Welcome to [email protected], where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
Corporate democratic elites are so pathetic. They express they anger at organized grassroot organizations that are ready to fight, but instead they beg their donors to not abandon them and continue to fund them...
Hakeem Jeffries met privately with Silicon Valley donors in bid to ‘mend fences.’
Grassroots organizations aren't giving them giant slush funds of cash for their election campaigns or offering them 6 or 7 figure salary jobs after they leave office so what good are they?
Dems are done. I don't think even current fascist takeover is enough for them to get back the voters on their side until these complicit ghouls are in positions of power.
We need more than new parties. We need an all new government once this war is over.
If y'all can do this without too many people dying I think we'll be able to say that all of North America came out of Trump 2 winning, which would be... unexpected, to say the least.
They are just so fucking detached from their base if they're pissed at long-established normie groups like MoveOn and Indivisible. We're not talking about the insurgent left flank here, they're pissed at the very core of the party.
God I want some names on this.
God I want some names on this.
Jeff Jeffries
It's really something we've seen happen dozens of times before in the last few hundred years. These big liberals, these Grand bourgeoisie, the Arch capitalists they just have no real support base. They rely entirely upon convincing leftists and the little liberals, the petite bourgeoisie, to make common cause with them. But they just can't resist fucking over everybody. They cannot for the life of them resist doing only things that enrich them and their small Cadre of rich friends. Their support base is an inch wide and not even that deep. Liberals just aren't our friends. At best they're temporary allies who were always looking to put a knife in our backs. We need our own party.
We need our own party, but before that can happen we need nationwide elimination of first past the post elections. Or the demise of the Democratic party. I'll take either but preferably both.
Never going to happen. First pass the post will never change within the Democratic Party. On the other hand the Democratic party might already be dead. It's injured to the point that abandoning it doesn't cause any problems that don't already exist. This is the point to kill it.
doesn’t cause any problems
Have you not been paying any attention at all to what Traitorapist Trump is doing?
What a useless waste of time your comment here is. You quoted a fraction of a sentence ignoring everything around the sentence that qualifies the part you're quoting. That literally answers the question you're asking. Perhaps continuing to read a sentence would help you understand the meaning of the sentence.
That literally answers the question you’re asking.
It does no such thing. You have no idea how bad things would be if Republicans controlled all of the government every single year instead of alternating back and forth with Dems. To pretend things would not be way worse if the country was a 1 party state controlled by the GOP for the last 50 years is ignorant beyond belief.
What a useless waste of time your comment here is.
It is not possible to have a more useless waste of time than your comment here..
[On the other hand the Democratic party might already be dead]
The Democratic Party is 193 years old. You predicting its sudden "death" shows astonishing ignorance. I was going easy on you with my short answer.
They rely entirely upon convincing leftists and the little liberals, the petite bourgeoisie, to make common cause with them.
Okay comrade. Liberals, ultraliberals, and radicals are all part of the left spectrum. You are using leftist as a synonym for "radical" because you are afraid to call yourself "radical". How about not trying to disguise who you are and just own the word "radical". Or "Communist" or "Stalinst". You just jumped to a new label "leftist" because you trashed your old labels "Communist" and "Stalinist".
Liberals just aren’t our friends
If by friends you mean "fellow Communists" then hell no progressives aren't your friends. Stalin was literally an ally of Hitler and being a Communist is little different than being a Nazi. The reason why we don't like Traitorapist Trump is because he is authoritarian like Hitler and Stalin.
Hey genius, the term leftist has existed longer than the term communist and stalinist have. It ain't new. Maybe learn some goddamn history before the start of the 20th century. Then maybe you'd know what fucking traitors Liberals are and have always been. Since their Inception.
Liberals are not leftists, they never have been. They certainly aren't progressives. You know what Liberals are? The birth mother of fascism. Fascism grows from capitalism. It's the end result.
the term leftist has existed longer than the term communist and stalinist have. It ain’t new.
Yes. The term means the spectrum of liberals (progressives), ultraliberals, and radicals.
This term ain't new either:
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/liberal
[A liberal is someone on the left wing of politics — the opposite of a conservative]
Then maybe you’d know what fucking traitors Liberals are and have always been. Since their Inception.
You are a Communist. That's why you treat all other leftists as "traitors". And you just proved you absolutely despise all the leftists who aren't exactly the same as you. That's why your fellow Communists killed all the real socialists and leftists in Russia. The Mensheviks, the Socialist Revolutionaires etc. They killed them all. Their chief enemies were OTHER LEFTISTS, not people on the right. That's why Stalin happily made an alliance with Hitler.
