590
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] WatDabney@lemmy.dbzer0.com 246 points 4 weeks ago

Fuck the DNC.

The DNC is an open enemy of the left. They're explicitly paid by the oligarchy to oppose leftist candidates.

The DNC, more than any other organization in existence, is responsible for Trump's presidency. They did more than anyone else to ensure - not once but twice - that he would win. The voters made it very clear that they wanted a leftist, and the DNC effectively said, "Fuck you - you're going to get a pro-corporate, pro-zionist, neoliberal piece of shit and if you don't like it, that's your fucking problem."

And they're already laying the groundwork to do it again in 2028.

[-] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 31 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

The DNC, more than any other organization in existence, is responsible for Trump’s presidency.

Yeah, I'm gonna hard NOPE right out of that assertion. The republicans are not virgins at a debutante's ball, they've been working directly toward this goal for at least forty years, and the ones that are up there now, including the house speaker and corrupt SCOTUS, are doing everything in their power to keep him there, marching in lockstep as they go.

Where is your broad censure for them, the ones actively planning and carrying out Project 2025, the ones robbing the country blind, the ones doing everything they can right now to ensure we lose our democracy? Because it's sure as fuck nowhere in your comment.

The DNC is an open enemy of the left. They’re explicitly paid by the oligarchy to oppose leftist candidates.

This is true, and by far not the DNC's only crime.

But when you give the actual perps a complete, total, 100% pass in favor of attacking the only people still trying to stop them (even though some of them are only vaguely gesturing in that direction, to be sure) you're batting for the wrong team.

That said, I'll never vote for a non-progressive over a progressive again as long as I live. If by that time I still have a vote that matters, of course.

[-] realitista@lemmus.org 31 points 4 weeks ago

The DNC's role in the rightward push is obviously less straightforward than the RNC's push, but it's at least as important. The DNC's job is to ensure that Republicans retain all of their wins moving right while Democrats make none that move left.

[-] SalmiakDragon@feddit.nu 8 points 4 weeks ago

The URL made me skeptical, but that was an excellent read - thanks for sharing.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (29 replies)
[-] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 136 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Jon carries a lot of water for the idea that the Democratic Party leadership are inept.

They are not. They accomplish every task they set out to.

The problem is that they don’t want the same things the voters in the party want.

They don’t want to “win”. The only thing they want is to maintain their proximity to wealth and power, and so they have cast their lot with the oligarchy, the same as Republicans.

The Democratic Party ”runs cover” (“block tackle” for you Europeans) for the Republicans while the Republicans overtly dismantle democracy. There is always a parliamentarian or a “blue slip rule” to help the Dems steal defeat from the jaws of victory. How many times do they need to strain credulity and invent some new excuse or mechanism for their failure for it to form a composite image of collaboration?

The Democratic Party is a honeypot used to attract and neutralize progressive policies and politicians, and prevent the “Overton Window” of American politics from moving left.

At every crucial moment they have supported the privatization and financialization of the commons, the wars of aggression, the surveillance & police state, and they will continue to do so until Palantir storm troopers are dragging people from their Blackrock housing to Amazon work camps to fulfill their mandated techno feudal district conscription period.

[-] BeardededSquidward 41 points 4 weeks ago

Thank you. I'm tired of people thinking the neo-liberals of the Democrats are their friends. They point toward the few pieces of legislation they pass that's positive when they ignore all the needed legislation they never even give lip service to. In all the time since its inception payments for disabilities and similar have not risen to meet inflation, the amount they can keep in a bank account hasn't changed since like the 1970s. There's SO much wrong that the Dems could platform on and spend so much time doing if they win but they don't want to.

[-] webadict@lemmy.world 15 points 4 weeks ago

I think you're wrong. Or rather, I think you're mostly wrong.

Like, in no way do I think they are extremely good at what they do, unless your argument is that they don't give a shit, which I also think is wrong. They definitely want to win. They definitely want to control things. They literally make more money (not the organization, mind you, the people who run the organization) when they are in control. It is silly to think otherwise. Heck, it is safer, too!

But, I think they are quite dumb, or maybe it's better to think of them as out of touch. They rely on political calculus, but they're using some pretty bad variables. Because otherwise, there wouldn't be any progressive Democrats at all. Like, that is inherently detrimental to their centrism. Giving crumbs isn't as useful to them as people say because it let's others know how hungry they are for more of that. Hope is contagious.

I think they work with what they got, and what they got is so rapidly changing that they freak out and pick what they think is the safest option over and over again. And their base hates it, but they'll deal with that part later, there's just too many fires for them!

Like, sure, there's a little bit of trying to control how progressive they can be, but they just... Suck at that, too. I dunno, man. A lot of people can skate by on incompetency, and that just feels more likely.

[-] PolarKraken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Folks like you being unrealistic about what we can all see happening is a huge part of their enablement.

"Gosh, golly, we blew it again, so sorry everyone! Being the good guys, we have a harder challenge, we have to fight for change the right way. Sometimes we lose by sticking to our principles 😞"

Yeah fucking right. Of course they'd prefer themselves be the current half dominating the other, but not so they can make any kind of sweeping changes. Just because it's cushier on top. And yes, the DNC is where the folks who sincerely do want to fix things end up. And just look how they're prevented from ever getting anything done. They get co-opted and sidelined, another major function of the party. Absorb the true believers and thereby dull and mute their influence.

The moment Dems have actual control and power - even for a moment - as soon as it's theirs they roll over. Recent shutdown capitulation was a perfect example, but it's just over and over and over. I'm not claiming every rank and file Democrat politician is "in on it", I'm claiming it doesn't matter, if the party structure and behavior is obviously corrupt and strictly self-serving as the commenter you're replying to laid out.

It's rich people against us, Dem leadership is against us. Please stop being so naive. Your naivete is a literal weapon they wield to abuse us all.

[-] webadict@lemmy.world 7 points 4 weeks ago

I don't believe I disagreed with the assertion that the DNC leadership wants to make sweeping changes. I said that they are NOT some type of controlled opposition. If they were, they wouldn't be fucking up as hard as they do at every aspect you stated. They are a combination of inefficient, out-of-touch, greedy, and... Lazy, but like they want everyone to like them which makes them inauthentic?

I think it's unrealistic to think the DNC is smart enough to undermine everything but somehow not smart enough to just... Lie better? You know? Why bother being so fucking pathetic when it is easier, cheaper, and faster to just lie? Why make an autopsy on why you lost the election and burying it because of your Israeli money ties if you were a genius and could just make a fake report that blames progressive policies real fucking easily.

Like, sure, call them sociopaths and everything because the DNC is having to defend legitimately bad positions in spite of its supporters opposition because money, but don't pretend that is out of some masterminded technique. They are not that smart.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] Bluescluestoothpaste@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

If they wanted to win they would release the 2024 election autopsy. Instead they buried it. Yes, they dont mind winning elections but they absolutely would rather lose than allow progressives in power. They just buried the election autopsy a week ago and now everyone forgot about it. Same thing trump relies on to stay in power.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 9 points 4 weeks ago

Sometimes I wonder if they don't have a monthly secret meeting where they look at which issues appear to be up and coming and then flip a coin for which party takes which side of it. Kinda like debate club.

It often looks more like performance art. The dems pretend to take one side of an issue, and then rally their base about how the GOP want to stop the solution or tear down current protections. And of course the GOP takes the other side and rallys their base against what the "lunatic" dems want to do (which of course the dems would never do because then the issue would be gone), and they start proposing ways to tear down whatever law already favor the democrats side.

When the dems get in power, somehow very few of the things they proposed before actually happen. And the ones that do are so soft an executive order can undo them.

It's just a shell game. Perception manipulation.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] drmoose@lemmy.world 77 points 4 weeks ago

I'm not an american, but it seems like the only way americans will be represented by their government is if they out the 2 party system.

There's this vibe of self-destruction in american society that is rooted in the 2 party system: one party is your mortal enemy and another doesn't quite represent you - so everyone just low key feels like destroying the whole thing rather than working on making it better.

[-] btsax@reddthat.com 38 points 4 weeks ago

This guy is from Maine, and they do have ranked choice voting for federal elections, one of the steps on the way to breaking the two-party stranglehold.

Of course the Republicans fought it tooth and nail, because they will never win another race with a system like this, and exploited a loophole in the state constitution to keep ranked choice out of state races.

[-] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 12 points 4 weeks ago

America is a one-party state, of course. But in typical American extravagance they have two of them.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 12 points 4 weeks ago

Back that up with a proportional representation system.

Any party with full control will become a tyrant.

[-] bedwyr@piefed.ca 11 points 4 weeks ago

If we organize we could seize control of the democratic party, and the Democratic establishment has been scared shitless of that since 2016, but they managed to play us off each other like chumps. And they still are. Because we have no organization. Turning us against each other.

[-] Gates9@sh.itjust.works 12 points 4 weeks ago

The Democratic Party is a private institution. They are not scared of anything their voters do, because in the end they can simply control who gets money, who gets nominated, committee assignments, etc.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Furbag@pawb.social 8 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Money In Politics

Two Party System

Gerrymandering

Electoral College

The four horsemen of a Democratic apocalypse.

If we could fix just one of those four issues, things would gradually start to get better. But the politicians in Washington don't have the political will or desire to do so, because removing any one of them naturally limits their power and authority.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world 7 points 4 weeks ago

We only have a 2 party system on paper. Behind closed doors, they are working for the same goals. Make the rich people happy so they can be rich people with influence. The general population is just something that they have to manage on their way to their goals. Adding more parties will help, but it will eventually end up the same. As long as you need money to get elected, then money will control those who get elected.

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 38 points 4 weeks ago

Looking forwards to that Schumer congratulations call.

I'll be waiting...

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 34 points 4 weeks ago

Good for him.

He doesn’t owe them shit

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] mirshafie@europe.pub 26 points 3 weeks ago

What I don't understand is, if booger-eating MAGA could hijack the Republican party a decade ago, why are progressive grassroots still waiting for permission from Woodstock attendants?

