He can't run for president but he's already running the country.

all 65 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 49 points 4 days ago (8 children)

It's more important to get the losers like Schumer, Pelosi, and Jeffries out first.

You build a house from the foundation and the democrats have been blackballing progressives for their own monetary gain for... well forever.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    Schumer and Jeffries? Absolutely. Not only do their personal politics not line up with the party's new popular mandate, they just fucking suck at their job. They want nothing more than to sit back, do nothing, and funnel endless money to Israel while letting things rot. Pelosi, I'm less convinced, since she at least seems savvy enough to seize on a movement, even if she doesn't really agree with it. Wouldn't mind seeing her get scrapped for fresh blood though.

    This is the best setting Progressives have had to make real change in this country in DECADES. Let's not blow it. Call your reps and tell them to make Schumer and Jeffries pound sand.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (5 children)

    I agree but at the same time there is no better time to run a progressive then now. With the Republican party deeply unpopular now, it's very likely the next president will be a Democrat. If we choose to pass on 2028, then the task of selling a progressive platform to the public becomes more challenging with a Democrat as president.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (4 children)

    So let's start these conversations now. Who do we want to see on the ticket?

    Some names I've seen put out there already:

    • Gov. Andy Beshear
    • Gov. Josh Shapiro
    • Gov. Wes Moore
    • Gov. JB Pritzker
    • Sen. Jon Ossoff
    • Sen. Chris Van Hollen
    • Sen. Chris Murphy
    • Rep. Ro Khanna

    Who am I missing? Anyone else can we add to the list?

    And please everyone feel free to discuss pros and cons of any names on the list, or any names you'd like to see added to it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 3 days ago (3 children)

    Van Hollen is the only one I would be interested in from that list. AOC and AES are missing. My preference is for AES, if he runs.

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

    Thanks for sharing!

    I'd also be happy to see either AOC or AES as president some day (or both), but I think in both cases they could benefit from building more seniority in office before running. That's of course just my opinion, and I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    I agree. Obama ran right after getting elected as senator. AOC already has national recognition. AES not yet.

    With AOC, she just hasn't led any significant policy except the Green New Deal. She's way too calculative with her decisions like the Israel offensive/defensive weapons funding. It would be interesting if she becomes more emboldened to pursue more progressive policies after this wave of democratic socialist candidates getting elected.

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

    It would be interesting if she becomes more emboldened to pursue more progressive policies after this wave of democratic socialist candidates getting elected.

    I am so looking forward to seeing what she's capable of now that she has more allies in Congress. And in future cycles, I have a feeling that number will only continue to grow.

    In fact the main reason I want her to wait for a presidential run is because she'll be able to do so much more from the oval office when she has supportive governing coalitions in both chambers of Congress.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 4 days ago (14 children)
  • [–] 21 points 4 days ago (12 children)

    Unfortunately, I think we'll get a Progressive male president before we get a female anything president.

    I still hear people talk about how they wouldn't want a woman president, and some of these people are democratic women.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (5 children)

    fucking ...alabama... just voted for a trans canidate, the idea clinton or harris lost because they were woman is nonsense. they lost because they were very obviously establishment stooges. one a career parasite most well-known for not having enough self-respect to leave a cheater, and the other flipflopped on all their big rallying cries within 24hrs. it was immediately noticable when harris was brought back on script...not too mention not having a primary and running a fucking Cheney endorsement at the DNC.

    they lost cause they sucked ass and swallow. for the average person, if you have to choose between a corrupt pos smart enough to hide it and someone whose so goddamn proud of their corroption they brag about it...the latter is a known factor and therefor easier to work around.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 4 days ago (3 children)

    Hilary lost because of the electoral system ,she won the popular vote

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    She would have won the electoral college if she won more states, which she would have done if she wasn't an establishment Democrat but actually had a popular platform.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 4 days ago (3 children)

    Agreed. The misogyny still runs deep in this country, usually expressed as, "She's just not a good candidate!"

