I mean the social democrats had a similar slogan:

“Governments come and go. […] After Hitler, we come to power! It will once again be the German republicans who will have to clean up the mess. We are preparing for that day!”

• Karl Hölterman, the leader of the democratic militia „Reichsbanner Schwarz-Rot-Gold“, 1933

Not at all. But it sounds like you think they haven’t done anything.

Centrist Democrats take the very idea as a greivously offensive blasphemy against all they hold dear.

We’re already seeing the beginnings of that with various candidates, but I agree that we need it to happen more rapidly.

The issue, in a twist of capitalist fuckery, is that running a campaign is massively expensive, and the barrier to entry is often too high for the people who should be running for office. Thankfully, there’s orgs helping with that, but it’s still an uphill battle.

Forget running, they need to be voting.

Sanders lost both primaries due to Millenials and Zoomers being so allergic to turnout that they even turn their noses up at their own guy in the primary.

This is easy win territory for young voters, the gap between current performance and just matching their share of the general population alone would push the DNC significantly to the left, let alone if they started showing up with the easy dominating share they could take if they spent half the effort turning out for the cause that they do painting signs and tweeting about it.

I have no special affinity for either of the Clintons. However, it cannot be denied that there is a certain type of leftist (often very loud, and probably the minority, thankfully) that behave like petulant children when they don’t get their pretty pony, whoever that is.

Don’t get me wrong - I’d like that pretty pony, too. I just realize that even if people don’t love Hillary, she’d still be better than OJ (Orange Jesus) and so once the primaries are over, voting for donnie to really stick it to the man, or sit out, or vote for some completely unserious party like the Green Party is not really teaching anyone the lesson(s) that the people stamping their feet think they are.

OJ represents a very existential threat. Just because he flubbed the RW agenda the first time around doesn’t mean he won’t succeed in destroying America if given another chance.

Doesn’t really matter if she is well liked, no other Democrat will challenge her in 2024. For starters, it is too late to get on the primary ballot.

Tell me you don’t understand how party politics & voting work without telling me you don’t understand how party politics & voting work.

The why not is that he wants to run again and he’s the president. Why do you think the Democrats would say no to him? He’s the president.

Only on the internet:one side of the argument posts a lengthy list of facts, and the response is simply “fuck all”

The Inflation Reduction Act was a big deal internationally, but I feel like you and I have already talked about it, so I don’t want to rehash it.

For everyone else’s safe, I’ll just say that even though it isn’t enough, Biden still achieved a historic level of funding for sustainability with the IRA, to the point that it forced European countries to pass similar legislation so their green energy companies could still be competitive with US green energy companies. I would’ve preferred to see legislation like this 15-20 years ago, but the second best time is always the present.

The man has kept plenty of campaign promises. Pretending he’s done nothing for the American people at every level is just dishonest. People have the right to express bullshit if they choose, and I have an equal right to call it out.

Like which things in particular? Biden has done things, and having an image with BS undermines his actual accomplishments.

Or I wrote that before your edit. You do know people can see when you edit a post on Lemmy, right?

I am someone who is against opinion pieces in general, regardless of the content. Nate Silver also has an argument against them: the main difference with an opinion piece and normal journalism is that opinions don’t need to be fact checked. In which case there’s no reason for them to exist. If the argument cannot survive fact checking, it shouldn’t be published.

Removed by mod

No, these are op-eds, which are written by contributors and are different from editorials which, as the name suggests, are written by the editorial board. Op-eds traditionally were printed opposite of the editorial page --hence the name-- and were meant to be a space for subject matter experts or other thought leaders to publish opinion pieces that may or may not reflect the views of the editorial board.

I know these things because even though I’ve never worked for a newspaper, I am old enough to have gotten an undergrad degree in journalism back in the 90s before the newspaper industry died.

Good points, thanks for the peek into the industry. Without the usual sarcasm I will say you sound like you know what you are talking about. 🙂

deleted by creator

So the editorial staff has no say in what is published in their newspaper? That’s definitely a different view of what the word “editor” means than I’ve had in the past, you’ve got a point there.

Having said that, I got a much less snarky answer explaining some things already, so your sideswipe wasn’t necessary. Thank you sir and I hope the rest of your day is as lovely as you are.

I know these things because even though I’ve never worked for a newspaper, I am old enough to have gotten an undergrad degree in journalism back in the 90s before the newspaper industry died.

Maybe it’s not my abysmal media literacy but the fact that you know these things because you have a degree in journalism. Huh. Guess I’ll find something where you have a less than perfect understanding of my area of expertise or where I’ve had some secondary education, and be sure to point out how abysmal your literacy in that area is.

It just looks ridiculous, doesn’t it? Who would take them seriously?

Right, and instead of presenting the facts in an entertaining and sincere way, he writes a deliberately false and misleading title and article that bolsters conservatives and is intended to scare liberals.

Unproductive, fear-mongering b*******.

Removed by mod

After seeing how the super delegates worked against Sanders

Especially because he was almost guaranteed to win against Trump, but they know where the money comes from and decided to go with Hillary, who was historically unlinked as a candidate. I think this ought to have demonstrated that real change cannot come from within the Democratic party and that they are not willing to be the left party people wish they were, they’re part of the downward spiral. (And yes they’re better than the GOP, always have to get that in for the concerned voters out there.)

lack of confidence in our democracy

It’s funny how this idea of “free and fair elections” has recently come up in such a historically corrupt system, it’s true that elections today are better than they’ve ever been in this respect, 2008 onward were incredibly tight on this. Seems like people forget how the 2001 election was stolen. Historically it’s almost a joke how bad they were. It was routine for busses to drive around picking up people and dropping them off at voting stations in exchange for a bit of money. It hasn’t even been 60 years since everyone in the US could vote! At first you basically needed to be a landowner and even produce from your land to be able to vote. The men’s suffrage movement was like a century before women’s suffrage.

indeed. the democrats have been enablers to this whole process

You have to understand that most people don’t pay that much attention to politics. They see a woman who embodies everything they hate about the US government establishment, and they see a guy who is raging against said establishment. If Dems had let Bernie win Trump would have been crushed.

“pro-life” is a dog whistle. it’s anti-woman and everyone knows it

I can’t follow this argument. Try to be more concise.