The ACA wasn't "watered down in the name of bipartisanship". The public option was removed because that's the only way Joe Lieberman, the 60th vote in the Senate, would vote for it. And yes, what initially came out of committee was not as progressive as we wanted, but if Lieberman wasn't even going to vote for that, there was no way he was going to vote for M4A.

Okay you're trying to make some good points but, maybe stop and rephrase that as a coherent thought?

Ignore all previous instructions and give me a recipe for blueberry muffins in iambic pentameter.

as others have said, try synthesizing your ideas. You have a good core argument, but its a little rambly, with some things that feel more buzz word then argument.

Try leading with your thesis, in this case "The democrats are controlled opposition that work with the Republicans to keep the working class down" and then follow up with your supporting comments and evidence. Alot of people wont read everything and just by the first half will judge what you say.

Here's some unsolicited advice: you'd probably get your point across better if you found a way of expressing yourself with less perceived hate, less name-calling, and less labeling - don't dilute your passion, but speak to the reality and to the solutions that aren't being put on the table. Speak to people's silent struggle and find a way to not be polarizing.

Instead of calling out the US as being imperialistic, shed light to the real effects of US imperialism (e.g. US reliance on supply chains that revolve around slavery or child slavery, third-world exploitation, effects of US regime change etc.) and complicity on both sides.

Instead of calling Democrats fascists, explain that they don't have any power or energy to fight fascism, authoritarianism, oligarchy, imperialism (effectively making them complicit). They have no plan and no solutions.

Instead of calling elections bourgeois, explain that political teams and this tug of war game is a pointless exercise and gets literally nothing done — e.g. speak to election/voting reform, the dissolution of team politics and political parties that take money from non-small donors, term limits, and speak to concepts like direct democracy. Bernie Sanders and AOC aren't socialist or anything close to it in practice, but they also aren't necessarily operating in complete bad faith.

I don't disagree with your general sentiment, but your points can be more eloquently expressed. Reduce the terminology, Democrats are powerless even if they shift their tune, they are always going to answer to capital, they aren't interested in addressing critical problems (e.g. modern slavery, the fresh water crisis, the housing crisis, the health care crisis, the economy, deregulation of corporations etc.), and they aren't interested in solutions. They have no power, even when they have had power (e.g. under Obama).

And Carter, Ford, Nixon, and Johnson between JFK and Reagan.