707
No wonder Pelosi liked him.
Phew, can you imagine these guys winning the presidency?
Wait.. they’re the good ones!?
They are mostly corporate neoliberal centrists. There are very few actual liberals or progressives left in the Democratic Party. They can’t deliver on any meaningful legislation because it always gets shot down by the Republicans or even their own party.
Fucking of course he did. Jesus christ.
This is why I say that the DNC is fully dead. AOC and the rest of the young progressives in Congress need to just get with Sanders and straight up found a new party. This is so fucking dumb.
I was thinking that Trump was going to be the end of the Republican party, and the Democrats would pick up the slightly reasonable conservative position. Instead Trump made the Democratic party if playing to the right a farce and maybe that'll end the Democratic party. I'm curious to see where things go. It seems like one of the two have to collapse eventually.
the slightly reasonable conservative position.
A little light genocide. Mild indentured servitude. A judicious amount of crippling poverty. Means tested mass incarceration. Just the right amount of war profiteering. Seasonal witch hunts.
You know, moderate conservatism.
load more comments
(3 replies)
You forget that financially the DNC strategy is very sound, even lucrative. This can go on for a very long time and things will get worse before they get better. Winning elections is not the objective when money is what fuels the machine.
Founding a new party would make them Jill Stein. Nobody wants more Jill Stein.
Those of you with Dem congressmen, write in and tell them you want AOC. They're the ones responsible for this shit. Don't make dumb threats about the general, but you can absolutely consider primaries. Your vote goes farther in the primary. That's where the difference can be made.
He says, after the Dems just had a presidential candidate that did not even run in the primaries.
No, a new party is 100% the way to go, though it shouldn't be hostile to the dems, e.g. not running for president until they have more congressman and senators then the Dems to avoid splitting the vote.
I would straight up call it "the New Democratic Party" or similar. I wouldn't even necessarily try to make a massive shift towards the progressive direction. Instead, design it so that it would be very easy for existing Democratic politicians to jump ship to the new party. Make it an equally large tent, and just serve as a one-to-one replacement of the existing party. Once the Old Democratic Party is dead and buried, then debates can be had about what direction to move the party politically. Instead, the main change would be structural reforms, reforms that would serve to allow the party to move in new ideological directions in the future.
I would make the New Democratic Party like the old one, except with a few key structural reforms that will prevent the dysfunction of the Old Democratic Party. Some possible reforms I can think of:
-
No politician may run under the New Democratic Party banner while accepting corporate campaign dollars.
-
Every nominee must have a full and competitive primary every single cycle, regardless of incumbency.
-
Any party leader that holds a leadership role during a losing election will be ineligible to serve in party leadership for the next ten years. (True electoral accountability among leadership.)
-
No system of committee appointments or positions within the party may be assigned based on seniority. Every position from top to bottom must be competitive. This is the DEMOCRATIC party. We don't do inherited royalty here.
-
Various reforms to greatly diminish the power of political consultants.
-
A vice president is ineligible to be the party's presidential nominee for at least 8 years after the end of their VP term. (Kill off the "it's their turn" idea once and for all.)
In other words, in software terms, this would be a hard fork of the Democratic Party. It wouldn't be an entirely new party that has to build a completely new base and tradition from scratch. It would simply be a new version of the existing party built with a few crucial reforms that will prevent the kind of sicknesses that currently plague the existing Old Democratic Party. The actual formal legal structure of the party would be entirely new, but it would be designed so that any existing Democratic politician could easily jump ship to the new version as long as they're willing to agree with these few crucial structural reforms. It would essentially be stealing the party right out from under the existing DNC.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Money. You need the DNC money. It's easier than more fundraising. Like activating voters instead of switching them. Make your life easier.
The importance of money is greatly exaggerated. I think it's clear by now that there is such a thing as saturation when it comes to political ad spending. By the time you've already spent $500 million to bombard the eyeballs in everyone in the country, what good does the next $500 million really do? Democrats managed to outspend Republicans in both 2024 and 2016. Dems collect way more money than they need and then waste most of it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Ahhh, never mind. I had a strange idea that clinging to the carcass of the democratic party failed. No idea where I got that from. Looking forward to all the improvements the next 4 years will bring the US, since DNC money made life easier.
load more comments
(2 replies)
You're only Jill Stein if you don't actually try to form a real political party. Such a new party would actually attempt to be a real party, gunning for seats up and down the ballot in every election. The Greens just grift at the top of the ticket every four years.
