Form a new party!!! Don’t call it Labor or Labour. Don’t call it Green. Don’t call it progressive. Don’t call it socialist or liberal.
Just give it a name that people understand and don’t have preexisting bias against. “For The People”
Take on BOTH the democrats and GOP. Become popular overnight. Keep hammering home it is not about skin colour, race or country of origin, but about the billionaires that aren’t happy with paying no tax and having billions. Make it about the 99%.
It is the only way you’ll get your country back without excessive violence. The two status quo parties are hollowed out from the inside. And both are infiltrated by foreign interests.
That’s what Bernie is saying. He’s calling all progressives to run as Independent, aka No Party Preference, down ballot so we can shove the Corporate DNC into the GOP where they so desperately want to be anyway.
IIRC, he also called for the corpocentrists to get primaried.
“People” = “Communist”
Agreed.
Gotta take a page out of idiocracy here folks.
The Cowboy Party (Named after the most popular/recognizable NFL team)
Or, how about:
The Murica Party
Then you put Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson as your president. I’ve had debates about the feasibility of this approach and this is the modern Ronald Reagan play.
The cowboys are probably the more at divisive team in the country.
Please anyone but “The Turd” he’s just another slimy businessman and will grift this country out of more money.
Just call it the communist occupation party and encourage people to vote out of spite.
The 99% Party. It’s a slick way of calling it a worker’s party without sounding like a communist party.
Not very practical while the US voting system is still first-post-the-post. Y’all need to fix that first.
Now is the perfect time. Breaking with the Democrats mean they have to play ball now or get electorally buried.
They will chose that latter, for sure.
Unless it really works like it has the potential to. Then the repugs and dems would be totally cooked.
The thing is, you can “not call it socialism” all you like. The fact is that it is socialism, you have to respect people’s intelligence enough to know that they will figure that out (or be easily convinced of it, if you really need an argument that doesn’t respect their intelligence). When this happens, and even moreso when you inevitably reveal yourself to be socialist, it will make you look deeply insincere and subversive, because you yourself will have fed into this taboo and not done the work of separating the term from its negative stigma or generating positive media for it.
Socialism is simply the fact of the matter and being socialist means caring about material reality enough to not just lie and gaslight as a means of convincing people. When you get attacked for being socialist, you will not be able to backpedal without sabotaging your own movement, because there will be a litany of evidence that you are socialist. As there should be, or you would not have the support of actual ideological socialists (remember that whole material reality thing I just mentioned).
The material reason why socialism is a “no-no” word is because when the right attacks it, the liberal establishment does what they always do; they backpedal. Not only does this make the right’s criticism look reasonable, because it confirms there is real reason to fear being associated with socialism; but it ensures that the people only ever hear the arguments against socialism, never the arguments for it. All of the arguments which are intrinsically associated with socialism; which you have done all this work to propagate; are never connected to it optically, and the people never learn what it actually is, leaving all of your policy open to attack.
What you are suggesting here is not the solution but exactly the issue that has brought us to this point.
The only way that you will ever launder the term “socialism” is by openly advocating for socialism and calling it what it is when you do. You just aren’t going to beat the establishment at their own game; rather, we must show the people what it is to be respected and hear policy based in material reality that will actually address their needs, and you will win support from across the spectrum.
I disagree. And I don’t mean to preach, but there is a power in words and using them (or not using them). The fight over the word and meaning of socialism is not what “the people” need right now, that can come later. This has been happening in the US closing in on a century. It’s not those tolerant of material reality (as you say) you need to convince, it’s those that would benefit from “the peoples” agenda that don’t acknowledge material reality. Ride the wave of making billionaires pay.
Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.
Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security.
Socialism is what they called farm price supports.
Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.
Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.
Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.
When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan “Down With Socialism” on the banner of his “great crusade,” that is really not what he means at all.
What he really means is “Down with Progress–down with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal,” and “down with Harry Truman’s fair Deal.” That’s all he means.
