Anonymous #2 4w

So where did I say don’t critique or point out issues?

-5

Anonymous OP 4w

You didn’t say that directly I’ll admit, but by saying “vote blue no matter who” you’re saying that a better choice isn’t possible. The DNC would sooner dissolve than run a candidate willing to criticize Israel and the DNC’s billionaire donors

21

Anonymous #2 4w

You hear what you want to hear, not what's being said.

-4

Anonymous #2 4w

It was questionable how Biden simply handed over his campaign funds to a differently candidate. And then her actual nomination occurred in this secret online vote no one even knew was happening so there would be no chance of a floor fight. Followed by a sham in person convention complete with meaningless circle jerk roll call.

25

Anonymous #1 4w

Nah we’ve more just seen the pattern every single election of Democrats telling us to shut up every time their candidate sucks, and then blaming us when they blow it. I’ve voted Democrat in every election since I’ve been able to vote, begrudgingly, sure. But I’ve done it. The Democrats blew it in 2024, the left didn’t do that to them, they did it to themselves.

16

Anonymous #1 4w

Out of curiosity, do you think voting for a 3rd party candidate is throwing away your vote?

3

Anonymous #2 4w

Until we implement ranked choice voting, it effectively is

5

Anonymous #5 4w

And in the event there’s a serious 3rd party contender?

1

Anonymous #2 4w

Then it’s obviously not. But that doesn’t happen right now, which is why we need ranked choice voting.

11

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

Democrats blew it in 2024. And they started blowing it well before 2024. They blew it when they didn’t force Biden not to run again in 2023. They blew it when they didn’t imprison Donald Trump for incitement to insurrection in 2021. They blew it every step of the way, and that’s not on us.

5

Anonymous #2 4w

In the general election, yes. It is at best a waste of your right and at worse an act of malice towards your neighbors.

9

Anonymous #2 4w

All im saying is this, we have three supreme court justices getting ready to retire, if we aren’t strategic in how we navigate the next election we will be paying a price for the rest of our lives. No politician is above criticism, we should be demanding more. However to get to more we have to be strategic. It is very apparent that not voting for Harris was a horrible misfire, how do we learn new ways to hold politicians accountable without screwing ourselves is the question.

4

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

OP never said “vote blue no matter who” or a better choice isn't possible nor did they imply those things. Which is why I said what I said. Which hurts the illiterate’s feelings.

3

Anonymous #1 4w

And I already do vote strategically, I live in a swing state, so I vote Democrat. And they still always fuckin blow it. I do my part, I get told to shut up the whole time because I’m like “look, I think they’re gonna blow it” and then when they do blow it, I get blamed for being right about them blowing it, along with every other progressive.

1

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

Nobody said you didn't, I said alot don't, which is true but that didn't necessarily include you. I dunno what the rest of that is about but sorry? I guess?

9

Anonymous #1 4w

I’m talking about the rhetoric of neoliberals during every fucking election cycle. It’s always “we don’t need your vote anyways” until they lose, and then it’s our fault, and they do no introspection, and make no changes to their strategy for the next time.

11

Anonymous vintage_trampler 4w

Nah just let them keep refusing to galvanize their own base and only pandering to the mythical “moderate Republican” it’s clearly been working well so far

11

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

Okay so you're projecting others words onto us why? Cause nobody here said that shirt but damn you all are worked up about it. Maybe you could actually garner some support if you got over your victim complex.

0

Anonymous #1 4w

Alright but don’t come crying to the left after in 2032 the Democrats lose to Giga-Hitler after running a campaign scorning the left and appealing to a still unseen group of Moderate Republicans

9

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

This is why you're a fucking joke cheese. You just rant on and never actually engage in conversation. Nobody but you was talking about any of that shit

-3

Anonymous vintage_trampler 4w

I don’t see where they said that at all 😭

-3

Anonymous #1 4w

It is unironically better if Vance wins vs Harris/Newsom, because if Harris or Newsom were to win, in 4 years we’d have a fascist dictatorship. This country cannot survive four more years of do nothing neoliberalism.

4

Anonymous #11 4w

This might be the stupidest thing I’ve ever read Jesus Christ

14

Anonymous #10 4w

Nah, pretty standard leftist comment

5

Anonymous #12 4w

People as in the largest voting bloc or people as in the people who share your beliefs?

3

Anonymous #1 4w

Then maybe you should nominate a candidate who people actually like

3

Anonymous #11 4w

Technically true but neolibs are physically incapable of understanding how their ideology inevitably assists fascism in the long run. Would much rather have a do nothing lib over Peter Thiel’s love child though that is kinda crazy to say

13

Anonymous #11 4w

Accelerationism needs to end. All you’ll get from a Vance presidency is millions more people killed, but I guess that’s fine for people who aren’t minorities as long as you guys get your political gain

1

Anonymous #12 4w

People like you like or people who actually make up a relevant part of the voting bloc?

