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
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.
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.
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.
The duopoly of 2 pro-capitalist parties must end.
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.
- Muammar al-Gaddafi
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.
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.
It is very common for privileged liberals to barely notice the rise of fascism. This has been the problem for quite a while.
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
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Shut the fuck up you idiot
Democrats are controlled opposition, and have been for a long time.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
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 corporate Democrats don’t want to piss off their owners
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
A revolution still needs leaders.
I’ll follow ms rachel not those
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.
El-Sayed has a nasty little clinger-on he needs to get rid of, but then he’ll be set.
do you not question the fact that your talking point is right from fox news?
Hey quick counterquestion: How many people died in Tiananmen Square on June 4th 1989?
so the answer is no i guess
No, the answer is “not only are you completely wrong, you’re being wrong on purpose because you’re a pro-dictatorship propaganda parrot and it’s painfully obvious.”
Maybe try spreading your lies on a non-ml account next time. Y’all make it too easy to spot you.
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??
I don’t hate or distrust Chinese people. I hate and distrust every government that fancies itself a world power, and distrust every individual who supports one. No hate is necessary against people. Also, lol at another .ml user showing up to spout the same propaganda. You serve your masters well.
How many people do you think were killed in Tiananmen Square on that day and what are your sources?
Removed by mod
Lol nice try
Removed by mod
“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.”
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
Removed by mod
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
'Murican oligarchy owning pretty much the entire country
This mf: “WHY DOES BERNIE HAVE THREE HOUSES??? WAAAAH!!!”
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.
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?
Why does Bernie have 3 homes?
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.
Conservatives are evil and not welcome here.
So do I and I’m not rich.
Now sum up them in value
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?
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.
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.
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!
