Correct, Biden just cozying up to Trump when he should be using emergency powers to arrest this madman who under the 14th Amendment isn’t even eligible to be President was absolutely sickening to me.
Biden doesn’t even know wtf is going on. If he does, the last thing he’s doing is trying to salvage his legacy. He’s got no fight in him.
He truly fucked us. Not saying Harris would’ve won necessarily, but having only 3 months to run a campaign against someone who’s been running for 8 years is tricky. You can see why given the number of people googling if Biden dropped out…
A legacy of “Used powers given to him by the Supreme Court to stop Hitler 2.0” would be better than “Sucked Trump’s dicker harder than Elon did.”
For real. Dudes got 15-20 years left on this Earth, at the maximum. Stopping Trump and actually making sure he is charged for his crimes would be quite the footnote in the history books. I can’t imagine being that old and passing an opportunity like that up, but then again I am a simple prole.
He’s not Hitler 2.0 yet though. This is Hitler 2.0 RC 1.
The history books won’t know what will not have had happened.
What I’m saying is, if a madman is stopped before he goes mad, then wouldn’t he then never have been a madman? Was the one stopping him, justified? Can you defend their actions based on their presuppositions, even if the descent into madness is already evident?
Right so… “let’s do the thing the fascist threatens to do because we’re right and it’s justified” is not the same thing as the fascist saying “we’ll do it because we’re right and it’s justified”.
Easy to justify the means when you believe in the ends… but of course every one thinks they are right and that everyone else will come to believe they are right, thusly conveniently avoiding any bad consequences.
Do you have any idea what would have happened if Biden just arrested Trump?
Breaking the rules isn’t fascism though. Fascism is fascism.
What do you think is a more ethical choice:
a) uphold the law, knowing it will let fascist come to power and kill thousands
a) break the law and stop him
Breaking the rules isn’t fascism though. Fascism is fascism.
It is precisely fascism. It’s ignoring the rule of law to achieve authoritarian aims. Why is it ok when you agree with the outcome and not ok when you don’t? But way more importantly, once you do it you cannot go back. If Biden did this and Trump ended up winning - make no mistake Biden has no authority to remove candidates from ballots - then Trump would feel completely justified in jailing his opponents.
What do you think is a more ethical choice
A. Because the premise of your choice is flawed. You do not know that breaking the law would stop him. You do not know -with certainty- that not breaking the law would result in that outcome. But we do know that being authoritarian to achieve aims we believe in is no better than people we disagree with doing the exact same. What would happen if Biden was successful in stopping Trump but then, because we wouldn’t ever keep unfettered presidential power… right? RIGHT? We’re the “good” guys… what would happen if MAGA Republicans won in 2028? I doubt we’d ever have another election again.
Uh, Trump feels completely justified in jailing his enemies already. Will it happen? I’m not excited to wait and find out.
True. But the one thing we’ve got going for us is that it is demonstrably wrong and we didn’t fall into the trap of proving it was justified.
Edit: well at least two people think it’s ok to use authoritarian political power to counter authoritarian political power. Do you really think that ever works out? Note that this is very distinct from something like civil war or overthrowing the government. It’s doing the exact thing you don’t want your opponent to do.
Tis a risky game, doing what’s right.
“what’s right” is, sadly not an agreed-upon concept.
Are you really achieving authoritarian aims if the end goal is not authoritarian?
Ah, the benevolent dictator fallacy. Because no person or party would ever abuse power or fail to give it up once the “aim” is achieved. There certainly would be no expansion in what the “aim” is. And definitely the people we agree with are always good.
I doubt we’d ever have another election again.
With Trump in office, and Project 2025 in the pipeline, I doubt we’re ever going to have another election anyway.
I doubt we’re ever going to have another election anyway.
I sometimes feel that way. But I still have some faith in people, particularly Gen Z. I believe after the shit hits the fan and keeps hitting it for 4 years, that we’ll turn this around. And because we didn’t agree to make presidents kings we can actually do that.
Do you have any idea what would have happened if Biden just arrested Trump?
If he would’ve done it early in his term, I suspect Trump would not have been elected president again. But instead he pushed the idea through some absurdly bureaucratic system that allowed Trump to run the clock out on everything.
If he would’ve done it early in his term, I suspect Trump would not have been elected president again.
We would have had a civil war or at least an attempted one. Then the next time a MAGA-esque Republican came along, which would probably be in 2028 or 32 they’d feel free to completely take the gloves off. We would have validated and enabled that behavior by doing it ourselves.