This is what happened before and would happen again if everybody listened to you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago
Fascism grows from capitalism. It’s the end result.
So why didn't you just come out and say "anti-capitalist"? Instead of disguising yourself with the vague term "leftist", why don't you just own who you really are? Call yourself "anti-capitalist", "Communist", or at least "radical". How come you are afraid of using the real terms to tell people who you are? Because you know all those words have bad connotations and "Communist" is the cousin of "Fascist".
Its the same reason reactionaries call themselves "conservatives" Nobody every wants to admit being a radical or a reactionary.
So, they're complicit basically? They sure aren't slowing down his nominees!
At this point should I just register Republican instead so I can try to get more progressive Republicans in their primary? I'm pretty sure the DNC has disappeared up its own asshole.
This has nothing at all to do with the "DNC". It is a completely different group.
[A closed-door meeting for House Democrats]
so I can try to get more progressive Republicans
LOL Those went completely extinct in 1980. Your only choice would be between archconservative extremists and full scale reactionaries.
I mean... Are they not members of the democratic party? I don't get to blame party leadership for bad party strategy, cohesion, or lack of overall tactics or messaging?
"DNC" is a small specific group within the Democratic Party that is focused on a specific role (primary elections). The House Democratic Caucus is another specific group within the Democratic Party made up of members of congress, and a totally different group than "The DNC".
I don’t get to blame party leadership
You were not blaming the congressional party leadership that this article is referring to. You were blaming a completely different group that had nothing to do with this. Nobody in the House Democratic Caucus that this article is about gives a shit what "The DNC" thinks about this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is the principal executive leadership board of the United States Democratic Party. According to the party charter, it has "general responsibility for the affairs of the Democratic Party between National Conventions",[1] and particularly coordinates strategy to support Democratic Party candidates throughout the country for local, state, and national office, as well as works to establish a "party brand" and to formulate the party platform.
["A closed-door meeting for House Democrats..."]
What part of "House Democrats" do you NOT understand? Nowhere in the article is "DNC" mentioned.
particularly coordinates strategy to support Democratic Party candidates
Do you not understand what "candidates" mean? All of the people involved here were elected congressmen -- NOT "candidates". There is no reason whatsoever an elected member of congress would give a shit what "the DNC" thinks unless they are in an ongoing election with a very close race and cannot raise enough money on their own.
Let's go slowly so you can follow my thought process.
They are members of the Democratic Party. You cannot dispute that.
The Democratic Party is a political organization.
The DNC is the leadership of the Democratic Party.
I am dissatisfied with the DNC's handling of the party.
These Democrats in the article doing as they please and, as you said, don't care about what the DNC thinks is the exact symptom of the exact problem I'm talking about.
Are you familiar with the phrase it starts at the top? Maybe if the party exhibited stronger leadership and more unity, you wouldn't have factions running amok with no unified front.
Do you remember how unified the Republican Party was when Obama was elected? That's a unified front.
They are members of the Democratic Party.
Not relevant. I'm a "member" of the Dem party and I had nothing to do with this.
The DNC is the leadership of the Democratic Party.
Dem senators and congressmen are government employees who have a completely different leadership of completely different organizations: The House Democratic Caucus and the Senate Democratic Caucus. The "DNC" is head of a private organization that effectively does little more than run primary campaigns. None of the Dem congressmen, senators, or presidential candidates work for "the DNC". None of them think that "the DNC" is their "leader". Unless it is primary campaign season, none of them have any reason to listen to "the DNC".
I am dissatisfied with the DNC’s handling of the party.
All they do is run the primaries so that Dems can choose their candidates. If you are "dissastisfied", then maybe send them your suggested changes to the rules. But that has zero to do with the leadership of the House Democratic Caucus which is what this article is about.
These Democrats in the article doing as they please and, as you said, don’t care about what the DNC thinks is the exact symptom of the exact problem I’m talking about.
The House Democratic Caucus is right to not care at all what "the DNC" thinks about anything. They are an organiation of government employees and the DNC is a private organization. And we are right to criticize the leadership of the House Democratic Caucus for their bad leadership.
Are you familiar with the phrase it starts at the top?
Unless there is a Dem president, there is no "top". Only a tiny minority of members of the House Democratic Caucus are also members of the DNC.
Oh man, you just deleted the abstractum of hierarchies! Amazing job!
So when the party has a president there's leadership, and when there's no president, there are no leaders, amazing! Heisenberg's leadership!
Anyway, here is an excerpt copied from The Charter and By Laws of the Democratic Party of The United States:
ARTICLE THREE
Democratic National Committee
Section 1.
