Term and age limits for all elected politicians serving all levels. Two terms and 65 is the maximum age to enter the election. In addition, get rid of the Electoral College.
The union members who voted for Putin’s Sock Puppet do not realize the damage they are going inflict on the US blue-collar sector.
Please, no. We don’t need more myopia from politicians.
America’s fate is sealed, the country we’ve known, flaws and all is done. Before it was an Oligarchy pretending to be a Democratic Republic, Now its just going to stop pretending, America’s going to resemble Russia in the 90s for a bit as the country gets carved up by corporate interests and gangsters in suits
Doom! Dooooooom!! DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!
So what are you going to do about it? Keep on reciting your learned-helplessness narrative, or fight back?
America’s slide into fascism isn’t at the top of my problems list. seeing as I’m not American. I’m more concerned with the general “America is turning hostile against its allies, and friendly towards enemies of the free world like Russia”.
Come on, you know the answer to that question.
They’ve got tendies in the oven, fighting is hard
Term limits mean the only people left in washing that understand the system are lobbyists and consultants. As for age, there should be twice annual fitness tests after the age of 65. There are some geezers that are still very capable mentally.
California has term limits for state officials. It has worked out exactly as @[email protected] has said. It’s just another stupid quick fix that actually makes things worse. You get a revolving door where elected officials are always looking for the next place to jump, and it disproportionately empowers the party officials who can offer those steps up the ladder. You love the DNC? That’s how you get even more of a dead hand in control of elected officials.
But as for fitness tests, those can be too easily gamed, and whoever administers the tests will now have extreme political power with no responsibility. So that’s as bad an idea as the literacy tests for voting in the US south used to be, and for the same reasons: selective enforcement and corrupt application of the rules.
Any system based on medical or intellectual tests is doomed to fail. There’s a reason we had to end literacy tests. Any test has to have people that design, administer, and grade the test. Age limits are a crude and blunt instrument, but there is a reason we use them for other matters of politics in the early stages of life. We have a voting age, not a voting competency test. And we have minimum ages for House, Senate, and Presidency eligibility. Yes, you could try to write qualifying exams for these positions, but the history of literary tests shows how that would go. Age is a crude instrument, but it is objective. You were born on certain day, and assuming accurate public records, that is a fact that isn’t open to interpretation. It is clear and unambiguous.
An age limit for high offices makes perfect sense. If we can have minimum ages, we can have maximum ages. And any argument for why maximum ages won’t work would also apply to minimum ages, yet our constitution is based on minimum ages, not fuzzy ability tests.
You have a moronic take. I understand the federal government’s inner workings better than Trump and I’ve served 0 terms as president.
So Bernie shouldn’t be a politician anymore?
Probably a fair trade to remove half the mummies in congress and get younger more progressive people in there. Bernie is getting on in years, we should be supporting potential replacements regardless.
elon is arguing for term limits
That’s because he knows they’re antidemocratic.
Ok, and?
term limits give even more policy setting power to elon, a guy who is rich but not elected
That’s not really true, Elon’s “position” already doesn’t have a term limit. Even if he supports it doesn’t automatically make it bad for us or good for him, you need to support your argument.
Term limits make more elected officials lame ducks. That weakens their power relative to the civil service and the unelected party bureaucrats.
What’s wrong with damaging US economy ? For one, No more proxy wars
What makes you think that? If anything you will encourage them to make more wars to sell more weapons
Riiiiiiight
The statement reflects the actions of the Kamala campaign and the Dem party, so I believe it. Will Democrats ever change, though? Not until the old guard relinquishes their tight grasp on the party and allows it to operate democratically. The old guard are corrupt and they are paid by the same ultra wealthy donors that pay Republicans. The only reason the Tea Party was successful in taking over the Republican party was that there was a huge amount of funding behind them. An equivalent leftist force does not exist because there is no monied interest that would fund an insurgency on the left (except for the masses— think Bernie 2016, 2020, but we would need even more to create a lasting insurgency of equal scale). In light of this, the Democratic party has continuously pursued a “third way” approach to become essentially Republican with some social equality. The Democratic brand stands for nothing anymore.
The only reason the Tea Party was successful in taking over the Republican party was that there was a huge amount of funding behind them.