I do find it fascinating that you seem to be attributing this all to Biden. We have a relatively weak executive branch and separation of powers through different branches of government for a reason. Overturning that is the worst possible idea.
Yeah, it might be just to arrest him, but America clearly doesn’t give a fuck. The fact of the matter is the people picked Trump this election, if nothing else arresting him will only galvanize his followers and legitimatize their own turn to fascism. There’s no good outcome in this scenario, we missed that opportunity on election night. It sucks but right now we’re the kid playing with fire; obviously we need to learn the hard way. We should’ve learned from the last trump presidency you say? Yeah, we really, really should’ve.
Biden cozying up to a candidate the party portrayed as literally Hitler during the campaign will never not be funny to me
“The establishment party must become an anti-establishment party”
Have you all learned nothing from 2016? Democrats will rather let Trump win that let this happen.
The slide to the right is no accident nor is it ignorance. Fool me once…
Are you suggesting that Democrats want alt-right leadership in power?
They want corporarions to stay in power. The 2 parties are just flavours of capital.
Neither are for the public.
They and their donors would prefer thst over a Bernie win.
Nothing has convinced me of that more than Biden and Trump’s sudden bromance
Yes, it’s good for their fundraising
alt-right
Stop pretending this is a thing. It’ll make it a lot easier to understand.
Going further right didn’t help, now we need to go as left as possible
Radical ideas like Universal healthcare, paid maternity leave, free child care, taxing the rich.
Radical ideas the rest of the 1st world had had for 50 years and successfully implemented.
We’re well aware, and it’s honestly getting old hearing “wElL tHe ReSt Of ThE wOrLd,” yeah, the UK voted to leave the EU and ousted a party to replace them with Labour who don’t want to hold another referendum on the vote.
India continues to elect the populist and nationalist Modi as their PM, because he gives them bags of rice with his name on them and tells them it’s ok to hate Muslims.
Germany is flirting with fascism again, and they’ve got all the stuff Americans are apparently too fucking stupid to get done, right?
Dutch police just rounded up a bunch of pro-Palestinian protesters, protesting peacefully, and then started beating them for not moving fast enough.
Oh, and the majority of European countries are freaking the fuck out about immigration and the floods of immigrants trying to come into their countries. And funnily enough, your politicians speak about immigrants the same way our Republicans do.
But you’re right, the people who weren’t alive 50 years ago when all of this should have been done, yeah, that’s our fucking fault too, right?
LA told me
"You’ll be a pop star
All you have to change
Is everything you are."
Ok, and white must become black.
Al Jolsonmaxxing
Wow, if only there had been an anti establishment candidate running for president as a democrat in 2016… too bad…
Yeah if only he hadn’t lost the popular vote TWICE in the primaries.
Or there needs to be an anti-establishment party, since the Democrats can never be one.
The issue is that unless we get rid of our first-past-the-post voting system and then enact further systemic change we are going to be stuck with the Republicans and Democrats.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
Thankfully as Trump demonstrated, a political party can be hijacked to be whatever you want. But we need to do that to the Democratic Party, like Bernie tried to do. This will involve educating people out of their neoliberal positions and ideas but it can be done.
This will involve educating people out of their neoliberal positions and ideas but it can be done.
As I get older and meet more people, I find this goal harder and harder to reach. People are dumb.
I think it starts with a smart and leftist, populist candidate, who can convince the dumb ones amongst us to follow them blindly. Then they will be educated by seeing how better things are for them under leftist leadership.
Bernie, like you said, was basically trying to be this for the US.
We can help too by educating people online. =)
Or maybe just ban “parties” and this phony, slaver system
well just in time for the supreme-court-approved executions of the anti-establishment politicians. imagine not getting this after Bernie had massive support despite all the efforts of the Democratic party, and after the orange cunt winning just by paying lip service to being anti-establishment…
seriously, that’s all you needed to do. not actually do anything, not help anybody. just fucking lie and pretend you give a shit about people grievances about being crushed by the system.
you couldn’t even clear that bar on the fucking ground, and lost to a cunt who’s known for firing people, not paying for anything, and shitting on a gold toilet. because you’re physically incapable of criticizing systemic oppression.
Kamala raised over $1 billion dollars for her campaign, most of which was from small donors.
If that doesn’t tell the Dems they don’t need oligarch money, nothing will.
They know that. Problem is the WANT billionaires money too ^^
Then they spent it on high per hour political consultants who paid Beyonce to perform
Except Beyonce literally didn’t perform for Harris?
Oh. I heard Oprah got a mil, but that could be fake
I heard Elon was born on the moon, but that could be fake too. I wish there was a way to know for sure, or at least see a small amount of evidence one way or the other.
That’s a mere pittance compared to what the wealthy actually spend on conservatives and messaging. That’s 1 billion dollars every 4 years. Fox news, daily wire, OANN, and all the myriad of other propaganda outlets churn through more than that a year.
Yes, but we’re not talking about conservatives.
The Democratic party has a problem, and that problem is what Democratic voters want doesn’t align with what Democratic donors want. The voters want progressive policies passed, while the donors want the same neoliberalism that keeps them rich. And trying to appease one of those groups obviously alienates the other.
If any Democratic politician truly wants to help the American population, the fact that Kamala raised so much money in such a short amount of time, and the fact that many states passed progressive policies even though they voted for Trump, should tell them that they don’t need to kowtow to the wealthy because the voters will support them. Unfortunately, I don’t think they’re going to learn that lesson.
Republicans, of course, don’t have this problem because their voters and their donors all want the same thing.
I donated to Kamala’s campaign ($10), but then I realized what direction they were taking around the DNC and stopped giving them money.
Not all doners agreed with her platform, just like how not all voters did.
The whole point of this was asking why Democrats are catering to wealthy conservative donors instead of progressive or left leaning voters. I just stated the reason why. The 1 billion dollars collected from small donors every four years for a presidential run is nice. But it’s nothing compared to what the wealthy dump into messaging and campaigning constantly. Until such time as small donors can even come close to remotely matching that. Sustaining entire media Outlet ecosystems to counter the propaganda from conservatives. Democrats aren’t going to give up trying to get some of that wealthy conservative money
What happens to the amount they didn’t spend?
they’re in debt
Maybe if they go bankrupt we can start a new party that cares what its voters think and doesnt shit the bed so often.
nothings stopping you right now
Money, time, and connections are pretty big things you need to start a new political party.
It’s not like advertising a garage sale. I like your spirit though.
another party failing won’t make any of that easier
X for doubt on that. Im sure they’ve said that though. That’s a lot of really expensive campaign parties for a three month run
Overall, they are stil about ~100mm in the black.
Iirc, they had 140mm in debt and 240mm in cash on hand.
They spent stupidly, they were buying ads in Kentucky and Texas, instead of focusing on swing states and progressive policies to bring dems out in force.
It was celebrity money, you know, the same people that were telling people they were “just like them.”
Really awesome point! I hope that becomes apparent to them
Narrator: It didn’t.
Just like GOP refugees created the Tea Party, we need to rally around the greatest symbol of the French Revolution, and build a Guillotine Party.
Let’s call it the Rule of Law Party. One law for all of us. An end to elite impunity.
I’ve always thought “the guillotine society” had a nice ring to it… Not party isn’t bad either
I fear it’s too late. Unless the party can be taken by force it won’t be enough and we only have 4 years. If dems didn’t snub Bernie this all probably wouldn’t have happened. Our choices used to be two flavors of corporate fascism, now it’s far right vs corporate. Dems are better on social issues, but it’s not enough.
Dems are clearly better on economic issues as well. Not nearly good enough, but better. The problem is that they will only go so far, and they won’t talk about it, out of fear of angering their wealthy patrons.
Well, why don’t you tell your Republican friends and families that the GOP dosent do shit for them?
Not sure why this applies to what I said, but my few Republican friends and family are uncomfortably aware of what I think about their politics.
You stated Dems are better at economics. Have you told your conservative colleagues that?
Or maybe they should just leave the Democratic party and start a new progressive party? We have less than 4 years, but that’s also the most time we’ll ever have.
The problem with that strategy is that our democracy uses a first-past-the-post voting system which trends towards a two-party system.
Then become one of the two parties.
There already are two. We must co-opt one with a populist candidate. The Republican Party was already hijacked by Trump. That leaves the Democratic Party.
Bernie tried twice, Democrats demonstrated their ability to stop that shit in its tracks. It will not work.
The only solution is for progressives to abandon the Party and start their own to replace it. The US has replaced parties before, it can be done again.
The Democrat establishment wants power and for that they have to win elections. So having an anti establishment candidate is preferable to them over a Republicans victory. If anything good came out of the last election, it is that Trump as horrible as he is can still win elections against an establishment Democrat, so the Democrats have to change.
Also changing the parties does not work. The problem is systematic and the US really needs to change its election system, to get better politics.
They sure didn’t look like they wanted to win this election.
They switch candidates in the middle of the campaign, because Biden’s polling was that bad.
Trump tried once and it worked. Neoliberal ideas are entrenched in the minds of Americans. Neoliberalism only allows change to the people in charge of systems as it asserts, incorrectly, that our institutions are flawless. Since neoliberals only consider changing people, it is much easier for a fascist to convince a neoliberal to change the people in society. Where as it is much harder for a progressive or a socialist to convince a neoliberal to enact systemic change or redistribute wealth respectively.
In short, people with neoliberal ideas in their head need to fully internalize neoliberalism as a scam.
Abandoning the Democrats will not result in them being replaced. They will continue to exist by moving further to the right, as Democrats like Chris Murphy have already proposed.
Starting a successful third party is mathematically impossible under a FPTP system. Third party candidates can only be spoiler candidates.
Where’s the Whig Party?
Why must one of those parties be the Democrats? I don’t see no fucking Whigs around, do you?
Because unlike the Wigs, the Democrats are not divided over slavery. They can just move to the right on contemporary issues as Chris Murphy details here.
Third party doesn’t work. You have to do what trump did, 1 man coup from the inside.
Apparently Republican voters are gonna set the mark at R regardless of who it is, so how about having someone like Bernie run in the Republican primary.
It didn’t work with Bernie for more reasons than the parties resistance. A lot of people on the left that dislike the party don’t seem to understand that you still have to join the party and get involved with it if you want the party to move left. Party members and active involved people shape where the party goes. We absolutely can shift the Dems left, but it means holding our noses and becoming the party. The Dems have always been an open door, big tent, party. Walk into the tent and change minds…
The Dems didn’t let a single Palestinian-American speak at the DNC this year. The tent is big enough for Cheney, not us.
Yeah, the Dems are made up of scared moderates, because the left has completely abandoned politics and conceded all their power. If you want the party to move left, become the party. It really isn’t mystical or complicated, power goes to those that take it. The left would rather stand on the outside looking in be cause at least they can complain and blame everyone else but themselves.
I tried to run for a small local position with the DNC using one of their arms that is for “funding and supporting small progressives” well that first bit is a lie. First question they asked me was how much money I had and if I had rich family to fund my campaign.
I told them not really but I would rather talk policy and maybe alternatives to spending money and they told me to pretend to be religious to find a good church to get donations from cause there are some rich churches.
I told them I was a Buddhist and happy for it, and they suggested I either find some other wealthy Buddhists cause they were sure I should be able to find some or maybe I should consider not running at all and just donating to this group or volunteering for free to them.
This will take acceptance and support from the people that run the party and all the wealthy party owners that view themselves better than working class because of their connections and wealth.
I’ve worked for the party and even helped recruit candidates. Some of what you’re writing here seems very inconsistent with how we did things at least in Minnesota and Wisconsin. No one would ever address religion or social class at all here. And funding your own campaign is usually a fools errand, because raising money helps people become invested in your campaign.
But candidates are still expected to fundraise in some way shape or form. You can’t be a viable candidate in today’s world without money. Until elections are publicly funded and banned from raising their own money, money will always be necessary. The ability to fundraise also proves viability, people that raise money show people are quite literally invested in your campaign, making them statistically likely to vote and more likely to volunteer for ‘get out the vote’ efforts.
I think you mean popular, not populist, but yes.
No, I mean populist. Populism is what is popular right now.
https://www.wordnik.com/words/populism
A political philosophy supporting the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the privileged elite.
Trump didn’t run on any economic populism this year and won. Kamala did, and lost. It’s the electorate stupid!
She scrubbed all economic populism from her campaign in the last couple months and pivoted to campaigning with neoconservatives.
Trump ran on a populist platform that wasn’t limited to economic populism. Harris didn’t have any compelling narrative whatsoever.
It’s the electorate stupid!
It’s worth while for the electorate to learn the right lessons. Otherwise there wouldn’t be people in this comment section trying to get everyone to learn the wrong lessons.
We have already seen a third party take over a major party. The current problem with the GOP is because it absorbed the Tea Party.
With the right symbol to rally behind, we can do the same thing to the Democratic party. We need to build the Guillotine Party.
I am so down for it as long we get to use the symbol at least once for real.
Oh, I’m all for ranked choice voting, but in order for it to have any meaning we also need a plurality of parties. They also need time to build and I’m sure these two would start a good one if allowed.