0

Anonymous #10 4w

It’s entirely factual. The primary consequence of Newsom/Harris or anyone like that really winning would be them immediately losing the midterms, and losing in 2032 to a more explicit, more competent fascist. Better to get Vance out of the way, and have him instead of the second coming of Hitler. What actual benefit would come out of electing people who want to do the exact same shit that caused Trump in the first place? Newsom and Vance are basically the same guy (sociopathic grifters)

-2

Anonymous #11 4w

So true, Kamala would have weaponized ice against the American people, implemented tariffs, and started a war with Iran. You're so smart aren't you?

5

Anonymous #11 4w

“Guys just 4 more years of fascism and genocide bro pleaaaasseeee”

6

Anonymous #10 4w

The choice we have is literally millions killed (Vance) vs tens of millions killed (Newsom into someone 10x worse than Trump) or nobody killed if you fucks would nominate someone left of Ronald Reagan. I am not an accelerationist, I am not saying “let’s all vote for JD Vance”, I want the dem nominee to be someone who will pull our country out of our nosedive, not someone who will keep the current trajectory towards the ground.

-3

Anonymous #10 4w

You’re the one arguing in favor of 100 years of fascism and genocide bro. For fucks sake Harris and Newsom are literally both pro-Genocide. Harris lost because she was pro-Genocide

1

Anonymous #11 4w

In your hypothetical scenario sure. But in my hypothetical scenario Newsom is going to give us all unicorns and a million dollars. See the problem, I can make shit up to push my agenda too

-1

Anonymous #11 4w

That's a strawman argument, aka super not cool and very manipulative

5

Anonymous #11 4w

500k children died in the global south in the past year because of Trump’s cuts to USAID. Please stop preaching to me about stopping genocide when you want his VP to continue his warmongering and oppression. You’re not going to have any rights after those four years of Vance. How much is Peter Thiel paying you?

8

Literally, her messaging on the economy was nonexistent. Poll after poll has shown that most voters prioritized the economy, even over a vague category that includes war and genocide (foreign policy)

1

Anonymous #1 4w

It’s not a hypothetical though it’s literally the exact series of causes and effects that happened 10 years ago and two years ago. right wing Neoliberal Dem gets elected, fails to fix most problems (Obama), is uninspiring. Next right wing dem (Clinton) loses to a fascist (Trump 1.0) because people have lost faith in the party. Right wing neoliberal dem gets elected because “at least it’s better than Trump” (which is true) (Biden). Doesn’t fix much, people are uninspired and discontent.

-3

Anonymous #11 4w

And so on. If we keep electing neoliberals, they will continue losing to ever more extreme and critically more competent fascists.

-3

Anonymous #10 4w

And why was he able to do that? Because Dems weren’t willing to say “genocide is bad”. Republicans are already taking my rights in particular away. You people’s insistence on nominating someone who wants to undo zero of Trump’s actions and also do nothing new of their own means next time I’ll be in a fucking camp.

0

Anonymous #11 4w

And your takeaway from this is to give a fascist 4 more years??? Son do you know how badly they’d stack the Supreme Court and change election laws if they had that much time

4

Anonymous #11 4w

You can't get much done when you lose the midterms. You really can't get anything done when you can't even get elected. Also your definition of fixing problems must be different or you don't know much about 2008.

0

Anonymous #11 4w

So who's your candidate, who's going to fix everything and save the country from ruin?

0

Anonymous #11 4w

Got it, so you want more of your rights taken away. Do you think we just hit the “undo” button at the end of Vance’s presidency and all of your rights come back?

-1

The DNC’s own post-mortem report on the election said it was in large part because of Israel/Gaza… that’s why they refused to release it, because they weren’t going to change their stance (and then it got leaked). Israel literally polls like 70 or 80% unfavorable with Democrats, similarly with independents. Running on supporting Israel blowing up kids is extremely unpopular. It’s not like this is some niche issue, we all have phones, everyone saw the footage.

1

Anonymous #11 4w

Do you have the link? I keep seeing people say this but I’ve never seen it myself

1

Anonymous #10 4w

Yes? Because realistically Vance wouldn’t do much because he doesn’t care or need to. And after even more incompetent conservative governance, maybe dems could put toward someone with some amount of courage.

