top 87 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 170 points 2 months ago (36 children)

It really goes to show how both parties have been captured by corporate and religious interests, and everyone's on the take and making bank on insider trading.

Nearly the entire system is rotten, bar a few who seem to still be holding on to do good for the people (AOC, Bernie, Mamdani, El-Sayed, Tallarico, etc).

  • source
  • hideshow 36 child comments
  • [–] 51 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Well it does feel like this cycle, more and more of the good folks are winning and showing what government can do for people. Here’s to hoping that they keep winning and take over.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 20 points 2 months ago

    It’s going to be a question of momentum: will those on the left of the party keep pushing back against corporate interests and organising at a grassroots level. I sincerely hope that the momentum grows, but the power of the money being used against them is a pretty terrible beast. It’s definitely an interesting crossroads at the very least.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    "Get money out of politics" is only going to increase in popularity until there's some action. My concern is that a faux-populist democrat will become president, pass some empty reforms, declare victory, and then we'll be back here again in 15-20 years, when our democracy might be even weaker. OR that Republicans will end democracy before anything can happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Unpopular opinion: AOC, Bernie and Mamdani are at this point preventing a revolution the US so badly needs. As long as there’s a possible progressive win of the Democratic Party, people will live in the delusion that this regime can be uninstalled via democratic processes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    AOC can and Bernie are holding us back from revolution? You are under the extreme delusion that Americans are anywhere near being ready to revolt. They are not and won't be until they're unemployed and starving just like almost every other country that revolts against its government.

    You need to get the off the Internet and the mods need to start banning accounts that call for violence. If you think that civil war will make things better you are completely detached from reality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    Yes, let’s ban dissenting voices. The orange man would love you for it.

    You’re correct on the revolution needing hunger, but that may be closer than you think.

    Even if I were to call for violence, and I’m not, what would it make for a difference if your theory is correct? And what good is sitting idly by and vote if the other side is using serious violence every day?

    I don’t mind you having an opinion opposing to mine, I mind you calling for mods becoming thought police, as if we don’t already have enough power tripping mods around.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    I think they would if they had a leader to say, hey… enough is enough the government is filled with fucking pedophiles!

    But we don’t have that leader. So now it’s sticking your neck out to get shot by ice and democrats won’t even defend your dead ass when it happens.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -36 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    AOC? Nah, she's been made to heel to Nancy's and Hakeem's wishes. Buckled at pretty much the first opportunity too. Still says some nice things, but she's useless as a challenge to the status quo. Made a useful tool of the establishment.

    Bernie? Well, he tucked tail and quit fighting after the party establishment colluded and sabotaged his campaigns. 2020 was especially egregious, and he still agreed to back Biden. Again, says the right things at times, but far less a real challenge to the status quo now than he ever was.

    The others you mentioned? Mamdani can be a good pragmatic example, wish him the best, but he's limited to the Senate at the federal level if he aspires to higher office. El-Sayed, too early to tell. Talarico, I assume you mean? Tough row to hoe for a few months, probably a long shot, but he's been a democrat for years. That party is really irredeemable.

    I wish I knew the real solution to this electoral mess. I keep hoping for a really hard charging third party challenge that can bridge the divide. May wait my entire life at this point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    Mamdani can be a good pragmatic example, wish him the best, but he’s limited to the Senate at the federal level if he aspires to higher office.

    Mamdani could still be the president. The Constitutional requirements for being president are pretty weak and easily bypassed. You can have someone else officially run, and they run on the platform, "I'm going to hold the pen and do whatever this guy tells me to." You select someone who would have no political legitimacy on their own, so they're completely dependent on the real power behind the throne. If Trump decides to run in 2028, this will be the mechanism he uses. But Mamdani or Obama could use the same mechanism if they wish.

    The Constitutional limits on presidential eligibility are pretty trivial to bypass.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    This is ridiculous and clearly against the intent of the constitution. I do hope scotus rules against this though I'm not confident they will with trump.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • There is precedent and it's been done before. The most famous case was arch-segregationist George Wallace. He had his wife run as Alabama governor to bypass Alabama's constitutional term limits.

    There's really no way to prevent this Constitutionally. A core principle of democracy is that voters can elect someone who promises to follow any style of leadership they want. There are limits on what power the leaders have, but they can make their choices however they want. You could run for president promising to make all your decisions by literally pulling options out of a hat at random. You could run for president promising to literally never even do the job. You could tell voters you're going to take the oath of office and immediately go back to your home, close the door, and never walk out again for the next four years. Just let the government run on auto-pilot. You probably wouldn't win an election on either of those, but it would be perfectly Constitutional for someone to do either of those things. There's language in the Constitution about the President faithfully enforcing the laws, but the only enforcement mechanism is impeachment and removal.