- Harry Truman
Don’t swim against this right now. These programs from the new deal and fair deal are not even called socialist by American standards anymore.
This quote is an example of what I am talking about though. Roosevelt had to take great strides to ease the great depression, because of mass protest movements at the time openly led by socialist/communist parties, but he could not go so far as to address the economic system that created the great depression. Nor could the capitalist class allow these policies to be associated with the socialists that visibly fought for them. Doing so would threaten the power of capital; this is not long after the bolshevik revolution that created the USSR, so there was major fears of similar movements taking root in the US.
This is not Truman defending the new deal, this is him distancing the new deal from socialism.
The new deal was not socialist, which is by design, but it was made up of things that socialists would have certainly fought for and taken even further if their effort was sincerely meant to achieve socialism.
It’s time to stop letting socialism be used as a scare word. Sure, the loudest ones will continue to bury their heads in the sand, but those people weren’t going to be won over anyways. Furthermore, you aren’t going to win people over by talking down to them, and you cannot address their needs in a sincere manner if your base assumption is that they aren’t intelligent enough to understand their own lives.
edit: I’m also not suggesting that we should be fighting over “the word and meaning of socialism”; precisely the opposite, in fact. I’m saying that we should be living examples of what a socialist is and what socialists advocate for. We should be seen in our communities doing the ground work of organizing and being role models for what we believe in.
The difference between what we are accused of and what we are actually doing is stark, which can’t be pointed out if we’re constantly distancing ourselves from anyone that calls themselves socialist simply because we’re afraid of the word. There is so much present day and past evidence; from the rich history that was erased in the red scare and all of this anti-socialist sentiment; for us to draw on instead of trying to distance ourselves from the reality that what we advocate for is anti-capitalist in nature.
Buddy half of American voters voted for trump. We are well past “insulting their intelligence”. The reality is that the majority of American voters are stupid, lazy, or both.
Separately I don’t think you know what socialism is if you think progressive policies are socialist. Just because “social programs” and socialism share a common word doesn’t mean they are the same thing.
the defining trait of the Trump voters is that they’re so scared that they will vote for whoever makes them feel safe while asking absolutely nothing of them except cowed obedience
If American voters are as stupid as you claim then it shouldn’t be hard to trick them into changing their vote.
The problem is that some of them are in a cult that tells them everyone is a filthy lying criminal that wants you dead. The ones that aren’t cultists are usually just looking for the easy solution. Personal responsibility and grassroots efforts are difficult. Being angry at boogeymen and believing that one day you’ll be a billionaire or even just a millionaire is a lot easier. So believing the lies the GOP tells them, which often validate preexisting beliefs, is a lot easier and more convenient. Plus, many republicans think of the left as stuck up “intellectuals,” college educated people that get paid to do nothing but look down on them, the real working class
Plus, many republicans think of the left as stuck up “intellectuals,” college educated people that get paid to do nothing but look down on them, the real working class.
I believe this perception has the possibility to be altered.
Oh it definitely can be. I was just pointing out that it’s an additional hurdle to either tricking or actually changing the minds of Americans that are dumb enough to vote against their own interests
Simultaneously, American voters are “stupid, lazy, or both”, but intelligent and well-read enough to understand what you mean when you explain the difference between social welfare and outright socialism as you are backpedaling on being a socialist.
That being said; I’m not talking about progressive policies, I’m talking about socialism. There might be plenty of progressive policies between here and socialism, but the end of that side of the spectrum is socialism.
Socialism? Americans would be happy to have health care, better workers‘ rights, affordable education. Just like most other advanced economies in Europe, Australia, South Korea, Japan, and so on. That’s not socialism, that’s capitalism with regulations and social programs. Nobody really wants socialism, which was as utter failure everywhere it was tried.