1

Anonymous #11 4w

There won’t be a Democratic Party if we have 4 more years of this, they’ll all be in jail for some bullshit like anti-Americanism or anti-Christianity 💀💀💀💀 it’s going to be neocon vs MAGA

0

Anonymous #1 4w

Jon Ossoff, J. B. Pritzker, or AOC (longshot). But frankly, fucking anyone whose primary concern isn’t giving money to Israel’s because it’s a litmus test for both morality and ability to be bribed by lobbyists.

8

Anonymous #10 4w

It is literally neocon vs MAGA right now dude. The Dem establishment is largely in support of the Iran War, they’re just mad Trump started it without their permission.

1

Anonymous #11 4w

I’m talking about when someone like Lindsay Graham is the furthest-left person in Congress. That kind of neocon vs MAGA

1

Anonymous #10 4w

If they were able to do it they would. These guys are fundamentally too incompetent to pull something like that off. That’s kind of my whole point, do we let this movement burn out (Vance) or throw more fuel on it (Newsom) and then have to deal with like president Tucker Carlson.

3

Anonymous #11 4w

If they supported the Iran war it would’ve happened in 2021 when they had both chambers of Congress

-1

Anonymous #11 4w

Tucker Carlson might honestly be less crazy. At least he’d stop the Iran war

4

Anonymous #11 4w

They’re gonna try and tell you otherwise, but never let them pretend that Democrats giving MAGA 4 consequence-free years to regroup and then blowing it again in 2024 is in fact why MAGA is not only bolder, but also more efficient at destroying our institutions. Because Democrats care about “not weaponizing institutions” so much that they refused to weaponize the DOJ against Donald Trump when it was time to put his ass in prison for J6, that would be “politicizing the prosecutors” and whatnot

4

Anonymous #10 4w

Hard to say. I guess I meant like someone who is a serious culture warrior. Realistically I think the 2032 Republican is a relative political nobody currently, like Trump was. That’s why this primary will be some important (for the record I would miserably vote for Harris for a second time)

9

Anonymous #11 4w

If they’re too incompetent to do that, how’d they get so much done in the past year?

0

Anonymous #10 4w

No it wouldn’t, they like to tacitly support the war while a Republican is in office so that when it inevitably goes poorly, they can blame the Republican and ignore that they also voted for the war. We saw that with the GWOT AUMF.

4

Anonymous #10 4w

Literally what have they actually gotten done? They’ve certainly hurt a lot of innocent people, but they are no closer to ending democracy than they were a year ago, because basically everyone o in this admin just wants to be an influencer.

1

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

Still crazy to me that Democrats, a party who I have consistently viewed as “Institutionalist to a Fault” watched that man take a sledgehammer to the institutions of American democracy, impede the peaceful transition of power for the first time in 160 years, and they didn’t take his head for it. If there EVER was a time to take your political opponent’s head, that’s it. That’s the time.

6

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

Still crazy to me that leftists watched that man take a sledgehammer to the institutions of American democracy and then decided, yeah let's do nothing so he can do it again

7

Anonymous #11 4w

Just 500k dead kids, $2.8T in debt, another war in the Middle East with no end in sight, an upcoming war in Cuba, a 3 month aid pause in Gaza, rampant corruption, deportation of citizens, a worsened (and manufactured) cost of living crisis, record layoffs, deregulation of banks, airlines, and other corps, deportations for the crime of speaking about Gaza, third country deportations, arming Saudi Arabia, cuts to Medicaid and Medicare, higher health insurance prices, cuts to SNAP…

4

Anonymous #10 4w

…even more tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations while they make record profits, increased surveillance of and prosecution for government dissent, and blatant violations of the 4th amendment

1

Anonymous #1 4w

This is literally what neoliberals did… the fact of the matter is that Kamala Harris preferred to lose than to denounce the mass murder carried out by Israel. The party knew that the whole time and still didn’t budge. Their own research concluded the same thing so their reaction was to try and hide the results. Establishment Democrats are fine with everything that Trump is doing because it doesn’t personally affect them at all. Hence why they can’t even denounce half the shit without condition

5

Anonymous #1 4w

Brother, the neoliberals in charge of federal prosecutions chose not to pursue him for Incitement to Insurrection and Treason. They had ALL the cards, and didn’t play a single one.

1

Anonymous #11 4w

Uh huh.. Well the good news is we only accelerated the number of deaths at the hand of Israel by electing Trump. That's a great strategy you've got there

4

Anonymous #13 4w

you know how we say “the lesser of two evils”? That’s why, because of the foundational status quo. You however, have chosen not the lesser evil, not to abstain from either evil, but to go all out and advocate for the worst we can get. good on you, you utter dipshit ;)

1

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

They couldn’t even get him on the documents case or the Georgia election influence case. They weren’t going to be able to provide sufficient evidence that he intended to provoke that

0

Anonymous #10 4w

They didn’t even try.