That would be the Koch Brothers. Sadly there isn’t a left-wing version of them, and it feels as if the system is set up in such a way that there couldn’t be a left-wing version.
The old guard are corrupt and they are paid by the same ultra wealthy donors that pay Republicans.
I don’t think it’s actually possible to win national elections in this country post citizens united without the ultra wealthy donor class. I’d love to be wrong, but I’m pretty sure I’m not.
Bernie’s campaign loved pointing out the average donation was $27. The issue in 2016 was media coverage for him that the Dems knowingly sabotaged iirc.
Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives
because there is no monied interest that would fund an insurgency on the left
There could be, but in the last 2 decades such companies generally went down or at least didn’t grow into something significant and were not being helped by the state and such when having problems. I agree that politics reflect money.
deleted by creator
Reminder: this is the same Teamster that spoke at the Republican convention, making these comments to Tucker Carlson.
You probably shouldn’t take this at face value and assume this was her attitude toward labor in general.
A major union head went on Tucker Carlson’s podcast… gross. Harris could have done more to appeal to workers, but this dude can’t paint himself as a neutral politically-impartial leader!
Yes because politically neutral means only going on democrat podcasts.
It’s not that the union head should be neutral. The head of a union should be openly and unapologetically pro-union. Going on a podcast and agreeing with someone who is right-wing extremely anti-union, is a very bad and traitorous look for the head of the union.
…besides Sanders who has no power, the green party which has no nonlocal power, and the various even smaller third parties which have even less power, there’s no one people union to talk to.
Eventually you will need to wrestle with the basic fact that as a union leader or member, you’re an enemy of the state and will always be trying to convince anti union people to support you. That’s the point of a union in the first place. If Dems had any chance to be in power, union heads would be cozying up to them.
Strikes suck for everyone, what happens when the strike fails sucks even more regardless of if you pick violence or not, avoiding that is ideal, even if it means talking to people some randos on the internet find distasteful.
Why would a union head be expected to be politically neutral?
Because in the US there isn’t a prounion party, so it’s pointless to just cozy up to one or the other.
It’s bullshit on it’s face. Biden told Congress they should pass the PRO Act, Harris echoed that ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL.
One of the provisions of the PRO Act is to gut right-to-work laws by allowing Unions to collect dues from every employee at a Union shop.
So the guy is just lying about that, of course there’s no way for me to know if she wagged her finger in a Teamster’s face.
Excuse my ignorance on American doublespeak, but does the “right to work” just mean the “right for companies to employ scabs”?
They named it that so it would get confused with similarly named laws that protect the rights of workers.
right to work laws “protect” workers from unions forcing them to pay dues so: yes.
If a truthful name were required, it’d be “right to free ride” or “right to scab.”
We could have gotten Right-To-Work off the books?
Well, nah. 'cause congress would have to pass it before the prez could sign it.
The elections over why are you still running cover for that fucking loser
It’s imbecilic to make a comment like this when someone is making it explanation of something else.
If all you have to say in this thread are childish insults and attacks, degrading from the conversation and not contributing to it at all, leave the platform, no one wants you here. Go back to Reddit.
How can you still be defending a campaign that failed so miserably. It failed, learn something from that or get used to losing your whole life
OK I don’t have a dog in this regatta, but I gotta say you making a comment calling out someone providing nothing but insults that itself contains nothing but childish insults that also contributed nothing is fucking amazing.
I would say this is some peak reddit right here, but I don’t really think its an insult or care enough about another website to invoke its name.
Lmfao you are gonna love the next four years. Unless youre rich, then you actually are going to love the next four years. Probably a pot more than four years i suspect
I’m gonna hate the next four years because the dems ran a candidate that they knew couldn’t win and idiots like you shouted at people who pointed this out and called us trump lovers
“Anyone who wants the Democrats to win against Trump is actually a Trump supporter!”
I hated hearing it in 2016, 2020, and 2024
Yes, democrats are vegetative. You can see my comment history, im the first one to point that out. But you are even worse than democrats if you actually thought that trump was the winning option.
Are you claiming that trump didn’t win?
🤦
I’m going to assume you are being intentionally obtuse. Its very simple.