Anywhere socialism has existed, it has done so under the threat of global capitalism which is led by the United States. The countries you listed are only able to maintain their wealth and relative comfort by taking advantage of the global south. They benefit from obscuring that relationship so that the people who see that benefit, don’t have to reckon with the extent of it and how it enables the oppression of all of us and holds us back as a whole.
Today, the global North drains from the South commodities worth $2.2 trillion per year, in Northern prices. For perspective, that amount of money would be enough to end extreme poverty, globally, fifteen times over.
Over the whole period from 1960 to today, the drain totalled $62 trillion in real terms. If this value had been retained by the South and contributed to Southern growth, tracking with the South’s growth rates over this period, it would be worth $152 trillion today.
These are extraordinary sums. For the global North (and here we mean the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Japan, Korea, and the rich economies of Europe), the gains are so large that, for the past couple of decades, they have outstripped the rate of economic growth. In other words, net growth in the North relies on appropriation from the rest of the world.
Let me give you the quick and dirty, oversimplified rundown of how that relationship plays out:
Power, under capitalism, resides in capital, which isn’t just money but also resources and property. In order to maintain power, capitalism requires infinite and continuous growth, which of course requires more and more resources to sustain.
Say a given country decides it would like to own its resources nationally and use the wealth generated by those resources to support the growth and welfare of their own people. Capitalist nations are able to wield state power against those countries whenever they encounter this sort of difficulty. This includes leveraging state and capitalist media to run propaganda campaigns, which sour public perception of that country’s national leadership; funding coups and covert operations against them; giving money and training to militant minority resistance groups; and when all else fails, all out war, while messy, is a very lucrative means to the end of converting the resources of global south nations into private capital for the global north.
This capital is then wielded within the capitalist world to manipulate political outcomes in favor of the private owners of capital and to prevent the working class from gaining the consciousness that would enable them to struggle for the things you mentioned; health care, worker’s rights, affordable education; as they slowly strip away what was won from past struggles.
I believe this lovely quote by Ella Baker, a major activist and leader behind the civil rights movement, is relevant to the conversation;
A nice gathering like today is not enough. You have to go back and reach out to your neighbors who don’t speak to you. And you have to reach out to your friends who think they are making it good. And get them to understand that they–as well as you and I–cannot be free in America or anywhere else where there is capitalism and imperialism. Until we can get people to recognize that they themselves have to make the struggle and have to make the fight for freedom every day in the year, every year until they win it.
Your wall of text is ahistorical. Yugoslavia is a counter example. They received American aid after WW2 to rebuild.
Half of Europe lived under real socialism and it was a fucking terrible time for many reasons.
During the Cold War the Soviet led block and the non aligned movement together had sufficient resources, knowledge, and people to get their shit together independently of the US.
Your wall of text is ahistorical.
Forgive me for actually caring about the subject. Clearly you have other priorities.
You mean this aid to Yugoslavia?
Omar Bradley was also an outspoken supporter of providing aid and improving relations with Yugoslavia, stating in an address to Congress on 30 November 1950 that “In the first place, if we could even take them out of the hostile camp and make them neutral, that is one step. If you can get them to act as a threat, that’s a second step. if you can get them to actively participate on your side, that is an even further step and then, of course, if you had a commitment, where their efforts were integrated with those of ours on the defence, that would still be a further step.” This marked the beginning of US military aid to a communist nation in order to counter Soviet ambitions in the region, leading to greater strives in United States–Yugoslavia relations.
The aid to Yugoslavia that is an example of the US being hostile towards socialist states and cynically providing support to anyone that would align with it against its enemies? The same US whose loans are notoriously difficult to pay back, leaving the recipients permanently indebted to the US? Surely we are talking about different aid Yugoslavia, that couldn’t be your single counter example.
During the Cold War the Soviet led block and the non aligned movement together had sufficient resources, knowledge, and people to get their shit together independently of the US.
