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.
The corporate Democrats don’t want to piss off their owners
There the old saw about not interrupting your enemy when he’s making mistakes. But if the tables where turned the Repugs would be screaming holy hell non stop.
That’s the thing, they are not hiding, they have already been paid
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.
They are all older than the polio vaccine and have no idea how technology works or social media
Democrats think republican voters are paying attention as closely as they do and not, in fact, just waiting to be told what to believe and how to think about it.
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
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.
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.
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
-
During the general election: Easy there friend, I agree with you but now is not the time. Do party building during midterms.
During midterms: Oh this is the time for a united front. Simply promote third parties between elections.
Between elections: You’re taking momentum away from smaller local challengers right now.
The ratchet effect exists because leftists would rather bitch every general election and allow Republicans to be elected, while simultaneously not participating in the primaries.
The fascists knew the primaries were the secret, and their voters are generally loyal in November. Every member of the GOP that opposes Trump is removed in the primaries, and the party moves further right.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
Are there any statistics about people who complain about nominees not participating in primaries?
No, but ShitLibs operate on vibes and not facts anyway. If they operated on facts, they’d notice their party has done nothing but help push the Overton Window right for damn near half a century now.
The Dem party is an enrichment cult that happens to tackle a few social issues.
pretend to tackle actually. its called wet your appetite, or throw the dog a bone. its limited by design, so they dont lose thier political capital in getting elected next election.
Democrats like Democrats who are Democrats.
Democrats in their eyes mean closeted fascist rethuglicans who are all talk and no action, hardly do any work to confront those less fortunate and both parties are willing allowing hundreds of innocuous Palestinians get brutally disembowelled and tooled into human shields.
The same kind of gutless white trash dirtbag that Tyrant Trump and his fascist regime of bloated war criminals and planet killers choose to dominion over
Democrats hate DSA because they are Democrats
Democrats in this case being truly devoted and compassionate leaders and activists who are actively trying to undo the intensive damage and corruption done by conservatives and conservative embezzler, vouching to lower prices, sending fresh supplies and insurance for those in need, trying to keep out highly dangerous and homicidal officials, taking a stance on Republican policies and how imperialistic and tyrannically sadist it is, they are everything a moderate chunk of the left side of the party are SUPPOSED to do!
Hakeem Jeffries trying to distance himself from them really show which political ideology he really represents.
Lets just say it’s incredibly wrong, yet also presented as the opposite of “wrong”! You know who I’m talking about.
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.
they just cant stand having a happy population. its gotta be strifed for those losers
it’s almost like a two party system was a bad idea
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’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