Trump bad.
Any other option good in comparison.
Arguing good option bad means you are arguing in bad faith.
Yes Trump bad, that’s why I want the dems to run a candidate that isn’t a delusional failure so that we can keep Trump from doing bad things. The only way that “good” people can stop bad people is by winning power.
Any other good in comparison
Arguing good option bad…
The second line doesn’t logically follow from the first - you’re talking about a relatively better option all the way to that top line and then you switch from “better than other” to “good” - it’s like going about how in a choice between being knifed twice versus being knifed just once the “just knifed once” is good in comparison and then jumping from that to saying that getting knifed once is good.
Even beyond that totally illogical jump, the other flaw of logic is treating each election as a unique totally independent choice whose results have no impact on the options available on subsequent choices - I.e. that who the Democrat Party puts forwards and who the Republic Party puts forwards as candidates in an election isn’t at all influenced by how the electorate responded to previous candidates they put forward in previous elections - it is absolutely valid for people to refuse to vote for Kamala to “send a message to the Democrat Party” (I.e. to try to influence the candidates the party puts forward in subsequence election) and it’s around the validity or not of risking 4 years of Trump to try and get an acceptable Democrat candidate in at the end of it that the discussion should be (and there are valid points both ways) not the hyper-reductive falacy you seem so wedded to.
Choices in the real world are a bit more multi faceted and with much more elements and implications than that self-serving “simpleton” slogan the DNC pushed out in its propaganda which you are parroting.
I think it’s fair to say that, notwithstanding the badness of Trump, the Democratic Party needs vast improvement if it’s going to be part of an effective opposition to Trump and his gang of MAGAfascist oligarchs and lumpen God-bothering thugs. I’d even go so far as to say that, if any resistance emerges beyond finger-pointing and bleating, it won’t originate with the Democrats.
With who her enemy was, it doesnt matter who she said it to. The fact that she had to say it in the first place means Teamsters is an enemy of the country.
Fucking thank you.
deleted by creator
It was, though, at least in practice.
I’m sure one of a great many statements that aged like milk. The sheer contempt that Democrat politicians have for voters is breathtaking. Maybe some day they’ll care about voters the way they very obviously care about corporate donors.
Judging by their performance in the last three presidential elections with absolutely zero course correction, I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Given the number of people in this thread stating they’ll never vote Democrat again I don’t expect that to change.
I’m pretty pissed at the system myself but in no way am I going to encourage more Republican leadership. Which is far far worse than what we would get otherwise.
It’s really weird to shoot yourself in the foot just to spite your hand.
We didn’t shoot ourselves in the foot, the Democratic party did in a failed attempt to court more right-wing voters.
Two things can be true you know.
Just as one can be true while the other is false.
It’s shooting yourself in the foot to stop foot cancer that was metastasized from hand cancer, to correct your metaphor. And the actual alternative is to start doing some Luigi’s Special towards every CEO and politician.
We’re not there yet, so voting third party, even pointlessly, is the only effective action left.
Maybe some day they’ll care about voters the way they very obviously care about corporate donors.
How are you coming away with that the lesson to learn? The guys that won care even less for voters. The lesson appears to be: “Say whatever you think voters want to hear at that exact moment with no intention of following through for their benefit.”
If that’s what it takes to win then they should fucking do it, assuming democrats even want to win.
I don’t really care what the Democratic leadership want, or even say they want. If they’re not prepared to stand up to Trump, then I’ll support others who are willing. If you’re in a pre-revolutionary situation, does it make sense to try coalescing the resistance around a failed controlled opposition?
Agreed. To compare this to other current political events, it’s like they’re arguing that Palestinians need to continue to back Hamas “no matter what” if they ever want their freedom even though Hamas has done them dirty (not to mention Israel’s atrocities). It’s a failed solution and continuing it at this point is insane.
That’s rather the point isn’t it? Republicans lie constantly about everything but those lies are about things their voters want. Democrats meanwhile tell their voters that they’ll get what Democrats are gracious enough to give them and be happy they’re not as bad as the Republicans. In either case neither party is delivering what progressive voters are asking for. Then Democrats wonder why they have voter turnout problems.