    The bar is on the floor, for boys. We already know what kinds of men can and have been good enough to get elected. It takes Penis to spell President, apparently, and it doesn't matter that it's out of order.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    You used to say a muslim senator will never win. You used to say a black person will never win. It is pure ba to hide failures

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    I never said those things. I did say, "Well damn, my party would rather run a black man than a woman," and twice I've said, "Well damn, our country would rather elect a criminal than a woman."

    Make that three times. I was around for Shirley Chisolm's run (but not old enough to vote) and like everyone else I knew a black woman couldn't get nominated in 1972. The Dems ran George McGovern instead, and Richard Nixon won in a landslide.

    Like I said, for the boys the bar is on the floor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago

    There’s a belief that women leaders will lead to wimpy men because they don’t see that men too can be leaders. I want a good blend. We have plenty of people, who can be plenty of role models.

    We have spycraft now anyways so we’re building shady role models, cunning rather than machismo seems a thing. Or am I speaking from the James Bond times that have calmed?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 3 days ago (6 children)

    Holy fuck that man is incredibly eloquent. Like every word that flows out of his mouth is measured and exact.

    Can someone remind me, is he ineligible for the presidency under current rules?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 3 days ago (4 children)

    Yes, the exact terminology in the constitution is that the president must be a "natural born citizen". There's debate on the "natural born" part. For example, Ted Cruz was born Canadian, but his mom was from the US, which conferred him US citizenship at birth as well, so he's debatably "natural born". John McCain was born in the Panama canal zone, which was a US territory at the time (and his parents were citizens), but there still was some debate at the time.

    Zohran is basically just a regular immigrant who became a citizen, with no way you could claim the "natural born" part.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 13 points 4 days ago

    I think he's a big part of the blue wave. He showed that people can get stuff done, not be insert racist anything, and get shit done. Abdul really needs to thank him too.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 4 days ago (4 children)

    On a completely irrelevant note, I am digging the mustache look. Not that the full beard was also not nice.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 4 days ago* (1 child)

    I for one hope they impeach the president.

    And try to end the war in Iran.

    There's trickiness ahead and Dems are going to be blamed even more whatever they do, so they might just as well go for the jugular. Well, as far as they can.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago

    They for sure can impeach him. The problem is trying to convict him in the Senate. They don't have the numbers, it takes a 2/3 majority. And I don't think any of the republicans in the Senate have the balls to try to convict Trump. And far too many of them are MAGA assholes themselves.

    However there is a plethora of people under Trump that they can go after and easily put under the spotlight. Taking out his foundation will be far more effective at neutralizing him.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (5 children)

    After Tuesday, I see Ossoff as the frontrunner for 2028. That race was called less than an hour after polls closed and demonstrated how strong of a candidate he is.

    If Ossoff is the centrist pick, then progressives need someone to counter him. Someone young, charismatic, and bold. Progressives can attack him for saying America's commitment to Israel is "ironclad." He walked it back during this election though. He also doesn't support Medicare for All.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago (3 children)
  • [–] [S] 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    I'm saying Ossoff would be the centrist frontrunner. AOC is the progressive frontrunner

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

    Oh I see what you mean. Do you think the primary will actually be between a progressive and establishment choice? I can't see the democrats rigging the primary again since its so well known how it happened last time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 days ago

    There's going to be a dozen candidates if not more considering this will be an open election.

    Plenty of centrist voters claimed the 2016 and 2020 primaries were not rigged so definitely could happen again.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago

    Imo, progressives will be much more effective in the legislative branch than the executive. We need a big enough coalition to actually make the laws to be enforced. That's why I'd much prefer AOC replacing Schumer than running for president.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 4 days ago (8 children)

    A progressive or a progressive except for palestine?