Although the likelihood of political parties having any weight at all past January is anyone’s guess…
Without rank choice voting any progressive party would act as a spoiler for the Democratic Party. Debilitating ourselves in this way isn’t particularly useful for leveraging power to create better outcomes for the environment and minorities.
Then the Democratic Party had best make sure that progressives have no reason to split off and form their own party, huh?
Why does it always fall to progressives to get behind Democrats and never the other way around?
Debilitating ourselves in this way isn’t particularly useful for leveraging power to create better outcomes for the environment and minorities.
Oh thank god Democrats don’t throw vulnerable populations under the bus every chance they get.
Then the Democratic Party had best make sure that progressives have no reason to split off and form their own party, huh?
The FPTP voting system ensures that they do not have a reason.
Why does it always fall to progressives to get behind Democrats and never the other way around?
The FPTP voting system and entrenchment of neoliberalism in the minds of the American public for over 40 years from both mainstream political parties starting with Reagan. This is may be the case for western countries and democracies more broadly as well. Currently, neoliberal ideas cause a contradiction when a person encounters progressive or socialist ideas. Along the lines of:
Why would we fix our institutions if they are flawless? What’s the hurry to solve our problems if we are at the end of history?
Some useful and correct resolutions of these contradictions are:
Our institutions are flawed because they were made by us, flawed humans. The time to advert climate change, fix systemic inequalities, the reduce the wealth gap is now. Incremental changes will run out the clock, as they don’t address the root causes. There will be hundreds of millions if not billions of causalities unless these issues are addressed sooner rather than later.
Neoliberal ideas must be pulled from the minds of Americans like a weed. Or like one of those radishes in Super Mario Bros 2. Then people will be able to embrace ideas like systemic change to institutions and wealth redistribution from the rich to everyone else.
When asked about socialism, if a person responds with ‘socialism doesn’t work’ or ‘the Soviet Union collapsed’ those are the tells that a person needs to full internalize neoliberalism as a scam.
And maybe a history lesson about how the Soviet Union was actually an authoritarian communist dictatorship and not a socialist country. The government owned the means of the production, not the people, and the government wasn’t representative of the people.
Oh thank god Democrats don’t throw vulnerable populations under the bus every chance they get.
It’s better than the Democrats intentionally murdering people in camps. Neoliberals in office aren’t going to solve our problems, but it gives us time to do the work to solve them. Like educating people and co-opting the Democratic Party in one of their primaries. Like Trump did to the Republicans and Bernie tried to do to the Democrats. edit: typo
It’s better than the Democrats intentionally murdering people in camps.
The would in a heartbeat if they thought they could get one Republican vote for doing so.
Neoliberals in office aren’t going to solve our problems, but it gives us time to do the work to solve them.
Neoliberals ARE our problem. We’ve had half a century of incrementalists demanding that we just wait a little more for them to get around to moving the needle to the left, and instead they move so far to the right that they’re buddy-buddy with Netanyahu and the Cheneys. Incrementalism says “too soon” until it’s too late.
The would in a heartbeat if they thought they could get one Republican vote for doing so.
Again, don’t lie. The Democratic Party can of course move that far, but they have yet to do so.
Neoliberals ARE our problem.
Neoliberalism is the problem. Neoliberals can be tomorrow’s socialists. But we have to put in the work and educate people. My argument already refuted this point, I recommend reading it.
A few weeks ago, I’d have agreed with you, but now? The Democratic party that just lost 10 million votes… We’ll spoil that party? The one that just lost a fair election to a convicted felon? You want to protect them from being spoiled?
We have 4 years, which is, again, the most time we’ll ever get to try something like this because that’s how 4 year election cycles work. What is it exactly that they’re doing successfully you don’t want to spoil?
We’ll spoil that party?
Yes, running third party candidates in a FPTP voting system is how the spoiler effect works.
You want to protect them from being spoiled?
Because of the FPTP voting system our democracy will always trend towards a two-party system. Until we enact systemic change, we will be stuck with the Democrats and the Republicans. As long as the Democrats are further to the left of fascism we should vote for them and avoid limiting our power with third party candidates.
We the people and our interests are what avoiding the spoiler effect protects.
What is it exactly that they’re doing successfully you don’t want to spoil?
The Democrats are neoliberals. They are easier to push on social issues and the environment. The Democratic Party is the party progressives and socialists are going to want to co-opt with a populist candidate. Like Bernie tried to do and Trump did to the Republicans. But more to the point, they do not want to kill minorities and destroy the environment.
Rather than seeking a moral victory over Democrats we should look for ways to leverage power for the people Republicans want to hurt. Doing otherwise makes the harm done to minorities the cost of doing business.
I mean yes, that’s been the playbook for 8 years. More like 16 if you count what people actually thought Obama was going to be (and had record turn out). Try, try again?
The lives of millions of minorities and the Earth’s climate are at stake now. Minorities will notice the difference in the short term, but we will all notice the difference in the long term. Assuming we still have elections and a Democratic Party going forward, yes. We delay fascism and co-opt the Democratic Party. edit: typos
It’s adorable that you expect anyone to buy that the Democratic Party is movable after they just spent a whole ass year refusing to budge on fucking genocide.
The Democratic Party is the party progressives and socialists are going to want to co-opt with a populist candidate. Like Bernie tried to do and Trump did to the Republicans.
This is the key part I recommend you read.
Also, this is off topic, but Harris did pledge to end the war. It was in the news. She called for a ceasefire at least three times. If you care about the Palestinians, then voting for the party that wants to end the war is more useful than allowing the party that wants Israel to finish the job to take power.
The Tea Party did not spoil a GOP election. The GOP caved and adopted their platform.
The Democratic Party will do the same thing with the Guillotine Party.
What?
They are the establishment.
Thus the call to become something else; become being the operative word, meaning to change from what they currently are.
You guys really need a third party already.
The issue is that we have third parties, but because of our first-past-the-post system their candidates act as spoilers mathematically speaking.
I live in a nation with more then two party’s and first past the post (it sucks). You guys need to stop making up reasons to not have viable 3rd parties.
It’s not made up, it’s math. And if your nation doesn’t enact systemic change to its system, your democracy will inevitably trend towards two viable political parties as well. edit: typo
They cannot and they will not. Please do not fall for them yanking the football away from you again. AOC and Bernie exist to give you hope and thereby capture your vote for a party that has no intention of ever fighting for the working class in a meaningful way. We need a real alternative but we’ve given away so much of our collective power (unions) that it’s hard to see a hopeful path forward. Organize with your neighbors and start building trusted communities that will fight together when needed.
Do you mean to say that AOC and Bernie are unknowingly treated as pawns by the Democrat party or that they are knowingly misleading voters into thinking the party leans further left than reality?
I would assume if anything it’s the former, and Democrat idealism has lost against the reality that a third labor party cannot take root while first-past-the-post is the rule of the game.
Would it matter which?
The DNC insiders clearly have no intention of letting the public have a voice in the party. Having a couple socialists around is supposed to secure the vote from the left. Neither Sanders nor AOC(nor other progressives) are leaving the party anytime soon.
It’s fair to argue that splitting the party means losing to the right but the current strategy doesn’t seem to be working out either.
It would matter if they ultimately decided to break away from the Dems.
Sanders already left the party
Technically he’s always been independent but primaried for office under a democratic ticket.
So fair? The dems still use him in this way and he is a close enough ally to be synonymous. Unless there’s more recent news?
Good. We all should. The party is dead and barely alive by the shambling corpses of pelosi and Biden assuming they will be able to control it forever.
As the other comment says, it hardly matters. Fwiw I think they are well-intentioned but if their strategy is working for anyone, it’s working for the corporatist dem party.
Like that’ll ever happen.
The party is held by a group of political elites who are all about the establishment and power.
There needs to be a new party, a labor party, to represent the working class Americans.
I agree.
I voted for Harris because Dems are supposed to be the establishment. Supposed to be a return normal boring politics.That’s obviously not going to work. Now we need an actual working class, under a few million dollar a year takehome party.
It would be easier for progressives to take over the DNC and state Dems than to form an entirely new party and make it viable.
That would be ideal, but the people who are already there will never give it up.
And the problem with creating a new party is that it will divide the votes, while the conservatives are all united under the Republican party. Unless they split too. Maybe the non Trumpists can split off and form a more traditional party. But again, they’re too afraid to split THEIR votes.
Why not both? It’s easier to force your way under and into that tent/coalition with an organized front to do the talking. A political party that has well defined goals and objectives, while speaking for a big group, is bound to be better at working within a broader coalition than what we have now.
A reverse tea-party movement. That could work. We were laughing when the tea party started because it seemingly broke GOP unity, but they managed to shift the Overton window so far to the right that the GOP now is the tea party, and Dems are GOP lite. Reversing that trend is extremely necessary.