People are sick and tired of showing up to vote for the lesser evil and the result being either things only get very slightly worse or much worse depending on who wins. It’s particularly hard for people to justify investing that time and effort when they’re struggling to just survive day to day and keep a roof over their head and food in their stomachs.
I and many others tried our best this last election to keep Trump out of office but we can all only do so much when the Democrats are working against us every step of the way. We need an actual progressive running on progressive policies out of the Democrats if they want to win an election, because running as diet conservative isn’t cutting it anymore.
People gave Bernie a lot of shit for being a populist but you know what? He motivated people. His supporters were excited to get out and vote for him. Unfortunately he was never given the chance and instead we got the same tired “we’ll run on Republican policies from two decades ago” Democrats.
Even Obama, the most “progressive” Democrat in at least fifty years, promised socialized healthcare like the rest of the first world countries have but ended up delivering a watered down half assed Republican healthcare plan instead.
So yeah, people are sick and tired of Democrats that only ever seem to be able to successfully deliver things wealthy corporate donors are asking for.
Democrats at least in the last cycle told their voters what they can get based on what is achievable during a term.
It was a realistic outlook. It wasn’t just lying and pandering.
What seems to be what you would prefer which is absolutely crazy. Why do you want to be lied to just for your vote and then no actual action taken? Somehow that is better than being told what is real and then action being taken on what is possible?
The amount of commentary in this thread that share the sentiment is mind-boggling. If most of the voter base in this country only cares about lip service then this place is well and truly fucked. Nothing can fix that, not within a couple generations.
If this is the case then idiocracy really was a documentary…
Why do you want to be lied to just for your vote and then no actual action taken? Somehow that is better than being told what is real and then action being taken on what is possible?
The amount of commentary in this thread that share the sentiment is mind-boggling. If most of the voter base in this country only cares about lip service then this place is well and truly fucked.
What I find mind-boggling is how you can look at the actual performance and actions of the Democratic party over the last couple decades and claim that any of their campaign promises or leftist rhetoric was anything but lip service and lies with no actual action taken. The proof is in the pudding and the pudding is rotten. Keep telling us about “what is possible” while the Republican party continues to do “the impossible” day after day in their quest for power.
People don’t care if it takes 1 term or 10 terms, what they want to hear is that Democrats are working on both short and long term goals to address the problems they care about. They want to hear meaningful changes. What they got is a message that Democrats are hard at work rearranging the deck chairs while the Titanic is sinking. There are many systemic issues in the US right now. The Democrats just needed to fucking pick one, start working on fixing it, and explain to people how they’re working on fixing it.
How about working to get Citizens United overturned? How about actually working on proper socialized healthcare instead of the bandaid that the insurance marketplace was? Working on getting rid of first past the post? Working on creating a federal right to abortion? Coming up with some way to keep the GOP from packing the supreme court with corrupt “judges” who treat the constitution like toilet paper? How about fixing our IP laws to be something sane like cutting copyright to 15 years? Just taxes in general, the 1% tax bracket should be paying 90% in taxes. Make capital gains taxes higher than income tax. These are just the things I can think of off the top of my head, I’m sure there’s dozens more people could come up with.
Long-term goals are just a carrot on a stick.
The problem with the Dems is that they’re never going to color outside the lines. Breaking the back of the corrupt judiciary is going to mean a constitutional crisis, and possibly some extreme extra-legal measures will be needed. The other reforms you mentioned mean opposing some of their most generous corporate sponsors.
And if you think getting rid of first-past-the-post is a magic solution, look at any developed country with proportional representation. That you get is another set of antidemocratic anomalies with the system: in PR systems that have coalition goverments, all the power is given to small centrist parties that can make or break a coalition. Imagine a Manchin/Sinema party that’s always in power, regardless of how the elections go.
That’s rather the point isn’t it? Republicans lie constantly about everything but those lies are about things their voters want. Democrats meanwhile tell their voters that they’ll get what Democrats are gracious enough to give them and be happy they’re not as bad as the Republicans. In either case neither party is delivering what progressive voters are asking for. Then Democrats wonder why they have voter turnout problems.
But again, the lesson Democrats need to learn is that American voters just care about what the candidate says during the campaign, not actual policy delivered if elected. So Democrats should adopt the same method of the GOP, simply straight up lying to the electorate and the Democrats will have a better chance of winning.