    It would be nearly impossible to even write a Constitutional amendment prohibiting this. Leaders are allowed to take advice from their advisors. They couldn't govern without advisors. In this case, the person holding the seat just has one advisor they really really trust and listen to on everything.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago

    Nearly the entire system is rotten, bar a few who seem to still be holding on to do good for the people (AOC, Bernie, Mamdani, El-Sayed, Tallarico, etc).

    who seem to still be holding on to do good but aren't actually much as they keep using and endorsing the private social network of a nazi where this post is also taken from. Downvote X reposts and don't share them or the rotten system it's on you too.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 2 months ago

    nonsense the dems are hard at work getting power back in the midterms

    it is you with your both side crap that is feeding the apathy that might save this admninistration in november

    same as the last election. useless commie nonsense. the DSA is even worse with their unelectable policies

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -13 points 2 months ago (5 children)
  • [+] 9 points 2 months ago* (4 children)
  • [+] -13 points 2 months ago (4 children)
  • [+] -6 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Very few, if any. Are you talking about the surrounding area where protestors murdered dozens of soldiers and police and then the soldiers finally started fighting back?

    Are you parroting long debunked anti China propaganda designed to make you hate and distrust Chinese people? The propaganda that came from the billionaire pedophile rapist country??

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [+] -66 points 2 months ago* (16 children)
  • [–] 26 points 2 months ago (11 children)
  • [+] -37 points 2 months ago (11 children)
  • [–] 36 points 2 months ago

    "Do I own three residences? Yeah, I do," Sanders said. He explained that he lives in Burlington, Vermont, in a "middle-class neighborhood, nice house," and owns another home in Washington, D.C., like most senators do. He also has a summer camp on Lake Champlain. "That's it," Sanders stated, noting that his homes are far from luxurious. "They're middle-class houses."

    Not that hard to find the answer.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Bernie’s position isn’t that people should be forbidden from owning multiple homes or that anyone who has money must give most of it away. His argument is about the rules of the system. Higher taxes on the wealthy, stronger wages, worker protections and making basics like healthcare and housing more accessible. “Why doesn’t he sell two houses and feed the homeless?” confuses charity with policy. He could sell them tomorrow and it would have virtually no effect on homelessness. If you want to criticize Bernie, criticize whether his policies would actually work. Owning three homes isn’t by itself a contradiction of what he advocates

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -33 points 2 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 22 points 2 months ago

    Except he didn’t stop. Sanders has continued arguing for higher taxes on wealthy Americans and against extreme concentrations of wealth after becoming a millionaire himself. Becoming wealthy isn’t inconsistent with saying wealthy people (including yourself) should pay more. Criticize the policy if you want, but this ‘he became a millionaire and suddenly went quiet’ line isn't true and just isn’t a serious argument

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 16 points 2 months ago

    He has a home in Vermont, his primary residence. He has a home in Washington DC, where he works. He has a home on Lake Champlain, where he vacations.

    The first two are necessities. The third, a small, reasonable luxury.

    What answer were you hoping for?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago

    Why does Bernie have 3 homes?

    A home in his state, a home in the capital and a vacation home.

    Why doesn't he sell 2 of them and donate the profits to help feed the homeless?

    Because he isn't anti capitalist. He is anti unfettered capitalism.

    Homelessness, poverty and hunger are symptoms of the problem of inequality he wants to solve. Selling his vacation home does nothing to solve that problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (-2 replies)
    [–] 26 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    it's almost like a two party system was a bad idea

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    why no one create a third one? is it blocked somehow?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago*

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 2 months ago

    They're doing exactly the job they're being paid for.

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    the DINO party serves the billionaires, and israel mostly.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 61 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    I begged my congressman to support articles of impeachment. His response was basically that they don't have the votes, so why bother? He even said that if they did, it would be performative and would play into persecution rhetoric for Trump.

    So that's where we are now. The only people with the political power to oust a tyrant have thrown in the towel.

    I tried to reason with him that it matters. Even if they don't have the votes to convict. Impeach him once a week of you have to. Persecute the motherfucker!

    But no, I guess re-election to Congress is more important.

    Fucking joke.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 2 months ago*

    I tried to reason with him that it matters. Even if they don’t have the votes to convict. Impeach him once a week of you have to. Persecute the motherfucker!