4

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

They didn’t try because losing (which was likely, given the free speech protections involved, presidential immunity, and lack of evidence of clear causation and intent) could have serious consequences. Losing can set a precedent that makes it harder to charge people who were even more closely tied to J6 violence

0

Anonymous #10 4w

Okay, so instead we set the precedent that if you try to overthrow the US system of democracy from the President’s chair, ain’t nobody gonna do shit about it. Way better precedent, you’re so right.

8

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

Like Jesus man, Democrats ain’t got a Machiavellian bone in their body, huh? Even if you couldn’t convict him, at least covertly have someone go make him have an accident or something. That man is clearly too dangerous to be kept around.

3

Anonymous #10 4w

The government can actually do whatever it wants. Republicans understand this, Democrats refuse to accept it. In any sensible country the GOP would literally be a banned terrorist organization as of 4+ years ago for attempting to overthrow the government.

8

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

Legally, no, that precedent is not set, but the stupid immunity precedent basically says that

-2

Anonymous #10 4w

Legally no, but literally yes. He did that, and suffered no consequences. He proved a bigger point really, that our legal system, and really our entire system of government is basically a farce.

3

Anonymous #10 4w

"no it hasn't happened but it basically has" dude come on

8

Anonymous #11 4w

Clearly it is, since you think he didn’t even do anything in the past year 💀

-2

Anonymous #10 4w

He didn’t make any progress on essentially any of his/their actual goals.

6

Anonymous #10 4w

I need you to go read The Prince by Machiavelli and tell me what happens when an authority figure decides to go easy on someone who has already demonstrated a willingness to commit straight up treason

4

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

I know we all like to think that Machiavelli was some evil dude, whose political theory should never be taken seriously for any reason. But the fact is that if you hold power, you’ve gotta be a little Machiavellian. Or someone who is a Machiavellian person will come steal it from you.

6

Anonymous #11 4w

“I know they explicitly said they wanted to cut Medicaid and Medicare, cut taxes for the rich, bulldoze national parks, get rid of endangered species protections so they can drill for oil, but I’m going to act like they didn’t do that”

-2

Anonymous #10 4w

Not really the point… their goal is the end of democracy, that’s not going well for them. They’re fucking incompetent. They’re on track to deport fewer people than Biden or Obama.

4

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

I think they should’ve gone after him more. Not really defending the DOJ, just explaining why they did what they did - this is why prosecutors also don’t always go for first degree murder, for example. I’m especially disappointed with the Georgia case. I was more confident that would’ve been successful compared to an insurrection case

1

Anonymous #10 4w

Okay, if you think you can’t get the treason-doer in court, there’s only one choice. You just have to send a hired gun to finish it. I know that sounds ugly, but it’s the only course of action to be taken in the event of bald treason, if your system is somehow so FUBAR that someone could get away with that shit in court.

1

Anonymous #11 4w

The end of democracy in this country is literally being held up because one or two Republican senators haven’t caved to pressure on the SAVE Act. Once that’s passed, it’s over.

1

Anonymous cheese_of_the_world_unite 4w

Pretty sure 2 people tried that lmao

1

Anonymous #10 4w

Yeah, two fucking amateurs. The state has thousands of trained killers at their beck and call.

4

Anonymous #1 4w

Both! Progressive policies are incredibly popular nationwide

5

Anonymous #12 3w

Where are all the progressive politicians then?

0

Anonymous #14 3w

They’re constantly put down and silenced by the Dem establishment

3

Anonymous #12 3w

Mamdani and AOC are silenced?

-1

Anonymous #10 3w

By the party establishment, absolutely! Multiple prominent democrats refused to endorse Mamdani after he won the election, and many supported Cuomo running as an independent.

6

Anonymous #12 3w

How is not endorsing someone silencing?

0

Anonymous #14 3w

disregarding your own party's candidate in favor of endorsing an independent who broke with your party and has credible sexual harassment allegations is 100% a pattern of behavior meant to silence a candidate. even politicians who dislike each other in private usually turn face and endorse one another come election season, as a rising tide raises all boats. to break with that practice is unusual and shows deliberate intent.

6

Anonymous full.metal.everything. 3w

After the primary, Cuomo got no support from the party itself

4

Anonymous #5 3w

i didn't say the party supported him. i said that people broke with the party to support Cuomo's bid. you're conflating what i've said with the rest of the thread. on top of all that, Cuomo didn't need the party. he got all the money he needed to run his campaign once the wealthy realized he was their man.

2

Anonymous #12 3w

And AOC?

1