People are sick and tired of showing up to vote for the lesser evil
I’m not buying this as a reason they voted for Trump. If they saw Harris as the “lesser evil” then that would acknowledge they are actively voting for the “greater evil”.
The result being either things only get very slightly worse or much worse depending on who wins. It’s particularly hard for people to justify investing that time and effort when they’re struggling to just survive day to day and keep a roof over their head and food in their stomachs.
So they vote for the one that will make it MUCH worse?
I and many others tried our best this last election to keep Trump out of office but we can all only do so much when the Democrats are working against us every step of the way. We need an actual progressive running on progressive policies out of the Democrats if they want to win an election, because running as diet conservative isn’t cutting it anymore.
Again, that appears to be the wrong message. Voters didn’t want any measure of progressive policies. They voted for Trump with his regressive policies. Democrats apparently need to do the same to win votes.
So yeah, people are sick and tired of Democrats that only ever seem to be able to successfully deliver things wealthy corporate donors are asking for.
I disagree with your assessment, but that is exactly what Trump is going to do, and he got the votes, so its the winning strategy apparently.
the lesson Democrats need to learn is that American voters just care about what the candidate says during the campaign, not actual policy delivered if elected. So Democrats should adopt the same method of the GOP, simply straight up lying to the electorate and the Democrats will have a better chance of winning.
That already happened long ago. The problem this time was that the things they thought “people wanted to hear” were a bunch of right-wing talking points about immigration and genocide along with a slew of others.
I’m not buying this as a reason they voted for Trump. If they saw Harris as the “lesser evil” then that would acknowledge they are actively voting for the “greater evil”.
Trump got about the same number of votes as he did in 2020. Trump didn’t win because former Democratic voters switched sides. He won because people who voted for Biden in 2020 didn’t vote at all.
Voters didn’t want any measure of progressive policies. They voted for Trump with his regressive policies. Democrats apparently need to do the same to win votes.
Based on what? No progressive policies were on the table this election. As I said above, Trump didn’t gain any voters this election. The Democrats did push regressive policies this election, and that’s why they lost 10 million votes.
I disagree with your assessment, but that is exactly what Trump is going to do, and he got the votes, so its the winning strategy apparently.
That’s the winning strategy when you’re an avowed right-winger trying to court right-wing votes. When you’re supposed to represent “the left,” spouting a bunch of right-wing rhetoric and courting endorsements from people like Dick Cheney is a surefire way to lose as evidenced by the fact that Harris lost so many votes.
Trump got about the same number of votes as he did in 2020. Trump didn’t win because former Democratic voters switched sides. He won because people who voted for Biden in 2020 didn’t vote at all.
You’re proving my point. Trump just needs to lie and his voters show up. Game theory would say these are the easy votes that Democrats should go after.
Based on what? No progressive policies were on the table this election.
Lower the costs of child care, health care, long term care, and housing aren’t progressive? Strengthening Medicare and Social Security aren’t either? Protecting reproductive freedom, civicl rights, and imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices aren’t either?
That’s the winning strategy when you’re an avowed right-winger trying to court right-wing votes. When you’re supposed to represent “the left,” spouting a bunch of right-wing rhetoric and courting endorsements from people like Dick Cheney is a surefire way to lose as evidenced by the fact that Harris lost so many votes.
Again, you’re proving my argument. Democrat voters are too hard to convince to come to the polls to stand against the coming fascism and kleptocracy. GOP voters require no actual delivery of policy supporting campaign statements, or if so the most simply lip service will do. The GOP voters show up on campaign statements alone. The lesson is that these are the voters to target to get elected.
Trump just needs to lie and his voters show up. Game theory would say these are the easy votes that Democrats should go after.
Except that completely ignores the context of the situation in that “Democratic lies” aren’t going to be seen as appealing by right wingers in the way that “Republican lies” would be. Democrats did exactly this in the 2024 election and it blew up in their face.
Lower the costs of child care, health care, long term care, and housing aren’t progressive? Strengthening Medicare and Social Security aren’t either? Protecting reproductive freedom, civicl rights, and imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices aren’t either?
