Anonymous #1 1w

You’re probably right 🫠

13

Anonymous OP 1w

They’re running back “social fascism” where they’d rather split votes and sometimes even ally with Nazis than form any meaningful coalition of resistance lmao

5

Anonymous #1 1w

I think of yall like a bug I stepped. Like democrats are sub-human.

-1

Anonymous #2 1w

🤨

7

Anonymous #3 1w

Insane comment

6

Anonymous #4 1w

wtf

4

Anonymous blue__wave 1w

Actual communists and socialists are at best 3% of all voters. It is not their number that is necessarily problematic but their ability and willingness to hide their power level, infiltrate liberal/socdem spaces and behave in a subversive manner. They are small in number but highly active and mobilized and they already have a presence in Dem leadership and needed to be rooted out and forced to change their voter registration.

10

Anonymous #2 1w

Look around dawg. We don’t need you.

0

Anonymous #6 1w

Why’d you lose 2024 then?

3

Anonymous #2 1w

Is it 2024?

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Because the campaign messaging was garbage

1

Anonymous #6 1w

How’d you lose the mayorship in the most capitalist city on earth?

0

Anonymous #1 1w

The actual answer is probably just cost of living. Every party in power in every country in the West lost elections in 2024. You subversive losers are not a large enough bloc of voters to be remotely as important as you are self-important. Vote third party if you want. It’s not like you vote for Democrats anyways. The accelerationists among you can stomach a vote for Trump, but that’s not most of you. The ones who are too pussy to actually vote for fascists are at best irrelevant.

9

Anonymous #2 1w

Pretty sure Mamdani ran as a democrat…

6

Anonymous #6 1w

Take a look at the primaries that just happened, your AIPAC candidate who want to murder American citizens all over the country for Israel’s war machine are losing

1

Anonymous #1 1w

No shit and he’s still a socialist. In fact the DNC chair has become much more tolerant of DSA members since the 2024 loss. Because this isn’t your party anymore, it’s ours. Join the movement or get out of the way.

-1

Anonymous #1 1w

Once Schumer and Jeffries are gone you’re going to get healthcare no matter how hard you cry about the billionaires profits.

-1

Anonymous #6 1w

True

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Gotta be honest bud, I think your delusion lies on the fact you think the loss in 2024 had anything other than to do with Trump picking up on people’s insecurities around cost of living, immigration, etc

8

Anonymous #2 1w

Catch up lil bro you guys started calling Mamdani a traitor to the cause months ago, you dropped Abughazaleh and celebrated her loss for having extremely normal foreign policy positions and agreeing with you on 99.9% of everything else. The reason you guys will never take over is because you literally have no candidates that you will not eventually revolt against for some minor misstep or lack of ideological purity.

6

Anonymous #2 1w

You need to touch some serious grass with this whole “join the movement or get out of the way” thing

3

Anonymous OP 1w

Your tools in the DNC tried blaming us. Good thing they’ve finally learned a thing or two.

-1

Anonymous #6 1w

Once we sanitize the DNC you’ll be back to begging for signatures in front of a grocery store to get your candidates on the ballot to hope to crack 2%z

2

Anonymous #2 1w

Girl they’re already calling him ZIOhran and saying he’s a YIMBY who cozies up to real estate developers. Some of y’all have already ditched him 💀

2

Anonymous OP 1w

It’s not even a serious enough way to put it. I’m tired of people who just treat politics like some team sport. It is literal life or death for thousands of people across the country. The reason I got into politics in the first place is because at the age of 12 I watched one of my older cousins die because he couldn’t afford his life saving medication and was instead trying to put food on the table for his two toddlers. Every day that goes by without universal healthcare on average 109 more die.

-1

Anonymous #6 1w

“bro pleaseeeeee if we get 5% we can get federal campaign funding”

0

Anonymous #2 1w

You are literally the only group that has ever talked about withholding support for candidates who do not meet every box on your checklist. I’m not sure how you can accuse anyone else of treating politics like team sports when you are definitionally engaging in team sports by refusing to support candidates who you agree with on 60-70% of issues because the candidate you agreed with in 90% lost a fair primary. Like Bernie did. Twice.

9

Anonymous #6 1w

Team sports is voting for someone because they are a Dem/rep and no other reason.

-1

Anonymous #2 1w

I’m sorry that happened. That should never happen to anyone. But miss me with this “this isn’t your party anymore”when I supported people like Mamdani, and the candidates you support are literally asking me for money 😭

4

Anonymous #2 1w

“No other reason” Do you think that liberals are just checking D down the line without any knowledge of policy? Can you name a Democratic candidate from the last 20 years in any national race that you didn’t overlap with on policy by at least like 50% or, even better, overlap with more than the other candidate? I’ll even give you an out since you guys pushed for pre-stroke Fetterman so hard and not bring that up in response to whoever you name.

3

Anonymous #6 1w

I love how you assume that I’ve never ever voted for a Dem in my life and that I’m consistently some green voter off of absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

1

Anonymous #6 1w

Wish I committed the crime and spent the year or whatever in state prison for taking a picture of my ballot just to shut your stupid ass up

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Did I make that assumption? Where? You accuse libs of playing team sports, which you define as supporting the party’s nominee for no other reason than that they’re the party’s nominee. If you’re not a Dem loyalist, have you ever not supported a Dem nominee? When? What makes it principled when you vote Dem and team sports when other people do it in spite of less than perfect policy alignment in both cases?

1

Anonymous #6 1w

Here’s the first time you did it

1

Anonymous #6 1w

Here’s the second time you did it

1

Anonymous #2 1w

Fair, caught. Same question again.

1

Anonymous #6 1w

Here’s the third time you did it? I mean seriously do you not read your own comments?

1

Anonymous #2 1w

In my defense, the second screenshot is not an accusation of anything other than having unpopular candidates that I would like to jettison from the party, and the third is talking about socialists/communists in general, not you specifically, which… this is just historically true? Do I need to start screenshotting Twitter threads or can you just concede that the far left is extremely quick to threaten to or in fact withhold support for Democratic candidates that they perceive as too far right?

1

Anonymous #6 1w

I’ve voted Republican for my city positions and house rep, I’ve voted third party for my state senate and house. The Dem nominees largely supported right wing economics with just moderate lib social policies (like barely sorta being tolerant of gay people), and I’ve personally met my Republican house rep and he is a good guy, although I won’t vote for him in the future because he’s too old.

-1

Anonymous #2 1w

So am I correct in saying that when you vote for candidates who are probably, in spite of your framing, less aligned with you on policy than the Dem alternatives, you believe that this is a principled decision, but when a liberal consistently votes for the candidate who is more ideologically aligned with them, even if they have some fundamental differences, this is team sports if that candidate is always a Democrat?

1

Anonymous #2 1w

“My republican house rep is a good guy” aw hell nah 😭

1

Anonymous #1 1w

Incumbency effect spotted in the wild

5

Anonymous #1 1w

The Democrat he ran against was 70 years old, ran uncontested in her primary, wanted to increase CBP funding, decrease funding fighting climate change, wanted gun reforms because too many police officers are dying from current gun laws, and was ridiculously vague on basically every other issue minus abortion. Tell me, does that sound like a Democrat to you?

1