    100% agree. Performative it may be, but doing it every single time he does something to warrant it, which is daily at this point, at least sends a message that this shit is unacceptable. Doing nothing is tacitly agreeing with it. It's baffling.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 2 months ago

    would play into persecution rhetoric for Trump.

    The whole fucking point of him doing the persecution rhetoric is to stop people attacking him, and they've played right into his hands.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    It’s why democrats lose as much as they do, they don’t seize opportunities

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    a bunch of them are DINOs so i wouldnt call them capable of seizing, they secretely want this to happen, the tax cuts from 2017, no dems tried repeal that at all, or made it thier promise. they benefit from it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 46 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    Increasingly more popular opinion: the US government takeover committed by the Trump oligarchy is as much the result of incompetence of the Democratic party as it was a plan of evil 'geniuses'.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    Yes! IMO the 'evil geniuses' had no effect whatsoever. Trump just wins by default when the Democrats run unpopular candidates.

    I've been saying this for almost ten years now. Trump is not a popular candidate and never has been. In '16 he got fewer votes than Romney did in '12. If everyone who voted for Obama had voted for Clinton, Trump never would have won. The same is true with '20 vs. '24: if everyone who voted for Biden had voted for Harris, Trump never would have won the second time.

    I also don't think Biden was ever that popular; I think any of the Democratic candidates would have won in 2020. I told anyone who would listen at the time, "Biden is a bad choice, some shit could heat up in Israel, and he's very out of touch with the Democratic base on that issue, and it could prevent him from getting re-elected." I will say, I didn't think Trump would get re-elected after J6, I thought it would be some other Republican. But, it also felt like the Democrats also never really went after Trump for what he did on J6 so.

    Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is I agree and I'm glad to hear other people say it. The Democrats are too willing to compromise with Republicans who never compromise with them, and it keeps losing them elections. So even though Americans as we actually exist are reasonably progressive on most issues (legalizing weed and having universal healthcare poll higher than any sitting politician, there are about 1.5x as many registered Dems as Reps in this country, etc), we're stuck with an extremely regressive government. That's the context that leads to progressives like Mamdani winning in "upset" victories and the Democratic leadership is all surprised.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I'd say it's entirely dems fault as they were dropping the ball consistently since years. Trump should've been an easy opponent but he ended up as president second time

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    People wanted change. Trump promised change, the democrats promised more of the same.

    Maybe democrats should promise change?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    I think the detrimental part was avoiding any polarising subject that could alienate their core electorate. They wanted to retain it so much that they forgot about the general population. And then came Trump promising changes in areas general public had problems with. He was mostly lying, but he was lying about the right topics.

    So it came down to the choice: Maybe a lying republican jackass, or total democrat apathy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Yeah. There was this drunk driver that hit a kid. Stupid parents. It's just the result of incompetence of the parenting party than a result of drunk driving.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago

    I dont think that is a fair comparison. Also i am not saying it is only the fault of the opposing party, i'm saying it is as much as. It is naive to think this would have been able no matter what the Democratic party did in the years/decades leading up to the first Trump presidency. Sure it is easy to talk in hindsight, I'll give them that. I'm also not saying they wanted this to happen. But if the parents of the drunk driver never gave their child a good talk on the dangers of drinking, that accident is partly theirs to blame too.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 52 points 2 months ago

    They are complicit controlled opposition. Their only job is to keep the left out of power. That's why they're more upset about socialists than Trump, ultimately Trump is on their side and the socialists are not.

  • source
  • [–] 36 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    The democratic elite are in bed with Epstein

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 33 points 2 months ago

    Because they are, for the most part, wealth class. Average citizen getting robbed or screwed over isn't a concern.

    Why rock the boat and risk getting noticed in a negative way when you can do nothing and enjoy your privileged place!

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 2 months ago

    The Democrats and Republicans are owned and controlled by the same wealthy douchebags.

  • source
  • [–] 33 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Trump helps rich people. Establishment Dems are either owned by, or terrified of rich people.

    That's it. Simple.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 2 months ago

    The D's want what R's want, but they just want to make sure the paperwork is filed properly first, and will probably do it while wearing a rainbow pin.

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    This is absolutely on to something. Trump should not stand a chance against a viable opposing party.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • So long as any parties funding is coming from corporations, and citizens united stands... Not much will be done in terms of bettering society for the working class.

    An easy way to look at it is the working class if above the line, the people who own the parties rely on what's below the line.

    Those people have proven over and over they believe in making massive cuts to make the numbers below the line go up, even if they were making profit and churning out a good product. Making a worse product, and hurting those who work for you company doesn't matter, so long as number go up.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    It's always funny to see DSA types coopt Trump language.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    Tacit approval.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›