These are the lies I’m speaking of. None of this was on the table. It’s all empty rhetoric and lies in order to deceive people into voting for them. Why would any of this need to wait for Harris to be elected when she and Biden are currently in office right now at this very moment? It makes zero sense, and using history as our guide, Democrats will go out of their way to favor Republican plans in spite of the left a la the Affordable Care Act, which passed with a Democratic supermajority and zero Republican support.
Again, you’re proving my argument. Democrat voters are too hard to convince to come to the polls to stand against the coming fascism and kleptocracy.
They’re not hard to convince to come out and vote, there’s just nobody out there worth voting for. The left got plenty of energy from Bernie’s campaign until that was squashed by the DNC and the media in favor of Clinton. They got plenty of energy from '08 Obama who heartily won his election and then transformed right into the same status-quo neoliberal we’re seeing in Clinton, Biden, and Harris.
GOP voters require no actual delivery of policy supporting campaign statements, or if so the most simply lip service will do. The GOP voters show up on campaign statements alone. The lesson is that these are the voters to target to get elected.
The Democratic party has these same supporters too. You’ll see them chanting “blue no matter who” and calling you a Trump supporter if you dare criticize their right-wing, anti-immigration, or pro-genocidal, pro-corporate candidates. These are the type of people that elected Tulsi Gabbard, Sinema, Manchin, etc.
Trump just needs to lie and his voters show up. Game theory would say these are the easy votes that Democrats should go after.
Except that completely ignores the context of the situation in that “Democratic lies” aren’t going to be seen as appealing by right wingers in the way that “Republican lies” would be. Democrats did exactly this in the 2024 election and it blew up in their face.
If your statements are correct, Democrats don’t show up for “Democratic lies”. History shows voters stay home. I’m not suggesting Democrats use “Democratic lies”. You’re right, those don’t appeal to right-wing voters. I’m suggesting Democrats use right-wing lies. Right-wing voters show up for right-wing lies.
Since the GOP voters don’t actually care about policy passed during the actual term, progressive polices could be voted in by the elected leadership. When the next election occurs, the Democrat leadership simply needs to lie to these voters again. Its already worked for Trump a second time.
Again, you’re proving my argument. Democrat voters are too hard to convince to come to the polls to stand against the coming fascism and kleptocracy.
They’re not hard to convince to come out and vote, there’s just nobody out there worth voting for.
Inaction is an action. Those voters chose to let others (GOP votes) choose the leadership of the nation, which ushered in a second Trump administration.
You seem to be assuming that people who were going to vote for Harris decided to vote for Trump. That’s not even remotely true. What happened is a lot of people who would have voted for Harris stayed home, while a lot of people that normally don’t vote at all decided to vote for Trump.
Democrats could actually win an election or two by running the Republican playbook of lying through their teeth. It more or less worked for Obama who talked a big game then delivered on very little of it. But ultimately that would be a losing strategy. Democrats are not like Republicans, they not only want to hear policies they agree with, they expect to see them implemented.
You seem to be assuming that people who were going to vote for Harris decided to vote for Trump.
I’m not. Those voters stayed home. The ones that voted like to be lied to. A Democrat candidate can choose to lie just like Trump does. Same voters in play. These are the ones that vote and elect presidents.
Democrats could actually win an election or two by running the Republican playbook of lying through their teeth.But ultimately that would be a losing strategy.
Trump was elected twice on this. So clearly it works.
Democrats are not like Republicans, they not only want to hear policies they agree with, they expect to see them implemented.
Its as you said, Democrats won’t vote for it, but a Democrat candidate doesn’t need Democrat votes anymore to get elected. If you just need to make every opportunistic empty promise to get elected (as Trump did), then that is clearly the winning strategy now. This is what Americans want. They voted for it.
The ones that voted like to be lied to.
How arrogant of you. No, many of the people who voted made the hard, informed decision that a slow trickle of sometimes defective tweaks to the status quo is preferable to kakistocracy. The flu is less bad than ass cancer. Anyone who doesn’t realize that has probably never experienced extreme hardship. They’re so spoiled that they think that anything less than 100% of what they want is unacceptable and sufficient grounds to go into a snit.
No, many of the people who voted made the hard, informed decision that a slow trickle of sometimes defective tweaks to the status quo is preferable to kakistocracy.
I don’t know how you can look at Trumps past behavior in and out of office along with the his current cabinet nominees and think it is anything but a kakistocracy for the incoming Trump administration.
No they still need Democrat voters. Republicans won because their supporters vote for anyone with an R next to their name no matter what policies they have, so their lies are to convince the gullible morons that don’t really care about the party affiliation, they just want things to be better (and are too stupid to realize Republican policies will do the opposite). Neither parties core supporters are enough to win an election on their own, they need all of them plus some of the independents.
That’s what Trump did, he got all the Republicans plus a chunk of independents. If Democrats tried the same playbook and then didn’t deliver on their promises they would lose the votes of the core Democrat voters and without them the independents aren’t enough to win the election. Republicans are a party of loyalty. The party goes above everything else. Democrats are a party of ideals. If you fail to demonstrate the ideals you lose the votes. That’s why it would ultimately be a losing strategy for the DNC. They’d win a few elections but when it became apparent they’re full of shit the Democrat voters would stop showing up.
So you’re saying the winning strategy for Democrats is completely throw out policy ideals and adopt a “loyalty first” strategy which the GOP did and won the presidency, congress, and control of the supreme court? I hadn’t considered that, but it appears to work, so I can’t disagree with it.
Exactly.
Most of the thread seems to take this lesson. Which is crazy.
They would literally rather have a pandering candidate who just lies to them to get their votes and then does nothing after then a candidate who is transparent about what they can and cannot do, and pushes realistic change that can actually be achieved within their term.
This country is fucked, because the voter base is comprised of morons. The education system has failed this country and there really isn’t any turning back now. If entire generations lack critical thinking ability then they lack the ability to make good choices, and are unable to see past their nose, never mind vote.
The GOP, unlike the DNC, absolutely care what their voters think. That’s the whole point of the culture war project.
The GOP, unlike the DNC, absolutely care what their voters think. That’s the whole point of the culture war project.
Of course they care about what voters think. They need to know what to say to lie to them. It doesn’t mean they’ll actually intact policies that will help Americans. The most working class Americans might get is minorities being subjugated more, which for some is a win.
I mean you’re not wrong but that doesn’t make them better than the DNC, at least in terms of policy. The GOP enacts policies they know will hurt their voters but lie and tell them they’ll help them. Then when those policies inevitably make things worse they lie again and claim they would have worked, but Democrats/minorities fucked it up. That has been their go to move since Reagan and it’s worked amazingly well. Reaganomics/trickle down economics has never once in history worked to do anything but make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Likewise cutting taxes doesn’t do anything but hurt the poor and middle class. But the GOP time and time again puts forward this myth that both of those policies will help the working class and their room temperature IQ supporters gobble it up despite it never once in over 40 years actually working.
That’s exactly never said anything about better. The GOP is worse than the DNC by all measures, but to our misfortune they’re also competent, is what I wanted to say.
I don’t understand this.
The statement made means “are you with me or not, I’m not going to stop on your behalf”
And generally the campaign trail was pro workers rights, the activism history was for workers rights.
So it sounds like teamsters had something else going on? It seems like this thread is reading it wrong.
…Biden and Harris broke multiple strikes.
Yeah, great, they advocated for the PRO act the same way they advocated for m4a or a ceasefire in Palestine.
So Pro-Labor they broke several strikes and love “Right to Work” bills that prohibit unions!
Seems like the Teamsters would have been better running mates than a fucking Cheney
Don’t worry, next election they can get Hitler’s grandson or Putins niece to help them campaign. That should get the average everyday person to come out and vote for them! Everyone loves relatives of super powerful war criminals, right?
Honestly, yes they are the best. Especially when their politics aren’t all that different from the mass murderer.
The silver lining of 2024 is watching Kamala’s entire political career implode from her own hubris. She’s now resigned to HRC hot-potato status that only further polarizes the Dem base.
If the Dems had any sense they’d be distancing themselves from her entire campaign, indefinitely.
Unfortunately the democrats have no sense, which is why they have ghouls like hillary clinton continually floating around in the background even after she lost against a clown and everything she touches turns to shit.