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 23 points 3 weeks ago

There was a lot of money behind the tea party and then maga takeover. Its just not there the same way for the progressive since the billionaires are all on the other side or not getting heavily involved.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago

MAGA did it from the top down. Trump became president and was able to strong arm people below him. He was even able to switch the RNC chair to a family member.

[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

because the republican party is relatively united in thought and desire and via who is paying them all off.

The democratic party is more akin to 35 parties in a trenchcoat all pretending to be one party, thanks entirely to the forced nature of the two party system our government has.

And a lot of those in seats of power in the DNC and Democratic Party have the same masters/paylords as the Republicans and want the Democratic party to be nothing more than controlled opposition.

Firebrands like AOC and Bernie tend to get elected by accident, instead of by purpose, in the grand scheme.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] EtAl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 3 weeks ago

The older I get, the more I believe that some democracies are nothing but uniparty rule dressed up as choice. Japan is one example. The US is another.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] AmidFuror@fedia.io 19 points 4 weeks ago

If you want to get votes from both the left and the right, just campaign on being against the DNC.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 11 points 4 weeks ago

Reading through his wikipedia article I am not surprised that he is not endorsed by the dnc. He is (was?) a shithead regarding so many things and is literally a political minefield.

That being said ... Anything is better than the alternative.

[-] Jollyllama@lemmy.world 14 points 4 weeks ago

Bad reasons, he's addressed all of his controversies and the vast majority of Maine Dems accept him. Same reason they refuse to back most progressives, they exist to maintain (or return us to) the status quo. Progressives want to change and as long as establishment Dems hold a majority in the party nothing will change

[-] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 7 points 4 weeks ago

Addressing a controversy doesn't make it go away necessarily. I get that he is the only alternative right now but he is in no way "the solution".

And going "at least he is anti establishmrnt" Is the most populist stance ever. Nothing good comes from being against something. Be for something and fight for that.

[-] Jollyllama@lemmy.world 12 points 4 weeks ago

Have you watched any of his campaign events? He talks about making change not about being anti Trump or establishment. The does talk about his stances and what he wants to fight for. Beating Collins is obviously a huge part of his campaign because he's got to beat her but he's definitely "for something".

It's easy to fall into reporting that paints certain candidates a certain way, it's worth going out to a campaign event (if you're local) or watching one to form your own opinion. The Internet is a biased place, some places aren't outright smearing him but they try to discredit him by saying repeating stuff like you are. Everything I've seen and heard from him is that he is more than just an "anti establishment" guy and wants to build a progressive populist movement for the people.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] CultLeader4Hire@lemmy.world 8 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

What fucking controversy?

A single colleague said he yelled fuck off during an argument, a single person in a decades long career. He told Tucker Carlson that his show was "hurting America" and was "pro wrestling" rather than news, this is very literally not a controversy. Epstein file mention? Also not a controversy, his name was in an email suggesting he could be a host for a Woody Allen standup special which never happened. He made jokes about masking, he’s a comedian. People don’t like that he is a comedian that does serious political interviews and lastly, recently, he said it was a good thing the Trump administration was fast tracking psychedelic research, which it is.

There are no actual controversies here, your comments are made up nonsense comments about made up nonsense.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 10 points 4 weeks ago

No one is perfect, and they have endorsed FAR LESS perfect individuals in the past.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] CptOblivius@lemmy.world 7 points 4 weeks ago

This guy seems ok now, but for all I know he could end up like Fetterman. He is risky, but if he is what he says he is now, it could be ok.

[-] pjwestin@lemmy.world 7 points 4 weeks ago

I view Platner as a sort of political Pascal's wager. Let's say there's a 10% chance of him being a secret Nazi or the next Fetterman. Hell, let's say it's 50%. The alternative was Mills, a centrist hand-picked by fascist collaborator Chuck Schumer, and Collins, a member of fhe fascist party. The loss of electing a secret fascist over a fascist collaborator or different fascist is minimal, while the gain of electing a genuine progressive is massive. You might as well make the bet that he's genuine.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.wtf 11 points 4 weeks ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Erna_muse@lemmy.zip 9 points 3 weeks ago

People get too deep into conspiracy theories. Establishment politics is problematic but I think people need to engage with how things actually work.

The rich and powerful are going to petition the government and the government will have some corruption. So the how is important because it informs how we put them back in their box.

[-] chloroken@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

The DNC snubbing Platner is literally the only decent thing they've done in a long time.

The man is a cryptofacist murdering psychopath. I read his reddit history. I know what blackwater and Abu Ghraib are. If there was any justice in the world, this guy would be tried for his crimes and locked away for life.

The idea that Jon Stewart, a Jew, is simping for a guy with a Nazi tattoo he took 40 years to cover up is remarkable.

[-] BigMacHole@thelemmy.club 8 points 3 weeks ago

I WAS going to Vote for him but After reading This I'm NOW going to Vote for the Woman sending MY Taxdollars to LITERAL Nazis! THANK YOU!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 01 May 2026
590 points (100.0% liked)

politics

29895 readers
2000 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS