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.
The corporate Democrats don’t want to piss off their owners
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.
They literally had public disclosures that this was the plan after Harris lost
Heh, you and me both buddy, mystery of the fucking century, either epic levels of incompetence, or collusion. Haven’t decided which is more likely yet, maybe bits of both.
Getting paid by Israel.
they need to go if they aren’t doing anything. ‘vote them all out’ bumper stickers have been warning for years.
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.
They are all older than the polio vaccine and have no idea how technology works or social media
That’s the thing, they are not hiding, they have already been paid
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).
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
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.
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.
“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.
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.
A revolution still needs leaders.
I’ll follow ms rachel not those
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.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
do you not question the fact that your talking point is directly from fox news?
deleted by creator
so the answer is no i guess
deleted by creator
right, i guess there’s no point in continuing this conversation if you’ve deemed me automatically wrong because of my instance and can’t even tell me why i’m wrong
that alongside the fact that when confronted for parroting fox news talking points you attempt shift the conversation to something that happened in china 37 years ago
clearly not acting in good faith, have a nice day
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??
deleted by creator
How many people do you think were killed in Tiananmen Square on that day and what are your sources?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
Lol nice try
Removed by mod
“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.
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
Removed by mod
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
Can you provide a source on this? Can you show when he became a millionaire and when he stopped talking about millionaires? That’s a pretty strong claim to make. Please provide a source.
'Murican oligarchy owning pretty much the entire country
This mf: “WHY DOES BERNIE HAVE THREE HOUSES??? WAAAAH!!!”
You’re not great at trolling
I mean sure, just make shit up I guess why not
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?
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.
Conservatives are evil and not welcome here.
So do I and I’m not rich.
Now sum up them in value
Three day old account. Perhaps this is not the place you belong. Might wanna find a different social media to infect.
He can have a dozen homes and triple the cars; if hes still genuinely fighting for peoples rights and begging to tax the wealthy, im all for him.
Its not hypocritical for a US senator to have three homes. It is incredibly evil to vote against what is best for your constituents, which is what most other senators seem to be doing.
Another piece of shit to block!
I’m seeing a lot of words, so that begs the question: what have you done to support socialist policy in your national government?
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.
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.
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.
And look at the vote for releasing the Epstein files! Obviously, they ‘didn’t have the votes’ for that, either … but once they tried, even a bunch of Republicans were on board.
At least fucking try.
PersecuteProsecute the motherfucker!FTFY. It’s only “persecute” if it’s unjust.
It’s why democrats lose as much as they do, they don’t seize opportunities
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.
This kind of Dem is such a fucking pussy. Literally more worried about offending constiutents who would never vote for them in the first place.
So that’s where we are now. The only people with the political power to oust a tyrant have thrown in the towel.
If only we lived in a democracy and could give people power with our vote…
you did? this is what you voted for?
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.
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’.
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
People wanted change. Trump promised change, the democrats promised more of the same.
Maybe democrats should promise change?
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.
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.
Removed by mod
My opinion on that is totally relevant to my opinion on this. /s
Next time we disagree, please bring a valid argument instead to discrediting because of something i said somewhere else.
Removed by mod
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.
They lost to Donald fucking Trump. The biggest loser of all time. And they lost twice.
Yeah. Except the parents insisted their child play in the middle of the street at 1am and instead of condemning the drunk driver, they claim drunk driving is part of life
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.
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.