The Democratic National Committee shall have general responsibility for the affairs of the Democratic Party between National Conventions, subject to the provisions of this Charter and to the resolutions or other actions of the National Convention.
This responsibility shall include, but not be limited to:
(a) issuing the Call to the National Convention; (b) conducting the Party's Presidential campaign; (c) filling vacancies in the nominations for the office of President and Vice President; (d) formulating and disseminating statements of Party policy; (e) providing for the election or appointment of a Chairperson, five Vice Chairpersons, one of whom shall be the President of the Association of State Democratic Committees and one of whom shall be the Vice Chairperson for Civic Engagement and Voter Participation, a Treasurer, a Secretary, and a National Finance Chair, who, with the exception of the Chairperson, shall be as equally divided as practicable according to gender at the quadrennial election, as defined in the Democratic National Committee Charter, Article Nine, Section 16, and for the filling of vacancies that occur outside of the regularly scheduled elections of the President of the Association of State Democratic Committees, all in accordance with Rules of Procedure adopted by the Democratic National Committee; and other appropriate officers who shall be as equally divided as practicable according to gender; and (f) all other actions necessary or appropriate in order to carry out the provisions of this Charter and the objectives of the Democratic Party.
This responsibility shall include, but not be limited to:
Nowhere in there does it say anything at all about bossing around Senators and congressmen. You just proved everything I told you to be true.
So when the party has a president there’s leadership, and when there’s no president, there are no leaders, amazing! Heisenberg’s leadership!
100% correct. There is no clear party leader when there is no president. The leaders of the House Democratic Caucus and Senate Democratic Caucus are each far more powerful than the DNC chairman. The House leader cannot boss the Senate leader. The Senate leader cannot boss the house leader. And neither of those 2 leaders cares the slightest shit what the chairman of the DNC thinks. Do you even know who that person is? Because I don't. He/She is not important enough for anybody to even know what their name is. Jeff Jeffries is the House Leader. Chuck Schumer is the Senate Leader. Nobody knows or gives a fuck who the DNC leader is.
Did you also think that the RNC is the head of the Republican Party? That's not the slightest bit true. Republicans aren't united because of "the RNC". The RNC is a joke. They are united because the billionaires control the entire party and calls the shots on everything they do.
So first you said they only handle primaries. Nowhere did I even see the word primary, but the list of responsibilities went far beyond handling elections. You ignored section D entirely, which I posit is a leadership role. You have no understanding that people can function as leaders and exhibit leadership skills regardless of official hierarchies, titles, and positions.
And finally, you are making my point for me. The party has laughable unity and leadership. If the DNC is responsible for the candidates that comprise the party, why shouldn't I blame them for building a headless party?
My outsider perspective has always been that the usa democratic party was simply about keeping the masses "happy", with the entire emphasis on the quotation marks, giving juuuust enough leeway on something while doing everything the corporate overlords demanded
while doing everything the corporate overlords demanded
Did the "corporate overlords" demand the last 3 Dem presidents raise taxes on the wealthy and/or corporations? That would be weird since their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd top priorities are tax cuts for billionaire elites.
giving juuuust enough leeway
Then how did FDR create Social Security, LBJ create Medicare, and Obama create the ACA?
The one and only way to achieve major progress is for Dems to win and win big.
And the only way to win the class war is to raise the top tax rate on billionaires back to 70% or 90%.
The tone of your response is off. They're sharing an impression that they admit is a perception from outside. There are 236 other countries in the world, and they probably don't learn much at all about FDR as we do.
We need a third party so bad. And to run the dnc off a cliff.
While true in spirit, first past the post voting kind of ruins everything:
Https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo
The Democrats need to be browbeaten and taken over, not competed with, until we get ranked choice/alternative vote/single transferable vote, or something like those.
Brow beat? I am fully down to beat Richie Torres ass with my bare hands.
It says "House Democrats", not "DNC". These are 2 completely different groups. Nobody in congress gives a shit what "the DNC" thinks about anything. You cannot change anything if you don't know who is doing what.
And I am "pissed" at Jeffries and House Dem leaders. If you aren't going to help then get the f*ck out of the way and go fetch AOC and Sanders.
Shut like this is why I call them Republicrats. The only way they could be more factually centrist is to go farther left.
I'm honestly pissed at progressive groups. The 2024 elections should have been a jaw dropping moment for them. Eight years of #resistance resulted not only in a Trump victory, but MAGA as a whole being more popular than ever.
Instead their response seems to simply be to deploy a tweaked version of the 2017 playbook with Elon as public enemy #1 instead of Trump. I'm extremely skeptical it's gonna work.
I feel that these groups suck all the oxygen out of the room, and prevent an effective opposition strategy from forming.