Hey hey, it's not fully dead, it just has terminal cancer.
load more comments
(1 replies)
That's why Pelosi chose them, specially over AOC. She's the other side of the US oligarchy, the one that's ok with the slice of cake they have now and don't want to push the US into a complete dictatorship just to try to get more. She's one of the people in the democratic party that's most abusing federal insider trading and conflicts of interests.
Seriously. She's just a smarter oligarch than Trump. She's smart enough to realize that keeping a flawed and corrupt democracy is better than no democracy at all. She realizes there's no real point in having wealth if you and yours have to live in some totalitarian shithole. And also, wealth tends to be very vulnerable to arbitrary confiscation in authoritarian regimes. Trump is an oligarch, but he's just stupid and prideful enough to think that he and his will always remain at the peak of the pyramid, and that autocracy will work in his favor.
She’s smart enough to realize that keeping a flawed and corrupt democracy is better than no democracy at all.
Playing Jenga with my democracy, smugly certain I won't be the one who pulls the last block.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Pelosi and all other geriatric politicians need to retire
more like these scammers should be jailed. only good thing that trump would do in his presidency is to send doj after them, but pelosi might already have made a deal with him.
He's also recently announced that he's undergoing chemotherapy for esophagus cancer, which has a very low survival rate. It's bad enough that the DNC will only allow corrupt geriatrics to hold the levers of power, but could they at least have found one that wasn't actively dying?
Esophageal cancer only has a very low survival rate in the late stages. If caught early it's about 50%
In general, the prognosis of esophageal cancer is quite poor, because most patients present with advanced disease. By the time the first symptoms (such as difficulty swallowing) appear, the disease has already progressed. The overall five-year survival rate (5YSR) in the United States is around 15%, with most people dying within the first year of diagnosis.
A few days ago, I learned I joined the ranks of millions of Americans. I have cancer of the esophagus. It was a surprise because, except for some intermittent abdominal aches and pains, I had no symptoms.
So, I'm not a doctor, but it sounds like he's showing early symptoms, he only has a 15% or living more than 5 years, and he's more likely than not to die within the next year. But even if you're right, a 74-year-old, who is undergoing chemotherapy and has a coin-flip chance of survival, is leading one of the most important committees in Congress.
I'm not trying to be cruel to the guy; cancer sucks and it's awful he's going through this. But given how narrow the Republican lead is in the House, it's irresponsible to have him just stay in Congress at all, since he might miss crucial votes. The Oversight Committee is going to be incredibly important for investigating the Trump administration, and having the top Democrat on the panel be a man going through serious health issues is insane.
"irresponsible you say? 😏" - Dem leadership
We can thank Nancy Pelosi and her boomer wisdom for this.
The fewer boomers in Congress, the better.
Is she even a boomer or silent generation? Not sure about her exact age but I think Hitler was winning the war when she was born.
Boomer is a state of mind.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The new and improved democratic party is back in business everyone!
🌎👩🏼🚀🔫👩🏼🚀
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Eat my ass Nancy Pelosi
I hope she trips again, and this time, never gets up again.
It should be illegal to own stocks as a Senator.
Honestly, at this point we just need to dissolve the US in its entirety. I no longer believe it can be saved. We need to grant all 50 states full independence. They can then come back together and form whatever new nation or nations they want. The existing union is broken beyond all repair. It can no longer be salvaged.
What actually happens if the Union splits is that corporate interests start buying states. If you think we live in a cyberpunk dystopia now, just imagine what would happen if Amazon owned Mississippi through Georgia.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I like where your head is at, but that's a terrible idea that will just lead to all the Red States going full jihad on "others"
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
So, they meet the qualifications. Got it.
Dems do insider trading, Reps do rape. Nice people.
BuT iT wAs HiS tUrN!
You know I thought it was low effort cringe when I first heard "demacrips and rebloodpicans" in a body count song, but Im starting to like it more by the day
So an unsurprising pick for the "good" party.
Being in the senate and congress will become increasingly a status symbol and effective tool for getting health care for oneself and one's family. Otherwise it will be about as useful as it was during the slow slide from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire. But being America it will happen much faster.
I have an idea:
- get people who desperately need health insurance together
- elect one of them for Congress
- they perform the minimum amount of days needed to get health insurance for life
- resign
- Governor sets special election
- next person runs for office
- repeat until everyone has insurance
load more comments
(1 replies)
Well, that's why he's qualified.
You couldn't write this and have someone think it was realistic.
What the actual fuck DNC? Pelosi? Corrupt pieces of shit just protecting themselves
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2024
707 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19237 readers
1903 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS