recognition" too while you're at it?
Death to America.
Democrats have been setting out to lose since Obama left office. Trump 2020 was the only one to beat them at their own game.
Oh, they were losing while Obama was president too. A Supreme Court Justice and the Heritage Foundation's health insurance reforms (aka Obamacare/ACA) come to mind.
Last I checked there were about 50% more registered Democrats than registered Republicans in the USA. Given those kind of numbers, it's actually impressive that the Republicans ever win any elections at all; and it takes a lot of both Democratic incompetence and Republican gerrymandering.
not only gerrymandering, but voter suppression laws. most targeting blacks, latino democratic areas. propaganda helps even some dems turn to republicans last election.
it was a fluke for obama to win, because of bad bush screwed up the economy.
Agreed, Even then, it wasn't really the Democratic party that wanted him. Hillary was the frontrunner through the primaries and into the convention. He barely bested her. He only got the nod because the rest of the country revolted against the party leaders from the traditional blue states, and the party had no choice but to follow.
She was such a terrible choice for Democrats that Rush Limbaugh supported her in the primaries!
Had she won the convention (and had McCain picked anyone but that tea party pinhead), the GOP would have likely prevailed, even after Dubya. She couldn't win against a moron like Trump; she didn't have a chance in hell against one of the last good Republicans this country has seen.
I think democrats are controlled opposition, but do people not understand that they currently aren't in power?
The fed is run by the GOP. Dems are only enough of a problem that Trump has to write EOs for every goddamned thing.
Maybe if Biden had written EOs for every goddamned thing we wouldn't be in this mess.
He didn't have the advantage of SCOTUS backing everything he wrote.
In fact, the US Supreme Court actively opposed him.
Well it's a good thing he didn't try then. Things would be so much worse.
Biden was a centrist Democrat who tried to get progressive in his presidential term, but yes, it was a too little too late.
Nah Biden was a conservative who did conservative things his entire term.
Biden was an pro-corporate, pro-genocidal piece of shit who deserves to be in prison.
I'm agreeing with you, but I'm also pointing out that "too little, too late" is being very, verrrrry generous.
Biden had the perfect slam-dunkingly solid golden sure win opportunity(s) to take out FatCunt ChildRaper for a myriad of blatantly illegal things. The main stars of which were the televised attempt at an insurrection, and the stealing of top secret documents which were stored in an unlocked room next to a fax...A FAX!!!.
Plus many other things that would be just as easy to prosecute because, let's face it, the orange imbecile and family aren't criminal geniuses.
But, no, instead of going for the tRUMP from day one the old dipshit just slow walked that bullshit for years...then it wasn't his problem anymore.
I didn't exactly like Biden when he was elected, but I now actively hate the guy for doing fuck all. The whole world is a much worse place because Biden is a coward.
slow walking trumps trials and giving him press for a whole year was a big mistake, and this includes doing nothing about epstein files.
There was no small amount of obstruction from the Republican party and SCOTUS. It was a while before Garland was appointed AG. Judge Cannon raised some weird challenges to the investigations and indictments against Trump, including his unlawful possession of classified documents.
And then SCOTUS gave Trump immunity for everything he did in office, essentially requiring any challenges to that immunity be taken up with the captured Supreme Court itself.
There were a tuckfun of shenanigans played to delay until Biden's term was over. And then the voters had the audacity to elect Trump for a second term, with full awareness of what kind of monster he was.
Essentially, the voters of the US decided to let him get away with it, and take over the federal government to rob the treasury.
To quote Jamille Bouie, To think that the American people did that [elected Trump as President], to think that is the reality of the situation, raises difficult questions about this country, difficult questions about our capacity for self government.
Sounds like you're admitting Biden couldn't get the job done.
He lost us abortion.
No, Trump took abortion from us when he got to appoint three captured Federalist Society justices on SCOTUS. it just took a couple of years to die.
Next, you'll be saying he lost Afghanistan, when Trump arranged US surrender.
Uhhh.. What?