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -3 points 3 days ago (6 children)
  • [–] 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (5 children)

    It just a genocide the crimes of all crimes, not a big deal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (5 children)
  • [–] 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (3 children)

    At least 4% of the population are confirmed killed so far, with a more accurate count being hard because so many bodies are buried under the rubble and Israel won't allow digging equipment in. Also, I say "so far" because the Zionazis kill more every day. Then there's the indirect deaths, from disease and hunger and suicide, which can range from 3-15 times higher than the direct casualty count. We have absolutely no idea what the real number is at this point because data collection is impossible.

    In addition: 10% have sustained life-altering injuries (severe burns, missing limbs, etc) and 60% of Palestinians have lost family.

    No big deal, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -3 points 3 days ago (3 children)
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    Oh is not as bad as the holocaust so it is ok? By that metrics all conflicts are ok they are not as bad as the holocust.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

    Did you miss the "can range from 3-15 times higher than the direct casualty count" part?

    Also, the Nazis were in charge for 12 years. This mass killing started only three years ago, but Israel will catch up.

    Remember, Israel is blockading food, fuel, and medicine while still bombing and shooting people. This winter is probably going to be extremely bad and see the death toll spike: Israel targeted Gaza's water infrastructure, hospitals, and has destroyed 82 percent of all structures. No construction equipment or material is allowed in, so most people are effectively homeless.

    The plan is total elimination of Gaza as a polity, either by displacing or exterminating the population. There's nowhere to displace them to (the Nazis ran into the same problem) so if Israel is not stopped then we will see them exterminate everyone.

    And Israelis love it. The main electoral split is between people who support Netanyahu's current plans for genocide, and people who want even more genocide and think Netanyahu has been too soft on the Palestinians.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago

    The population of Gaza Strip Declined by 10.6% in Two Years. https://www.pcbs.gov.ps/en/post-details/?postId=23319

    Israel destroyed 85% of the agricultural fields , they are killing aid workers and now many aid organizations have financial trouble. Gaza depends on humanitarian aid now which most are blocked by israel. Israel is so sadistic that they prefer to extends israel suffering before being exterminated

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [+] 1 point 4 days ago
    [+] -11 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

    Mamdani's wrong.

    A real progressive is never going to come within sniffing distance of the presidency. After Bernie's primaries got rigged the Democrats were sued for running rigged primaries, they admitted it, and it's perfectly legal for them to do so.

    That's what all those shiny superdelegates are for.

    Further, you saw with the accusations of radical jihadism against AES and Zohran, and the weaponized SA allegation against Platner, and James Carville's public admission that they'd rather Republicans win than Socialists, that the Democratic Party has no intention of ever running a real progressive for president.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    Stop huffing 10 year old copium and engage with reality. Progressive politics are on the ascendancy, and people are ABSOLUTELY FUCKING SICK of Radical Centrism™️. Schumer and Jeffries need to go, for sure, but this is the best time to launch a Progressive in years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago

    *was

    And actually, it was the best time in decades. But we've seen how this ends. Obama made extravagant progressive promises, had a supermajority, and all he did with it was advance fascism, expand the wars he'd promised to end, and make health care more expensive.

    Until I see them actually vote otherwise, I have to assume Democrats have every intention of wasting the next two years and making themselves wealthier, and in 2028, handing things back off to Republicans.

    Hoping I'm wrong, but we'll see.

  • source
  • parent
  • 1 comment in c/politics@lemmy.dbzer0.com view that post
    [–] [S] -3 points 4 days ago*

    and looking for any place of communality. And when it comes to the two of us, that communality has been the welfare of our city. We’ve had conversations that allowed us to free New Yorkers from ICE detentions, to ensure that we were able to get visas for the mother of a New Yorker who was killed here recently. These are the kinds of tangible benefits that can be delivered when we’re looking for any of those areas of overlap. +05:24

    Kinda contradictory +00:20 in, about our needs being unrealistic. Nazis do have a lot of communality with Democratic partisanship. What was the name of that praxis again?

  • source