- cross-posted to:
- lemmydirectory@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- cross-posted to:
- lemmydirectory@lemmy.dbzer0.com
You must log in or register to comment.
Democrats: Here’s how Harris can still win!
deleted by creator
…he’d’ve resoundingly trounced trump if the democratic party hadn’t conspired against him in 2016, but if he won the executive the democratic party would have done everything in their power to make sure his administration was no more effectual than carter’s…
Problem with Dems - it’s still the party of the rich.
They try their hardest to direct the energy towards various more cultural issues as opposed to working people rights.
I was at the rally! I was one of the last people let inside before they closed the gate, and thousands of people that didn’t get inside watched and listened from outside of the fencing, so the actual number was more than 34,000.
Here’s a photo I took…
And here’s Bernie…
Bernie should have won.
Fuck everyone who voted for hillary clinton in the 2016 primary.
They need to be tarred and feathered.
bernie is an independent. according to america you only want two teams, everyone else will get little to no votes.
It is not that we only WANT two teams. It’s that we only GET two teams. It’s an emergent property of a broken voting system. If somebody in the US says you can’t or shouldn’t vote for another party, that’s their interpretation via some kind of game theory thought process to prevent an even worse choice from winning.
That probably isn’t relevant any longer, and it’s more clear than ever that the system was never improved because it is a great form of control that parties and individuals won’t catch the blame for. Thus all the discussion of “alternative” methods of political change.
that’s their interpretation via some kind of game theory thought process to prevent an even worse choice from winning.
but that’s literally the entire strategical point of the whole thing.
thank you, I’ve managed to identify you now, dispatched ICE agents at your home
.ml user, sending air strike en route.
Form a new party!!! Don’t call it Labor or Labour. Don’t call it Green. Don’t call it progressive. Don’t call it socialist or liberal.
Just give it a name that people understand and don’t have preexisting bias against. “For The People”
Take on BOTH the democrats and GOP. Become popular overnight. Keep hammering home it is not about skin colour, race or country of origin, but about the billionaires that aren’t happy with paying no tax and having billions. Make it about the 99%.
It is the only way you’ll get your country back without excessive violence. The two status quo parties are hollowed out from the inside. And both are infiltrated by foreign interests.
That’s what Bernie is saying. He’s calling all progressives to run as Independent, aka No Party Preference, down ballot so we can shove the Corporate DNC into the GOP where they so desperately want to be anyway.
IIRC, he also called for the corpocentrists to get primaried.
“People” = “Communist”
Agreed.
Gotta take a page out of idiocracy here folks.
The Cowboy Party (Named after the most popular/recognizable NFL team)
Or, how about:
The Murica Party
Then you put Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson as your president. I’ve had debates about the feasibility of this approach and this is the modern Ronald Reagan play.
The cowboys are probably the more at divisive team in the country.
no. cena.
The Cena who grovelled to the CCP and little pinks when he called Taiwan a country?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/26/john-cena-very-sorry-for-saying-taiwan-is-a-country
yep. almost like he could be a competent diplomat or some shit.
or, like, recognize the value of it and fund that shit.
But the WWE bookers decided that Cena now is a bad guy
okay. so is america.
and he played a pretty solid dumbfuck himbo anti-something in ‘peacemaker’.
The 99% Party. It’s a slick way of calling it a worker’s party without sounding like a communist party.
The thing is, you can “not call it socialism” all you like. The fact is that it is socialism, you have to respect people’s intelligence enough to know that they will figure that out (or be easily convinced of it, if you really need an argument that doesn’t respect their intelligence). When this happens, and even moreso when you inevitably reveal yourself to be socialist, it will make you look deeply insincere and subversive, because you yourself will have fed into this taboo and not done the work of separating the term from its negative stigma or generating positive media for it.
Socialism is simply the fact of the matter and being socialist means caring about material reality enough to not just lie and gaslight as a means of convincing people. When you get attacked for being socialist, you will not be able to backpedal without sabotaging your own movement, because there will be a litany of evidence that you are socialist. As there should be, or you would not have the support of actual ideological socialists (remember that whole material reality thing I just mentioned).
The material reason why socialism is a “no-no” word is because when the right attacks it, the liberal establishment does what they always do; they backpedal. Not only does this make the right’s criticism look reasonable, because it confirms there is real reason to fear being associated with socialism; but it ensures that the people only ever hear the arguments against socialism, never the arguments for it. All of the arguments which are intrinsically associated with socialism; which you have done all this work to propagate; are never connected to it optically, and the people never learn what it actually is, leaving all of your policy open to attack.
What you are suggesting here is not the solution but exactly the issue that has brought us to this point.
The only way that you will ever launder the term “socialism” is by openly advocating for socialism and calling it what it is when you do. You just aren’t going to beat the establishment at their own game; rather, we must show the people what it is to be respected and hear policy based in material reality that will actually address their needs, and you will win support from across the spectrum.
I disagree. And I don’t mean to preach, but there is a power in words and using them (or not using them). The fight over the word and meaning of socialism is not what “the people” need right now, that can come later. This has been happening in the US closing in on a century. It’s not those tolerant of material reality (as you say) you need to convince, it’s those that would benefit from “the peoples” agenda that don’t acknowledge material reality. Ride the wave of making billionaires pay.
Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.
Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security.
Socialism is what they called farm price supports.
Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.
Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.
Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.
When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan “Down With Socialism” on the banner of his “great crusade,” that is really not what he means at all.
What he really means is “Down with Progress–down with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal,” and “down with Harry Truman’s fair Deal.” That’s all he means.
- Harry Truman
Don’t swim against this right now. These programs from the new deal and fair deal are not even called socialist by American standards anymore.
This quote is an example of what I am talking about though. Roosevelt had to take great strides to ease the great depression, because of mass protest movements at the time openly led by socialist/communist parties, but he could not go so far as to address the economic system that created the great depression. Nor could the capitalist class allow these policies to be associated with the socialists that visibly fought for them. Doing so would threaten the power of capital; this is not long after the bolshevik revolution that created the USSR, so there was major fears of similar movements taking root in the US.
This is not Truman defending the new deal, this is him distancing the new deal from socialism.
The new deal was not socialist, which is by design, but it was made up of things that socialists would have certainly fought for and taken even further if their effort was sincerely meant to achieve socialism.
It’s time to stop letting socialism be used as a scare word. Sure, the loudest ones will continue to bury their heads in the sand, but those people weren’t going to be won over anyways. Furthermore, you aren’t going to win people over by talking down to them, and you cannot address their needs in a sincere manner if your base assumption is that they aren’t intelligent enough to understand their own lives.
edit: I’m also not suggesting that we should be fighting over “the word and meaning of socialism”; precisely the opposite, in fact. I’m saying that we should be living examples of what a socialist is and what socialists advocate for. We should be seen in our communities doing the ground work of organizing and being role models for what we believe in.
The difference between what we are accused of and what we are actually doing is stark, which can’t be pointed out if we’re constantly distancing ourselves from anyone that calls themselves socialist simply because we’re afraid of the word. There is so much present day and past evidence; from the rich history that was erased in the red scare and all of this anti-socialist sentiment; for us to draw on instead of trying to distance ourselves from the reality that what we advocate for is anti-capitalist in nature.
Socialism? Americans would be happy to have health care, better workers‘ rights, affordable education. Just like most other advanced economies in Europe, Australia, South Korea, Japan, and so on. That’s not socialism, that’s capitalism with regulations and social programs. Nobody really wants socialism, which was as utter failure everywhere it was tried.
Anywhere socialism has existed, it has done so under the threat of global capitalism which is led by the United States. The countries you listed are only able to maintain their wealth and relative comfort by taking advantage of the global south. They benefit from obscuring that relationship so that the people who see that benefit, don’t have to reckon with the extent of it and how it enables the oppression of all of us and holds us back as a whole.
Today, the global North drains from the South commodities worth $2.2 trillion per year, in Northern prices. For perspective, that amount of money would be enough to end extreme poverty, globally, fifteen times over.
Over the whole period from 1960 to today, the drain totalled $62 trillion in real terms. If this value had been retained by the South and contributed to Southern growth, tracking with the South’s growth rates over this period, it would be worth $152 trillion today.
These are extraordinary sums. For the global North (and here we mean the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Japan, Korea, and the rich economies of Europe), the gains are so large that, for the past couple of decades, they have outstripped the rate of economic growth. In other words, net growth in the North relies on appropriation from the rest of the world.
Let me give you the quick and dirty, oversimplified rundown of how that relationship plays out:
Power, under capitalism, resides in capital, which isn’t just money but also resources and property. In order to maintain power, capitalism requires infinite and continuous growth, which of course requires more and more resources to sustain.
