America - The Official Thread

[Tornado]

Logically we should expect a lot of these nutjobs doing something "good" because they didn't sign up to the Nazi train to answer to Elmo; who isn't operating with the same goals as the rest of Trump's toadies.

 

[Blitz24]

Logically we should expect a lot of these nutjobs doing something "good" because they didn't sign up to the Nazi train to answer to Elmo; who isn't operating with the same goals as the rest of Trump's toadies.

Broken clock is right twice a day or something.

 

[GranTurNismo]

I'm not sure if we deserve someone as relentlessly passionate as Bernie Sanders, but sometimes I think he's the only person with enough charisma, clout, focus, and determination, at 83 years old, to take the fight directly and effectively to the Oligarchy. This is the first time I've seen anything resembling a plan of action emerge from the left since Trump took office.

We are on the road for democracy and justice

So much this.

I used to be under the impression that Democrats lost because their policy positions were too centrist as opposed to progressive/left and that they failed at consistently messaging. While these are certainly factors, I think an even bigger reason is a general observable lack of passion and fight among Democratic candidates. And this is where Bernie shines, because he actually has believed in something decisive for decades, something that excites both mainstay Democratic voters, and those who don't really participate much in politics. Though his "Oligarchy Tour" has already been massively successful, it's really a shame that Bernie is fighting this fight alone, without any support from almost all of the elected Democrats. And Harris' silence is even more shameful; while its understandable that Biden would be relatively quiet given his advanced age, it's reprehensible that Harris genuinely seems to have 2026 and/or possible 2028 aspirations yet has completely given up even attempting to fight fascism and promote the values she ostensibly believes in now that she lost. Which brings me to my main point:

I seriously worry that the Democrats are failing right now because many elected Democrats don't actually want to win Here's why:

The democratic party is not a conventional political party with unifying policy goals, beliefs or values. It is a networking club for mildly socially liberal ivy-leaguers and former "gifted kids" who want high-paying high-status careers in media, consulting, lobbying, law, tech or finance. That’s goal one. Winning elections is ancillary and not as important. Most of these people are independently wealthy and privileged enough to be totally insulated from the consequences of bad governance and state policy. When Democrats do get their people elected, the goal of being in political office itself is not to exercise power or enact a coherent policy agenda. It’s a stepping stone to gain enough clout for a more lucrative career later. That’s why they keep running the same script no matter how many times they lose. Winning isn’t the goal. They’re there for themselves, not for you. It’s the Iron Law of Institutions: The people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution "fail" while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to “succeed” if that requires them to lose power within the institution. The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans, while they are fascists who will harm the country, have ideological goals they work towards achieving. Democrats do not, they are entirely about the grift and maintaining their own power/wealth.

The fact that AOC was snubbed for longtime centrist Gerry Conolly, a milquetoast septugenerian literally battling cancer, for chair of the House Oversight Committee- one of the loudest and most powerful positions to counter Trump- exemplifies this point. It's obvious that AOC is the much more bold, energetic, determined, and savvy voice against MAGA, even if her own policy positions are too far to left for some in the party, she's perhaps the most popular Democrat outside of Sanders. Yet, Connolly, who has no charisma or name recognition at all still got the job. Why? Because the Democrats care more about honoring established procedures and seniority than actually winning, as Connolly was "promised" the position by being loyal and deferential to the party establishment, and refusal to give anyone considered progressive or outside of the party mainstream any influence whatsoever.

Party leaders like Schumer, Pelosi, Jeffries, Hoyer, etc, as well as the consultant class, get to remain powerful and wealthy regardless of whether Democrats win or not. Corporate and ultra-rich donors still seem to reliably churn out money regardless of whether the political climate is favorable to Democrats. So if Democrats keep losing, those who actually run the party and make decisions are still unthreatened. While Democrats actually believe in, and are capable of, governance, it takes much less effort and risk to be the perpetual opposition than to actually govern, especially in a fractured political party where the political headwinds have increasingly moved populist, risking alienating and upsetting elite donors which the party relies on.

 

[Danoff]

The democratic party is not a conventional political party with unifying policy goals, beliefs or values. It is a networking club for mildly socially liberal ivy-leaguers and former "gifted kids" who want high-paying high-status careers in media, consulting, lobbying, law, tech or finance. That’s goal one.

That is the perception among the right. If you knew anything about Harris (or Walz), you'd know that's not right. And also, you ignore that America WANTS this, and won it for themselves.

 

[GranTurNismo]

That is the perception among the right. If you knew anything about Harris (or Walz), you'd know that's not right. And also, you ignore that America WANTS this, and won it for themselves.

I’d say it doesn’t apply to Walz, you’re right. But I think it does for Harris.

 

[Danoff]

I’d say it doesn’t apply to Walz, you’re right. But I think it does for Harris.

I don't think that makes sense.

 

[Strittan]

How come 83(!) year old Bernie Sanders is the most passionate and well spoken leftist in a country of 300+ million? To me that says something about America, but exactly what I’m not entirely sure. Maybe you simply don’t like social justice very much over there?