this post was submitted on 26 May 2025
23 points (76.7% liked)
United States | News & Politics
8048 readers
130 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, the Democratic Party has to move away from the left, otherwise their views are out of touch with most Americans. Jason Crow might be a good Democratic Presidential candidate.
If you think the Democratic party is "left," I'd like you to pass that doobie over here so I can get high, too.
Why do you think the Democratic Party is unpopular?
They think they are the only people who should resist the republicans, and they most certainly act like it to. A very heavy "what are ya gonna do, vote republicans?" vibe pours put of every orifice of the party and their members.
All while simultaneously preventing and not pursuing reforms that would allow for multiple political parties to exist without a spoiler effect.
That isn't democracy, that is a hostage situation. And I for one will never fall for the Stockholm syndrome that has claimed so very many of my fellow countrymen. Yall think you are woke, but you are repeatedly being injected with tranquilizers and kept thinking in the world's tiniest box.
Not to mention the "most electable" and "most adult" people in the political process has been defeated repeatedly by a fucking clown show, and their repeated refusal to apply the laws of the land to their republican friends.
Also the war on drugs is a bipartisan war against the citizens of this country.
There is more but I get the feeling you're not really interested in what I think or say.
Actually, there are other parties in the US. There is the Green Party and the Libertarian Party. Some drugs such as fentanyl are deadly if misused.
Are you trolling? Technically there exist other parties, but USian election rules (especially FPTP) are mathematically proven to cause such a huge spoiler effect that, even when a big fraction of voters hate both viable parties, electing a single third-party congressman is very unlikely, and electing a third-party president is nearly impossible.
It is like saying that the Earth is not round, because, strictly speaking, it is slightly bulged.
Third party candidates can affect an election by drawing off voters. Third party candidates can also present new ideas.
For precisely the opposite reason you are suggesting. They do not listen to what people want. They are out of touch and capitulate to the Republicans.
Most people don't want more corporate affiliation. Most people want food, healthcare, housing, education, and a living wage so they don't exist as slaves to their company.
All of those things are positions the GOP work actively against. The Dems currently do not act effectively to PROTECT those things. That's why they're unpopular.
Most people want food, healthcare, education, and housing but not to the extent of the left. It would require very high taxes to pay for them. A high minimum wage doesn't work. . California passed a $20.00/hr. minimum wage law for fast food workers. The result was that employers hired less workers.
OK, smart guy, how do you propose we pay for these things if not with taxes. Right now, our taxes go to wars we don't believe in. The Pentagon has failed its audits for years, misplacing billions and there's no accountability. Politicians get to take advantage of gold standard Healthcare, but deny us a public option.
We subsidize bullshit, our cost of living goes up, our wages stay stagnant, our food becomes more expensive, and affluent white dickheads in charge stay in charge.
You propose keeping things the same, or at least you believe that's what people want. We've been getting fleeced for years. Should we just hold out a little longer?
The only people who speak like you are comfortable. You're the minority.
Taxes are necessary but if they are too high it lessens the motivation to work. The purpose of working hard is to make money not give it away. If Russia conquers Ukraine, it will lead to more defense spending as the threat from Russia would increase. Giving the Sudetenland to Hitler didn't appease him.
False. China has lower inequality and simultaneously far greater economic growth and more innovation.
And Putin is bad, but not remotely as harmful to world peace as the US regime. The US (both parties) has been involved in literally 200 military interventions just in the last few decades.
Democracy is not when a black woman is chosen as the Nurembeg-deserving war criminal in chief.
Military intervention does not mean harming world peace. Examples, World War I and II and Korean War.
World War I was a war between Imperialist countries, World War II was won by the Soviets (who were responsible for 90% of Nazi deaths), and the Korean "War" was an act of genocide from the United States against the Korean people, both to the north and south of the 38th parallel. The United States was in World War I as a creditor, which partially led to World War II as all of the allied powers shifted their debts to Germany, aiding in the rise of Nazism.
Why vote for reactionaries that pretend not to be reactionaries? If you're a reactionary, you'll vote for the openly reactionaries, and if you're not, you'll vote for neither.