Say a given country decides it would like to own its resources nationally and use the wealth generated by those resources to support the growth and welfare of their own people. Capitalist nations are able to wield state power against those countries whenever they encounter this sort of difficulty. This includes leveraging state and capitalist media to run propaganda campaigns, which sour public perception of that country’s national leadership; funding coups and covert operations against them; giving money and training to militant minority resistance groups; and when all else fails, all out war, while messy, is a very lucrative means to the end of converting the resources of global south nations into private capital for the global north.
This capital is then wielded within the capitalist world to manipulate political outcomes in favor of the private owners of capital and to prevent the working class from gaining the consciousness that would enable them to struggle for the things you mentioned; health care, worker’s rights, affordable education; as they slowly strip away what was won from past struggles.
I believe this lovely quote by Ella Baker, a major activist and leader behind the civil rights movement, is relevant to the conversation;
A nice gathering like today is not enough. You have to go back and reach out to your neighbors who don’t speak to you. And you have to reach out to your friends who think they are making it good. And get them to understand that they–as well as you and I–cannot be free in America or anywhere else where there is capitalism and imperialism. Until we can get people to recognize that they themselves have to make the struggle and have to make the fight for freedom every day in the year, every year until they win it.
Your wall of text is ahistorical. Yugoslavia is a counter example. They received American aid after WW2 to rebuild.
Half of Europe lived under real socialism and it was a fucking terrible time for many reasons.
During the Cold War the Soviet led block and the non aligned movement together had sufficient resources, knowledge, and people to get their shit together independently of the US.
Your wall of text is ahistorical.
Forgive me for actually caring about the subject. Clearly you have other priorities.
You mean this aid to Yugoslavia?
Omar Bradley was also an outspoken supporter of providing aid and improving relations with Yugoslavia, stating in an address to Congress on 30 November 1950 that “In the first place, if we could even take them out of the hostile camp and make them neutral, that is one step. If you can get them to act as a threat, that’s a second step. if you can get them to actively participate on your side, that is an even further step and then, of course, if you had a commitment, where their efforts were integrated with those of ours on the defence, that would still be a further step.” This marked the beginning of US military aid to a communist nation in order to counter Soviet ambitions in the region, leading to greater strives in United States–Yugoslavia relations.
The aid to Yugoslavia that is an example of the US being hostile towards socialist states and cynically providing support to anyone that would align with it against its enemies? The same US whose loans are notoriously difficult to pay back, leaving the recipients permanently indebted to the US? Surely we are talking about different aid Yugoslavia, that couldn’t be your single counter example.
During the Cold War the Soviet led block and the non aligned movement together had sufficient resources, knowledge, and people to get their shit together independently of the US.
Yes, and for the most part they did. Let’s not for get that in 1917 the Russian Empire was still a medieval state with similar technology. After the USSR was founded; their last famine would be in 1947, which happened as a result of WWII; and I’m not sure if you remember this but they would be the only other world power than the US at the time. In the 1970s, the average soviet had higher caloric intake than the average American. They beat the US to space, fought through several invasions and international boycotts, though with a much lower GDP than the US. They had to spend 15% of their GDP to the US’s 5-7% to compete with the US militarily. This was of course reasonable to do as the US had set itself out to be a hostile threat to the very idea of socialism, but was a major sacrifice nonetheless.
Standards of living in across the Soviet bloc dropped substantially in the 90s after the fall of the USSR as corrupt governments and wealthy elite privatized the USSR’s resources. Even today, Russians earn under $10,000 per capita, about the same as the Soviet Union in the 80s. There is a lot more depth and complexity to this history than you would like to make it seem.
The Bull Moose Party. It will call back to Teddy Roosevelt and the first time we used progressive policies to take back from the robber barons.
Not very practical while the US voting system is still first-post-the-post. Y’all need to fix that first.
lets just suck off the people currently in charge until they give up the thing that keeps them in power, then. yeah. that will work.
I also don’t believe that voting is the answer to meaningful social change (though maybe it can be part of it in some contexts). But I was responding to a question that seems to.
Now is the perfect time. Breaking with the Democrats mean they have to play ball now or get electorally buried.
They will chose that latter, for sure.
there’s also a good chance that fixing it will simply fuck us even harder.
How’s that?
FPTP ensures that every vote in the winning party goes to the electoral college.
So if you vote 51% dem, and 49% republican, in a FPTP state 100% of all electoral votes are dem.
If you have a system like IRV where you split it between the electoral as fairly as possible, you lose literally half of your votes. And given that EVERY red state uses FPTP, aside from nebraska you’re running a wildly uphill battle. You should be targeting red states first. And blue states last, otherwise we will almost certainly end up in a worse position, losing TONS of our voting potential.
Yeah, right. So almost like a prisoner’s dilemma bind. And I guess a national change is fairly unlikely any time soon…
yeah, literally, you’re fucked if you do, and you’re fucked if you don’t. The only situation in which you win here is starting in red states.
also, a federal change to the law is illegal afaik, so it would have to be something that either, states individually agree on unanimously, or something the federal government can’t even control.
Unless it really works like it has the potential to. Then the repugs and dems would be totally cooked.
If the Dems don’t want to win an election, they don’t have to run a canidate.
Don’t worry about getting it right 100% perfect in the planning phase, the important thing is to just get fucking moving. If either trying to shake up the democrats or forming a third party end up being wrong, then learn from it and keep moving. We can’t afford to miss the launch window because we couldn’t agree that the plan was perfect.
The “We can’t do this because it doesn’t solve 100% of our problems” excuse.
Yeah, I’ve noticed that about the left in general, that the perfect is always the enemy of the good. Meanwhile the right’s out there like “yeah, a lot of you are going to die, but that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make”.
The halloween party
Don’t don’t don’t split the vote. Not even Trump was that stupid.
It’s already split. If Democratic party runs another centrist/neoliberal candidate it will continue to be split. There is no indication that they’ll run anyone left of kamala.
Now’s the time.
Dems are managing to split the vote all on their own it seems
yeah! keep running away and ceding terms to the billionaire media! surely if we come up with the right new magic word then everyone will understand and agree, and if fox starts demonizing “99-percenters” or whatever then we’ll just, change the name again,
The Freedom party
The Justice Party
I like Freedom Party, take that word back.
The Freedom party
I thought the Republicans were already the “freedom” party (even though they take all of your freedoms).
Also in the Netherlands the PVV (“party for freedom”) is far right so I don’t think that name reflects the right idea.
The Justice Party
Justice is pretty subjective and might not reflect the right idea either.
The Individualist Party
Ones I like after going on a Thesaurus and US Declaration of Independence wiki hole. The ones further below are just ones I thought were okay as they came to me.
===========
People’s Voice Party
American Party
Workers Party
Freedom Party
Citizens Party
Peoples Party
Revolutionary Party
Common Party
United Party
==============
Workers Party
Blue Collar Party
Trades Party
Skilled Party
Collar Party
Rust Party
American Party
Freedom Party
Citizen’s Party
Liberty Party
People’s Party
Civil Party
Center Party
Working Party
99 Party
99% Party
Luigi Party
Rights Party
Blue Party
United Party
Sovereign Party
Human Party
Marching Party
US Party
Founding Party
Founders Party
National Party
Revolutionary Party
Colonial Party
Fundamental Party
Common Sense Party
People’s Choice Party
People’s Voice Party
Laws of Nature Party
Nature Party
Equal Party
Pursuit of Happiness Party
Standing Party
Family Party
Native Party
Great Party
Fighting Party
Party in the USA
Let’s get this Party started
Party Animal
Birthday Party
The Party Party
Check out the Working Families party. They’re not in every state, but they’re a start.
Sadly
In U.S. you would still have to participate in Democratic primaries so this would come down to creating a new wing inside democratic party. This was done before and didn’t change much. The geriatric party leaders would still control everything.
Please explain
In democracies with multi-party systems you have two voting rounds. In first every party presents a candidate. If anyone gets over 50% of votes he wins and that’s that. If no one gets more than 50% two candidates with most votes go to second round.
In U.S. you have only one round and usually it’s super close. If 3rd party candidate enters the race and gets even 1% of Democrat votes the Republican will win for sure. That’s why Bernie took part in Democratic primaries. His only chance was to win those and run as Democrat candidate. That’s also why Tea Party and MAGA movements were integrated into Republican party even though they started outside of it. If you want 3rd party candidates to run in elections you would have to change the system completely.
That’s not how new parties work my friend
How do they work?
I’m not sure. Claude said
Forming a new political party in the United States is a complex process that involves navigating federal and state regulations. Here’s a step-by-step guide:
-
Develop your platform: Define your party’s core values, positions, and policy agenda to differentiate it from existing parties.
-
Create an organizational structure: Form a committee with leadership roles (chair, treasurer, secretary) and establish bylaws governing your party’s operations.
-
Register at the federal level: File with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) by submitting Form 1, “Statement of Organization” if you plan to raise/spend more than $1,000.
-
Register in individual states: Requirements vary significantly by state, but typically include:
- Gathering signatures (ranging from hundreds to hundreds of thousands)
- Filing specific paperwork
- Paying filing fees
- Meeting state-specific thresholds
-
Build local chapters: Establish a grassroots presence by organizing at the local level in communities across your target states.
-
Field candidates: Run candidates in local and state elections to build visibility and credibility.
-
Work toward ballot access: Each state has different requirements for getting your party on the ballot, often requiring a minimum percentage of votes in previous elections or petition signatures.
-
Fundraise: Develop a funding strategy that complies with campaign finance laws and regulations.
Think of forming a political party like planting a tree - you need strong roots (grassroots support), a sturdy trunk (organizational structure), and many branches (local chapters) before you can bear fruit (electoral success). The process requires patience, as most successful third parties in American history took years or decades to establish themselves.
For more detailed information, you might want to consult your state’s secretary of state office website or the FEC website (https://www.fec.gov/).
I wasn’t taking about forming a new party. There are many parties out there already. People’s Party, Green Party, Libertarian Party… I’m talking about why people don’t vote for them. If Bernie and AOC formed a new party they would face the same issues as all the other parties. In the end they would have work with Democrats and most probably would be absorbed by them.
-
The “Do Something” party
EverForward Party
Onward Together Party
Inspired Collaboration Party
Positive Frontier Party
Workers Party
Blue Collar Party
Trades Party
Skilled Party
Collar Party
Rust Party
American Party
Freedom Party
Citizen’s Party
Liberty Party
People’s Party
Civil Party
Center Party
New Democrat(ic) Party!
I fear for her safety. I hope she stays safe.
How many billionaires did they kill?
Literally my first thought. All other avenues have been exhausted.
seems a bit extreme to me, but knock yourself out i guess.
Come back to me in a week when you get someone.
so when does the revolution start?
say the literal acts you want Americans to do or you’re even more cowardly than we are. ICE can’t disappear you if you’re in europe, you don’t need to mince words
here you go:
America doesn’t need a revolution, a simple general strike will remind the capitalist bastards that they rely on us, not the other way around.
then what are you waiting for?
I’m Australian. We have mandatory voting, which makes it almost impossible for a nutjob like Trump to take control here.
But we do have little to no independent media, which does help Dutton and his cohorts (Trumpets of Patriots or some nonsense) convince people to put in donkey votes at best and vote for them at worst. All they need is a majority in parliament to push the crazy.
same, I meant what are they waiting for
Americans haven’t given up their consumerism, so a general strike is out of the question.
They need money for subscribing to digital entertainment they can be getting for free and to order food with delivery apps at 100% markup.
This generation sucks.
lol imagine not receiving your pay because you went on a strike
we did a blackout already, nothing happened. Barely even made news.
Slowly. Luigi was a good start.
If Americans want to revolt, they’ll have to do it in the shadows.
Any common man can kill a rich person. No organized resistance is required, and any organized resistance is going to be infiltrated by the FBI and shut down before anything significant happens.
It would be neat if the heroes that kill our oppressors end up getting social media famous as they do it.
when things actually start happening.
Until then, nobody cares.
If you’ve ever wondered why hitler got so far, this is why.
when things actually start happening.
gestures broadly
Things like American citizens being deported to foreign prisons when they have not committed a crime?
Travellers with legal visas at the border being imprisoned and tortured instead of just turned away?
Private citizen data being stolen from government facilities while federal employees are illegally terminated from their jobs?
States being threatened with loss of funding until the King gets a personal apology up to his standards?What things are you waiting for?
is there actually evidence of them being tortured?
Illegally detained sure. The worst thing that’s happening right now is the deportation stuff, but we’ve done this before, multiple times. Notably with the japanese.
It’s not good, don’t get me wrong, but we’ve done it before, and came back from it once. All of this shit is also being challenged by the judicial branch, whenever it gets off of its ass that is.
most of these things haven’t gone through fully, or are being immediately responded to with lawsuits. USAID for example. Immediately overturned in court.
Eagles said the detainees at the San Luis facility have no sleeping mats or blankets or windows, and the lights are on all day and night.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/canadian-detained-us-border-1.7483021
Now we could quibble about the degree of torture, but then we would be arguing about how much torture is acceptable for someone who had a visa, a job in the US, and was apprehended at the border instead of just denied entry.
And again I ask, what specific things need to happen before people will start doing something about it?
i’m not sure that’s necessarily torture, inhumane conditions for sure.
The worst one in that case is lights being on 24/7 and no sleeping arrangements. But it’s also not clear how long people are being held either.
Speaking to CBC News earlier Thursday, Jasmine’s mother, Alexis Eagles, said her daughter — who grew up in Yukon and had been living in B.C. until last year — was being detained at the San Luis Regional Detention Center after she recently tried to enter the U.S. from Mexico.
she’s canadian, visiting canada, and entered the US through mexico? Ok, so it looks like she tried to enter at the canadian border, her visa was revoked, she tried to then enter through the mexican border for some reason, after having her visa already revoked. Seems questionable and like a stupid decision to me, and even her mother seems to agree with that.
and was apprehended at the border instead of just denied entry.
i would assume that revoking a visa, is a denial of entry, especially since this literally happened at the canadian border, so maybe you want to read up a little bit on that one again.
And again I ask, what specific things need to happen before people will start doing something about it?
i don’t know, good question, it’s the hard question to answer here. The judicial branch has already done something about it. It’s definitionally illegal, it’s just a matter of it being escalated to the scotus, and hoping they side with the law.
They need to organized this momentum into a proper party, maybe call it the labor party or the progress party. But most importantly they need to not be scared to use actural leftist rhetoric and appeal to class conscious workers.
What about Working Families party?
Tbh I dont really take them seriously
Disagree. There are a huge number of republican working class that need representation, and who are not the enemy.
The anti-1% party is a much more viable proposition than going left vs right.
Show me the conservative critique of billionaires. I know how that works on the left, but the right is about preserving power structures
billionaires Don’t Share Our Values™️
QED
Unless one of your values is to take wealth from those that don’t share your values, this is not a critique that will lead to meaningful corrections. I guess that could be a conservative value, but now you’re just doing identity politics.
There are a few Republican representatives that claim to be pro-union, which has gotten them into office. I don’t know how much they can do when both parties have been generally anti-union.
Anti-1% is left vs right
I don’t believe this is true, the right won the last election but people outside the 1% voted for Trump.
You don’t have to be the 1% to vote for them.
Leftism literally originates from replacing monarchy and aristocracy with democracy, fighting the 1% is leftism.
The Democrats tried that, they tried appealing to the mythical “centrist conservative” and look where that got them, it has been proven to be a failing strategy. We dont need another “bipartisan” Democrat-like party, we need a workers party.
I’m trying to say that process is made by classifying voters in terms other than left/center/right.
There are only two political classes, those who are class conscious and those who are not. It matters not what word they’re called, only that as many people became class conscious as possible.
I can’t disagree with your definition, but I can’t believe people who are not class conscious always vote republican.
Sometimes they vote Democrat
I mean, I would love that, but if we start running a third party in national elections against the Democrats and Republicans from the left, the Republicans will win even more. If we can’t get FPTP changed I’m afraid the only option I can see is to destroy and rebuild the Democrats.
Well I guess there’s a possibility that when Trump dies the Republicans implode. I’d love to see it but their voters always toe the line. I think this time it will be whoever right wing media decides are the new bosses.
Like Democrats, many Republicans are just voting for the “lesser evil” and aren’t really loyal to their party. They just hate Democrats.
A new party sidesteps and allows those “lesser evil” Republican working class voters to jump ship. They will not ever vote for a Democrat, so stop being Democrats.
This idea is so simple, and the idea of it changing the course of history would be such a dumb-timeline thing, that I am 100% convinced it would work.
It would give them the ability to talk some harsh shit on Democrats, which could work on some Republicans. But I’d still worry that the effectiveness of their propaganda machine and the tendency of conservatives to fall in line and do as they’re told would spoil it.
Onward Together Party
EverForward Party
Inspired Collaboration Party
Positive Frontier Party
Go baby go!