They have sense- sense to understand that they don’t need to win. With the GOP as a boogeyman, they know that even more donations will come in, and they don’t actually have to govern, or produce any kind of effective legislation. It’s why even when the Dems control the majority of the House, nothing gets done, and why there are always just enough Dems willing to cross to Republican positions to defeat any real progress.
They’re just Controlled Opposition at this point, and that probably started in the 90s with Clinton and sucking the Corporate teat with gusto. Even now, we have crones like Pelosi at 84 fucking years old who refuse to do anything other than punch downward at her own party members. The entire party needs to be scrapped.
The silver lining of 2024 is watching Kamala’s entire political career implode from her own hubris
That was the silver lining on her FIRST presidential run, but the DNC didn’t let it happen then and probably won’t now.
A woman of color representing several different groups of people and who will pretend to be progressive sometimes but always change her mind into whatever the donor-determined party line is?
She’s catnip to a Dem leadership desperately trying to compensate for not caring about the working class by pretending that optics equal substance 😮💨
That about sums it up
I actually heard she’s aiming for a governor spot.
Let me guess, California
She’s better than the homeless people’s possessions destroying turd they have now
No she isn’t. They’re cut from the same cloth.
Up north here in Oregon, our Democratic leaders are pretty much the same. They have quite literally argued that housing isn’t a solution to homelessness and instead just have police bust up their camps and push them down the road to do it all again in 3 months.
Voters passed a law to pump a bunch of funding into rehab centers rather than constantly arresting and releasing people for addiction issues, and they refused to disperse any of the funding. After a few years of this, they pointed to the lack of progress as a reason to overturn the law and pump all that money into policing and prisons.
They’ll dole out money for homeless services but only give it to church-run shelters who then impose faith based rules upon their guests which cause many of them to sleep on the streets instead.
They refuse to fund mental health services to the point where we have little more than a couple dozen beds available in the entire state for people experiencing psychiatric emergencies and those that do make it in only stay a few days before getting kicked right back out on the streets.
Mistakes were made
Specifically in how we chose a candidate after Biden stepped down.
Which is too say, how we didn’t choose…
It’s like you’re reading my mind - spooooky
Not forcing that old genocidal fuck to step down earlier is probably a bigger issue
When he won in 2020, he said he was only going to run for a single term. The fact that he even ran in the primary was a huge mistake.
Unless it’s aoc or bernies sanders. I’m not voting blue ever again. Actually crazy they** lost to orange, again
If the next dem candidate doesnt run as an anti-establishment candidate, and call out the party leaders that have done such a terrible job, they will lose again and again and again etc.
For one thing someone eventually has to admit that Bill Clinton is a creep who should not be praised anymore. The fact that the Kamala campaign used him as a surrogate in 2024 is delusional
Everything about her campaign was delusional 🙄
The same AOC who voted to break the rail strike two years ago? She’s a scab.
It’s just shitty because what real alternative is there? You either go all-in on the Conservative fuck-train or you attempt some desperate form of damage control by voting for the moderately more palatable option. There’s no in-between in the US that isn’t a symbolic losing bet.
I’m sure the alternative will be much better for unions, right guys? After all, demolishing the foundations of the country is fine as long as it teaches that one politician that she could have been better!
Kamala would have compromised with unions if she was the better alternative.
If you honestly believe Trump is better for Unions, or for just about any normal people, you’re not paying attention.
Kamala honestly believed not compromising with unions would be better than Trump winning
Why are you under the impression that Trump being bad for unions means that Harris would be good for them? This is a false dichotomy. Too many people think we live in the Marvel Universe where there are clearly defined good guys and bad guys.
Because there are only two viable choices with any chance at winning in a general election, one was “not good enough” and one wants to actively disband unions. You’re the one assuming I thought Harris would be “Good” for Unions, but even you can’t seriously think Trump won’t be objectively worse for them.
How do you know? Biden’s track record tells a different story.
His track record does speak for itself and that’s why things like this happen.
Man fuck them unions
Removed by mod
that’s cool, they’re already union and do not give a fuck about the wagies that will now have to union under Republican rule. they got theirs.
deleted by creator
Delete this gang 🙏