Maybe if Obama had done something about Russian election interference on behalf of trump in 2016, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Most American American to ever America gets elected as president.
Dems: Russia did it!!
Most of us don't want our government to work that way
Well you got what you wanted. Now what?
How, pray tell, did I get what I wanted?
You didn't want Biden to sign a bunch of EOs. He didn't. You got what you wanted. Trump is president now. Now what?
Well he signed an EO to forgive my student loans, and that was fought tooth and nail, eventually stopped by SCOTUS
So you want the president to seize more power than they legally have and for that escalation to continue whether a fascist is in office or not. Yeah great plan.
Well Biden didn't so you got what you wanted. Now what?
Let republicans do it only, then. Great plan!
That's the problem. The gop is always in control whether they have a majority or not.
Democratic party with a supermajority: can barely pass a conservative health insurance reform bill with zero repub votes after bargaining themselves out of any actual good parts.
GOP with a one vote majority: mandate of the people; they get everything they want and there's nothing the dems can do to stop it.
Again, I understand that they're controlled opposition, but the "wHy doNt dEms dO sOmeThIng" is just useless hot air when they aren't in a position to do anything.
They are in the same position the GOP was when they shut down any progress the democrats pretended to try to do when they had the majority.
If op bothered to post the whole thread you'd see they are doing something but a complicit media doesn't report on any of that.
This kind of propaganda has worked wonders on all the brightest folks here. Doing its job superbly.
Okay, help us out then, what are they doing?
There's not much people understand. But they will 100% confidently talk about anything like they know it all.
DNC loves trump. It lets them be awful and corrupt right up the point of being only slightly better than trump, and think they can get away with it.
At least until the guillotines come out, they can and are getting away with it.
The corporate Democrats don't want to piss off their owners
Remember this guy? (Rest in Power)
WSJ article
Tacit approval.
The Dem party is an enrichment cult that happens to tackle a few social issues.
pretend to tackle actually. its called wet your appetite, or throw the dog a bone. its limited by design, so they dont lose thier political capital in getting elected next election.
Because running against Trump has worked so well for them so far, right?
I haven’t really seen anyone try to run against him. They’ve put people on the same ballots as him, but none of them have run a serious campaign that attempted to connect with voters.
He has never won against a man. I'm not just talking Biden, he's ran for president multiple times.
This is true, but I am talking about House and Senate members running for the midterms. Being anti-Trump isn't enough.
and the DNC knew choosing a woman would always result in a loss, so they did anyways.
because both parties are capitalist, they’ll never really “do” what’s right for the working class.
Quietly getting rich through investments and back office deals, mind you.
Vote corpo scum out. Progressives over establishment--- AS LONG AS THE OTHER OPTION IS NOT A FASCIST PEDO PARTY SCUMBAG.
We want Blue, but we are going to have to babystep our country back into not being an utter shithole.
You can't baby step that. It's time to rip the band-aid and vote for people actually on our side.
All part of the plan... I think 🤔.
Here is the advice of James Carville, a highly respected political consultant for the Democratic party. He recommends that Dems roll over and play dead.
The man is responsible for the Democrat's major shift towards neoliberalism, as well as a key figure in killing all progressive movement in the Dem party. He's even doing it now, saying the people do not want progressive policies like taxing the wealthy or cutting weapon shipments to Isreal.
Blue State Gov Andy Beshear would never! What?
You think that's bad? The rest of the world is waiting for the next president to continue sucking the imperialist dick. Apparently this one was in too many children.
they want to go back sucking israel off, and to people stop talking about the epstein files, many other world leaders are in it too.
From the perspective of the DNC one of those things is an existential threat, and the other is not.
Democratic party doesn't care about the country. They are all just sitting there raking in a paycheque and getting rich off insider trading all while someone else gets blamed for the bad shit happening. This is their perfect scenario. Why would the actually work and bring attention to themselves when they can just ride the wave for four years and get rich.
They literally had public disclosures that this was the plan after Harris lost
Democrats respond to political money but they feel an obligation to support the workers who allowed them to be in their positions, whereas Republicans feel absolutely no obligation to their none rich constituents, instead they feed the their minions BS. Both parties are basically on the same page otherwise.
That is why the Democratic party would like to get rid of AOC, Bernie Sanders and Mamdani. The solution is to replace enough Democrats until the party actually represents the people. There is no hope tor the GOP.
they just cant stand having a happy population. its gotta be strifed for those losers
Democrats think republican voters are paying attention as closely as they do and not, in fact, just waiting to be told what to believe and how to think about it.
There the old saw about not interrupting your enemy when he’s making mistakes. But if the tables where turned the Repugs would be screaming holy hell non stop.
Heh, you and me both buddy, mystery of the fucking century, either epic levels of incompetence, or collusion. Haven't decided which is more likely yet, maybe bits of both.
If Jimmy Carter were alive today, we would confidently express all of the benevolence of the DSA and rub it in Trump's grifter Pinocchio nose.
He has something on them. Fascism is inevitable, for the rest of the century.
They are all older than the polio vaccine and have no idea how technology works or social media
If what's going on at the local levels is considered "quietly sitting there", I'd love to hear a few realistic and effective suggestions for what you think the party should be doing.
You know for example ditching the private social network owned by a nazi and promote the open and decentralized alternatives that millions of people are already using
So you don't think the party members should be reaching out to people where they are? They should instead stick to social media platforms that practically nobody is using and therefore stifling their ability to communicate with not just supporters but also undecided & unaffiliated voters as well as all the people that they're representing? Fascinating.
If their goal was to reach out to people, wouldn't it be useful for them to spend 2 minutes to create a free account on the fediverse where millions of people are? Go ahead and explain why they are not doing that
Do... You not know where you are right now?
On lemmy
The party should be [Redacted by Reddit] every billionaire in the country with their own [Redacted by Reddit].
Okay, that's ... a choice.
Getting paid by Israel.
they need to go if they aren't doing anything. 'vote them all out' bumper stickers have been warning for years.
That's the thing, they are not hiding, they have already been paid
If ONLY instead of DESTROYING the Country Donald Trump was HELPING Americans THEN Democrats would FIGHT!
Democrats like Democrats who are Democrats.
Democrats in their eyes mean closeted fascist rethuglicans who are all talk and no action, hardly do any work to confront those less fortunate and both parties are willing allowing hundreds of innocuous Palestinians get brutally disembowelled and tooled into human shields.
The same kind of gutless white trash dirtbag that Tyrant Trump and his fascist regime of bloated war criminals and planet killers choose to dominion over
Democrats hate DSA because they are Democrats
Democrats in this case being truly devoted and compassionate leaders and activists who are actively trying to undo the intensive damage and corruption done by conservatives and conservative embezzler, vouching to lower prices, sending fresh supplies and insurance for those in need, trying to keep out highly dangerous and homicidal officials, taking a stance on Republican policies and how imperialistic and tyrannically sadist it is, they are everything a moderate chunk of the left side of the party are SUPPOSED to do!
Hakeem Jeffries trying to distance himself from them really show which political ideology he really represents.
Lets just say it's incredibly wrong, yet also presented as the opposite of "wrong"! You know who I'm talking about.
I think we aren’t politicians. For good reason. None of us want to listen to constituents or go yo speeches or give speeches or dress up and clap for budget wins.
So, why aren’t they doing what we’d do? Shit on trump at every opportunity? Spend days flaming everyone who’s a complete fascist fuckwit?
Yeah i dunno. I think they imagine themselves doing it as much as we imagine ourselves writing legislation, getting whip counts, and deciding who’s going to be the next thing.
Dems have been behind the eightball on communications forever, in part because progressives hate being told what to think. Republicans have it easy: create the talking points, roll it out on your networks and let the flag-wavers do the rest.
If the DNC did that - with anti-trump rhetoric - I think we’d love it at first, and then wonder what their game was. By sticking to real-world criticisms, it’s not fun or exciting and it gets zero press; but it’s real.
Hahaha