It’s working kids - despite the blackout from the mass media, people are taking to the streets:
That line should be way higher than in 2017… that gives me less hope than more tbf
It… is? By over 1000.
Yes it’s around double
It should be much more than that
Why is 2017 the point of comparison?
Trump’s first term vs second term.
Comparing to the first Trump Term, I’d assume.
The worst part is that Republicans unironically believe that these are all paid actors.
How can I sign up for that job?
Bernie does UBI at 11.
Are you thinking of Andrew Yang? Bernie doesn’t support UBI.
It’s a joke; I was saying that by giving people a cushy job such as attending his rallies all over the country he’d be basically implementing UBI.
Ah, I just misunderstood.
Cranberry juice bro. Feel the burn.
No, that’s UTI. What you’re thinking of is the common abbreviation for the biggest college in the smallest US state.
Digging into who is actually paying them is a fun road to go down as well. They can’t answer. When the democrats were in charge, they’d be paid for by the government!
Now that Trump is in charge, they can’t say that anymore! So they’ll move onto another scapegoat such as Bill Gates, or NASA (and ignore that NASA gets funds from the government).
I don’t think facts or lack of evidence has ever gotten in their way before. They will just say it’s George Soros. Or they will point to fake craigslist posts which can be created by anyone.
Even then, I feel like you could just say “Oh, great, so now that Trump’s in charge, he can investigate George Soros’ finances, right?”
“It was fauci and the chemtrails”
Trump and gang is trying to have AOC charged for terrorism, so it seems to be working. She should either get DNC leadership now or finally form her own party.
Yup. Ideally she takes over and redirects and repairs the burning husk that is the dems. It they don’t give her leadership splintering with bernie would be a godsend
If Bernie was 20 or 30 years younger, AOC and him would smash the fucking Government of Putin.
I’m educated enough in American politics to understand elusive news about Musk ans Trump but about not that Bernie guy. Is that a first or last name and what was the point of the rally? Also is a rally like a démonstration?
It’s a first name. He’s a politician somewhere between PS and UDI on the spectrum, so for Americans he is an extreme radical leftist, for normal people a basically sensible centrist with some heart. Has a cult following for a long time, seems like a nice guy probably.
A rally is like a demonstration but with establishment politicians speaking.
so for Americans he is an extreme radical leftist
literally only right wingers would call him that.
That description is a bit tongue in cheek, but most Americans would call him far left or whatever they think is a non pejorative way to say the same thing. Just look at this very thread, you have people calling him a socialist and “truly left”, they are not right wingers, or at least they wouldn’t think of themselves that way, and you probably wouldn’t either. And like, yeah, he has some lefty ideas, but globally speaking he runs a pretty centrist platform. I guess it’s necessary in America, supporting trade unions and healthcare is as far left as you can go, maybe his personal views are a bit better and it is just a calculation.
…which are essentially the entire electorate and media apparatus supporting both parties…
Bernie Sanders is a Senator for the state of Vermont. Be has run for president and went pretty far on a socialist platform. Far enough that when you refer to him by his first name while discussing politics, just about every American knows who you are talking about. If there is a truly left wing politician in American government, it’s Bernie. And while it doesn’t say a lot about the state of things, it does say quite a bit that so many people showed up to hear him speak.
LOL socialist
We gotta put all our energy into what they’re doing. They’re the rare few on the left that really understand what is going on and how to start fighting it.
Cool. So what policy changes did they enact? None? Then who gives a fuck?
Action, not words, AOC. Action, not words, Bernie. Fucking stfu and DO something.
Getting their base energized and angry about the current situation is doing a lot more than introducing a bill that has a 0.00% chance of getting passed. The chances of them talking to the high ranking party officials and getting them to reverse course probably has the same chance of success.
It helps to use your brain to actually think about the outcomes of actions. On the off chance that I’m just being an asshole, please let me know what is a better use of their time.
“introducing a bill that has a 0.00% chance of getting passed” is Bernie’s function.
So he can look like the real leftist who is really trying.In this environment … bipartisan politics haven’t played a meaningful role in national US government since … Oh. George W Bush, maybe.
Litmus tests for the rottenness of our overlords
what have you been doing? besides typing on a keyboard at people
Have you ever met this buddy of mine?
That poor Bill, brought into the world because @MisterOwl thinks it’s better to have a useless, irrelevant stack of paper then to start solidifying a base of people to act as the real opposition party.
