TheDemonBuer

It would be pretty hypocritical of me to hate on this guy for being fat and disgusting, since I am also. I feel pretty alright criticizing the things he does, however, because I'm not a piece of shit billionaire scumbag.

Like it'll matter.

Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, 45 percent say they want their party to become more moderate, while 29 percent say they want the party to become more liberal, and 22 percent say they want the party to stay the same.

These words are meaningless. In many countries, to become more liberal is the same thing as becoming more moderate. It's confusing to me because liberal and moderate mean one thing in the US and something else in the rest of the world. And I live in the US! After all these years, I still don't quite understand what people mean by liberal, moderate, and conservative. Liberalism is an actual ideology with an actual definition, Conservativism is an actual ideology with an actual definition.

So, what do the American people want? If it's some kind compromise between actual Liberalism and actual Conservativism, what would that look like, specifically? Which aspects of Liberalism do they want, and which aspects of Conservatism, and in what proportions? And what about ideologies other than Liberalism and Conservatism? Why are those two ideologies our only choices?

Oh wait, I already know the answer

That'll be the day.

The Democrat party is not a democratic party, they are a neoliberal, technocratic party. They don't want the people to rule, they want neoliberal technocrats to rule. I don't see that changing, anytime soon.

A workers' party would have to be a majoritarian, democratic party, because the workers are the vast majority of the population.

I have the original ultimate wireless controller, and it works flawlessly for me on Fedora 41.

Any nation that wishes to seek the "leadership" of the EU is free to do so, but nations should also be free to choose autonomy, independence, and self guidance.

Why do the Democratic countries of the world need a "leader?" Why is it necessary for one of the democratic countries to "be in charge" of the others? The relationship between the democratic countries of the world - and all countries of the world - should be one of mutual respect and equality. There shouldn't be a power hierarchy among countries, democratic or otherwise.

US right now is on the path of losing its dominance.

That may present an opportunity to develop international democracy, to replace the violent, hegemonic rule of any one nation.

Free world needs a new leader

Don't worry about the "free world," just focus on Europe.

Yes, we absolutely are. We deserve everything we have coming to us.

Neoliberalism is the center, of the spectrum of acceptable political opinion they had established, and tried, but ultimately failed, to maintain.

To be clear the neoliberal technocrats never lost power. They are Republicans and Democrats both.

That was true in the late 70s, 80s, and early 90s. However, the Republican party became less and less neoliberal through the 90s, and by the early 2000s the Republican party had been taken over by the neoconservatives. There is overlap between neoliberalism and neoconservatism, but they are distinct ideologies. Then, in 2016, the Republican party was taken over by Trump, who is neither a neoliberal nor a neoconservative. Trump doesn't seem to have a guiding ideology. Trump is a useful idiot for multiple groups (Christian conservatives, silicon valley tech bros, far right accelerationists, and foreign powers), all of whom are vying for control of the federal government, for various reasons.

The neoliberal technocrats didn't deliberately steer toward the reactionary side. When the ship was moving more to the right, it was when reactionaries were in power, and thus "steering the ship." In 2000, Al Gore, who is very much a neoliberal technocrat, was supposed to be president, but he lost in a kind of mini coup to George W Bush and the neoconservatives. The neoliberal technocrats wouldn't take back power - control of the ship of state - again until 2008 when Barak Obama was elected president. They would of course lose control once again in 2016. They would regain control in 2020, but quickly lose it again in 2024. It is likely, I think, that the neoliberal technocrats have lost control of the ship of state permanently. I don't think they will ever steer it again.