Yes, and for the most part they did. Let’s not for get that in 1917 the Russian Empire was still a medieval state with similar technology. After the USSR was founded; their last famine would be in 1947, which happened as a result of WWII; and I’m not sure if you remember this but they would be the only other world power than the US at the time. In the 1970s, the average soviet had higher caloric intake than the average American. They beat the US to space, fought through several invasions and international boycotts, though with a much lower GDP than the US. They had to spend 15% of their GDP to the US’s 5-7% to compete with the US militarily. This was of course reasonable to do as the US had set itself out to be a hostile threat to the very idea of socialism, but was a major sacrifice nonetheless.
Standards of living in across the Soviet bloc dropped substantially in the 90s after the fall of the USSR as corrupt governments and wealthy elite privatized the USSR’s resources. Even today, Russians earn under $10,000 per capita, about the same as the Soviet Union in the 80s. There is a lot more depth and complexity to this history than you would like to make it seem.
The Bull Moose Party. It will call back to Teddy Roosevelt and the first time we used progressive policies to take back from the robber barons.
Don’t worry about getting it right 100% perfect in the planning phase, the important thing is to just get fucking moving. If either trying to shake up the democrats or forming a third party end up being wrong, then learn from it and keep moving. We can’t afford to miss the launch window because we couldn’t agree that the plan was perfect.
The “We can’t do this because it doesn’t solve 100% of our problems” excuse.
Yeah, I’ve noticed that about the left in general, that the perfect is always the enemy of the good. Meanwhile the right’s out there like “yeah, a lot of you are going to die, but that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make”.
The halloween party
Off topic but I’ve been workshopping this idea to spoil conservatives in Red States where a candidate is anti-abortion and anti-immigration but completely socialist and accountability on every other issue. I think Hallowed Party might actually be perfect for it.
yeah! keep running away and ceding terms to the billionaire media! surely if we come up with the right new magic word then everyone will understand and agree, and if fox starts demonizing “99-percenters” or whatever then we’ll just, change the name again,
The Freedom party
The Justice Party
I like Freedom Party, take that word back.
The Individualist Party
Check out the Working Families party. They’re not in every state, but they’re a start.
deleted by creator
give it a name that people understand and don’t have preexisting bias against. “For The People”
I’m pretty sure that name (or similar) has been used in ways that… don’t sit very well with people!
White Christians who love guns and hate abortions. The clowns will never see it coming.
Ones I like after going on a Thesaurus and US Declaration of Independence wiki hole. The ones further below are just ones I thought were okay as they came to me.
===========
People’s Voice Party
American Party
Workers Party
Freedom Party
Citizens Party
Peoples Party
Revolutionary Party
Common Party
United Party
==============
Workers Party
Blue Collar Party
Trades Party
Skilled Party
Collar Party
Rust Party
American Party
Freedom Party
Citizen’s Party
Liberty Party
People’s Party
Civil Party
Center Party
Working Party
99 Party
99% Party
Luigi Party
Rights Party
Blue Party
United Party
Sovereign Party
Human Party
Marching Party
US Party
Founding Party
Founders Party
National Party
Revolutionary Party
Colonial Party
Fundamental Party
Common Sense Party
People’s Choice Party
People’s Voice Party
Laws of Nature Party
Nature Party
Equal Party
Pursuit of Happiness Party
Standing Party
Family Party
Native Party
Great Party
Fighting Party
I think “Roosevelt Party” has potential. You can make two mascots for the ads, one being Theodore and the Franklin, each designed to appeal to the right or left among Americans. Theodore, for example, using guns to hunt down moose, advocating for national parks and peace with Canada.
Also, someone can commission an Epic Rap Battle between the two, who then dunk on Trump and Elon.
I vote for Luigi party
deleted by creator
Absolutely not, patriotism is just fancy nationalist cancer and “True American” messaging is a whisper away from anti-immigrant xenophobia.
deleted by creator
Yep, classic chauvinism.
deleted by creator
Patriotism necessitates seeing other nations as somehow less-than, it is an exclusionary and othering mindset that inevitably leads to bigotry. Borders are fake and shouldn’t be celebrated.
Regional pride isn’t as bad as long as there aren’t significant barriers for association. Loving a local food or art scene, or preferring a particular environment or set of social norms, is generally harmless but people still find ways to fight about it.
deleted by creator
The “Do Something” party
EverForward Party
Onward Together Party
Inspired Collaboration Party
Positive Frontier Party
Workers Party
Blue Collar Party
Trades Party
Skilled Party
Collar Party
Rust Party
American Party
Freedom Party
Citizen’s Party
Liberty Party
People’s Party
Civil Party
Center Party
Don’t don’t don’t split the vote. Not even Trump was that stupid.
It’s already split. If Democratic party runs another centrist/neoliberal candidate it will continue to be split. There is no indication that they’ll run anyone left of kamala.
Now’s the time.
Dems are managing to split the vote all on their own it seems
New Democrat(ic) Party!
The Common Sense party.
Please can we just ban the phrase “Common Sense” from politics already
In U.S. you would still have to participate in Democratic primaries so this would come down to creating a new wing inside democratic party. This was done before and didn’t change much. The geriatric party leaders would still control everything.
Please explain
In democracies with multi-party systems you have two voting rounds. In first every party presents a candidate. If anyone gets over 50% of votes he wins and that’s that. If no one gets more than 50% two candidates with most votes go to second round.
In U.S. you have only one round and usually it’s super close. If 3rd party candidate enters the race and gets even 1% of Democrat votes the Republican will win for sure. That’s why Bernie took part in Democratic primaries. His only chance was to win those and run as Democrat candidate. That’s also why Tea Party and MAGA movements were integrated into Republican party even though they started outside of it. If you want 3rd party candidates to run in elections you would have to change the system completely.
That’s not how new parties work my friend
How do they work?
I’m not sure. Claude said
Forming a new political party in the United States is a complex process that involves navigating federal and state regulations. Here’s a step-by-step guide:
-
Develop your platform: Define your party’s core values, positions, and policy agenda to differentiate it from existing parties.
-
Create an organizational structure: Form a committee with leadership roles (chair, treasurer, secretary) and establish bylaws governing your party’s operations.
-
Register at the federal level: File with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) by submitting Form 1, “Statement of Organization” if you plan to raise/spend more than $1,000.
-
Register in individual states: Requirements vary significantly by state, but typically include:
- Gathering signatures (ranging from hundreds to hundreds of thousands)
- Filing specific paperwork
- Paying filing fees
- Meeting state-specific thresholds
-
Build local chapters: Establish a grassroots presence by organizing at the local level in communities across your target states.
-
Field candidates: Run candidates in local and state elections to build visibility and credibility.
-
Work toward ballot access: Each state has different requirements for getting your party on the ballot, often requiring a minimum percentage of votes in previous elections or petition signatures.
-
Fundraise: Develop a funding strategy that complies with campaign finance laws and regulations.
Think of forming a political party like planting a tree - you need strong roots (grassroots support), a sturdy trunk (organizational structure), and many branches (local chapters) before you can bear fruit (electoral success). The process requires patience, as most successful third parties in American history took years or decades to establish themselves.
For more detailed information, you might want to consult your state’s secretary of state office website or the FEC website (https://www.fec.gov/).
I wasn’t taking about forming a new party. There are many parties out there already. People’s Party, Green Party, Libertarian Party… I’m talking about why people don’t vote for them. If Bernie and AOC formed a new party they would face the same issues as all the other parties. In the end they would have work with Democrats and most probably would be absorbed by them.
-
Bernie is already third party, doofus. And if you want to fix anything you have to vote DNC.
The worst part is that Republicans unironically believe that these are all paid actors.
How can I sign up for that job?
Bernie does UBI at 11.
Are you thinking of Andrew Yang? Bernie doesn’t support UBI.
It’s a joke; I was saying that by giving people a cushy job such as attending his rallies all over the country he’d be basically implementing UBI.
Ah, I just misunderstood.
Cranberry juice bro. Feel the burn.
No, that’s UTI. What you’re thinking of is the common abbreviation for the biggest college in the smallest US state.
Digging into who is actually paying them is a fun road to go down as well. They can’t answer. When the democrats were in charge, they’d be paid for by the government!
Now that Trump is in charge, they can’t say that anymore! So they’ll move onto another scapegoat such as Bill Gates, or NASA (and ignore that NASA gets funds from the government).
I don’t think facts or lack of evidence has ever gotten in their way before. They will just say it’s George Soros. Or they will point to fake craigslist posts which can be created by anyone.
Even then, I feel like you could just say “Oh, great, so now that Trump’s in charge, he can investigate George Soros’ finances, right?”
They can say George Soros or Bill Gates, pretty common namedrops on conservative media.
“It was fauci and the chemtrails”
They need to organized this momentum into a proper party, maybe call it the labor party or the progress party. But most importantly they need to not be scared to use actural leftist rhetoric and appeal to class conscious workers.
What about Working Families party?
Tbh I dont really take them seriously
Onward Together Party
EverForward Party
Inspired Collaboration Party
Positive Frontier Party
Disagree. There are a huge number of republican working class that need representation, and who are not the enemy.
The anti-1% party is a much more viable proposition than going left vs right.
Show me the conservative critique of billionaires. I know how that works on the left, but the right is about preserving power structures
billionaires Don’t Share Our Values™️
QED
Unless one of your values is to take wealth from those that don’t share your values, this is not a critique that will lead to meaningful corrections. I guess that could be a conservative value, but now you’re just doing identity politics.
There are a few Republican representatives that claim to be pro-union, which has gotten them into office. I don’t know how much they can do when both parties have been generally anti-union.
Anti-1% is left vs right
I don’t believe this is true, the right won the last election but people outside the 1% voted for Trump.
You don’t have to be the 1% to vote for them.
Leftism literally originates from replacing monarchy and aristocracy with democracy, fighting the 1% is leftism.
The Democrats tried that, they tried appealing to the mythical “centrist conservative” and look where that got them, it has been proven to be a failing strategy. We dont need another “bipartisan” Democrat-like party, we need a workers party.
I’m trying to say that process is made by classifying voters in terms other than left/center/right.
There are only two political classes, those who are class conscious and those who are not. It matters not what word they’re called, only that as many people became class conscious as possible.
I can’t disagree with your definition, but I can’t believe people who are not class conscious always vote republican.
Sometimes they vote Democrat
Like Democrats, many Republicans are just voting for the “lesser evil” and aren’t really loyal to their party. They just hate Democrats.
A new party sidesteps and allows those “lesser evil” Republican working class voters to jump ship. They will not ever vote for a Democrat, so stop being Democrats.
This idea is so simple, and the idea of it changing the course of history would be such a dumb-timeline thing, that I am 100% convinced it would work.
It would give them the ability to talk some harsh shit on Democrats, which could work on some Republicans. But I’d still worry that the effectiveness of their propaganda machine and the tendency of conservatives to fall in line and do as they’re told would spoil it.
Bernie is already third party
Why does nobody know anything about American Politics, including the Americans…
He’s independent, meaning no party
Because hundreds of millions of dollars are spent to make real information seem as confusing and boring as possible
Now, this? This is hilarious right here.
Go baby go!
It’s working kids - despite the blackout from the mass media, people are taking to the streets:
Why is 2017 the point of comparison?
Comparing to the first Trump Term, I’d assume.
Trump’s first term vs second term.
That line should be way higher than in 2017… that gives me less hope than more tbf
I was at the rally! I was one of the last people let inside before they closed the gate, and thousands of people that didn’t get inside watched and listened from outside of the fencing, so the actual number was more than 34,000.
Here’s a photo I took…
And here’s Bernie…
Bernie should have won.
Fuck everyone who voted for hillary clinton in the 2016 primary.
They need to be tarred and feathered.
bernie is an independent. according to america you only want two teams, everyone else will get little to no votes.
It is not that we only WANT two teams. It’s that we only GET two teams. It’s an emergent property of a broken voting system. If somebody in the US says you can’t or shouldn’t vote for another party, that’s their interpretation via some kind of game theory thought process to prevent an even worse choice from winning.
That probably isn’t relevant any longer, and it’s more clear than ever that the system was never improved because it is a great form of control that parties and individuals won’t catch the blame for. Thus all the discussion of “alternative” methods of political change.
thank you, I’ve managed to identify you now, dispatched ICE agents at your home
We gotta put all our energy into what they’re doing. They’re the rare few on the left that really understand what is going on and how to start fighting it.
You’re right, but consider how poisonous those names have been made to conservatives. Their ears automatically clamp shut.
Know the jacked up part? If conservatives listened to either one of those two, without knowing who they were, they would be all ears.
First time I heard Bernie was on NPR, had no idea who was talking, but I gathered it was a politician running for office. (This was him running against Hillary.)
“LOL, this guy is a joke. You can’t actually answer questions honestly and in a straightforward manner. Holy shit! He just answered a question about Israel without mumbling around. Fucking love him, but whatever he’s running for, he’s going to lose.”
Yeah.
Some of MAGA actually likes Bernie though. A number of them would have voted for him and he would have almost certainly won.
I can really see AOC as president. She’s already at the minimum age, but I would like to see her take another 5-10 years to learn how to broaden her appeal.
I’m pretty excited by this AOC/Sanders team up. I’m sure neither are perfect, and will have ideas that I disagree with. But they both have a strong reputation for sticking up for ordinary people rather than the rich and powerful. And no reputation (that I’m aware of!) for bullying, blathering, giving in to the rich, sexual abuse, or miscellaneous awful behaviour.
And a team up between old and young is a powerful thing. Age brings wisdom, to spot things a young person might miss; and youth brings energy, understanding, and new ideas.
AOC for 2028? Judging by other comments, it seems unlikely. But AOC later? If they stay uncompromised, stick to the values that America wants without getting bogged down in things that divide the country, and gather support organically across the country rather than relying on traditional rich-people-funding, this could be an amazing victory!
And no reputation (that I’m aware of!) for bullying
Ask Jill Stein about that.
AOC for 2028? Judging by other comments, it seems unlikely.
Well, right now it seems unlikely that Trump will ever leave the White House under any circumstances. I don’t think you properly appreciate what’s going on here. If even a centrist like AOC still makes you go “Hhhmmm, I’m not sure if she’s ready yet…maybe another cycle or two…” while the country dives head-first into fascism, I don’t know what’s going to wake you up. Probably nothing.
I agree she would be amazing, but Bernie won’t be around long enough for that team-up. He’s already a year older than Biden. The Dems need to cultivate a lot more younger politicians. They should have been going hard at this years ago.
Sounds like it’s time for you to stand up and get into politics ;-)
You and everyone else here. Can Lemmy find one person from each state to field?
and will have ideas that I disagree with.
I honestly think this is code for, “I like what they do, but I hope they don’t raise my taxes.”
Also, “There’s no way they can have solutions that are better than mine!”
Well, it’s not.
but I would like to see her take another 5-10 years to learn how to broaden her appeal.
This kind of “we’re not ready yet” mindset is what lets republicans eat our lunch again and again.
“Broadening appeal” is also dumb as fuck when the candidates that do run routinely get ~30% of the vote. They already don’t have “broad appeal.”
Stop playing into the ruling class’ handbooks by giving up before we even begin.
It’s also pretty funny to say that she needs to “broaden her appeal” when she’s already drawing tens of thousands of people without even running a presidential campaign.
We don’t have 5-10 years.
Found the project manager.
Assuming there are real elections in 5-10 years
what do you mean? like get some felonies first?
As to her age, if she can learn to trust wise people around her, she can do much better than an old person with experience who only sees things their own way! For that reason it might be better to run soon if possible, to have the wisdom of Sanders with her. Hopefully there’s other wise people she trusts to mentior/advise her as well.
Her abilities aren’t the issue, the public’s perception is. I don’t think enough people will accept that she’s been on the scene long enough to be president.
Trump and gang is trying to have AOC charged for terrorism, so it seems to be working. She should either get DNC leadership now or finally form her own party.
Yup. Ideally she takes over and redirects and repairs the burning husk that is the dems. It they don’t give her leadership splintering with bernie would be a godsend
Please don’t let her form a new party. As much as people say they hate the 2-party system, fragmenting the Democratic Party would be a yuge mistake at this point. We need to let the Trumpublican Party eat itself when he keels over from dementia or his final Big Mac Attack. The MAGA opportunists who rode in on his coattails will tear each other to pieces as they claw for position like rats.
The maga problem isn’t just Trump. This is the culmination of decades of work by christo-fascist conservatives. They’re not resting on their laurels and lining their pockets like a normal regressive administration. Every effort is being taken to solidify their power and deconstruct any threat that might rise up post-trump. Even if they did eat themselves there won’t be a government to rebuild.
We’re passing an inflection point in American politics. People want change and polls indicate they don’t care what side it comes from. The Democratic party has never polled lower. Being the milquetoast neoliberal corporate party is objectively the worst anchor to tie around your neck.
AOC and Bernie’s message isn’t wildly popular on accident. That energy needs to be captured and amplified, Democratic party or not. What’s the worst that happens from a split ticket? More people stay home?
Edit: you don’t even have to run against them to capture the Democratic party. Just have headliner progressives threaten it with a broad show of support and you force them to open up the primaries. Their policies have no support, they have no chips to call the bluff.
A Trump presidency, let alone TWO, wouldn’t have been possible without the gradual dumbing down of Americans over the last century, which IMO is an unintended side effect of progressive addiction to entertainment and convenience. Nobody conspired to make people more stupid by getting them to watch too much TV. That happened as business people strove to sell more products and get richer, like always.
Conspiring to make and keep people stupid is a conservative top 10 hit. For them the ideal populace is homogenous, fertile, docile, fearful and uneducated.
Anti-intellectual attacks have been the go-to for centuries, they’ve just gotten more modern and efficient. Look into groups like the heritage foundation, prager u, the heartland institute and (most importantly) the people bankrolling them.
Its a long legacy of chipping away at the foundations of democracy and critical thinking. Blaming technology and the free market is buying their propaganda. It’s the same lie they use to frame climate collapse as an unavoidable natural cycle.
I know there are individuals who hate the world and want everybody else to be suffer, or to be dumb and gullible because then they’re easier to con. But IMO the main driver is the basic conservative attitude that everybody should stand on their own two feet - either because in their minds it makes the nation stronger, or they just resent having to pay for anybody else’s anything - even things that benefit other conservatives. Individually motivated group behavior often looks like a conspiracy but it’s not. Most people don’t eat meat to spite vegans, or floss to put dentists out of business. Etc.
The Democratic party’s plans, laid bare: Do nothing and wait for everyone to notice how awesome they are.
I haven’t missed voting in a presidential election, and voting for Bill Clinton’s second term was my first. If there are elections in 2028, the Democrats run Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsome, etc. and no other options besides for Republicans, Greens or Libertarians, 2024 will have been my last vote.
Cool, now win an election
DNC:
The best we can do is normalize Trumpism. Now, for what’s important, how many more terms can we keep Schumer?
It’s wild to me that democrats by and large haven’t realized that the DNC is holding them back. I’ll never forgive them for picking Hillary over Bernie. How different would things be now if Bernie had been the nominee?
The approval rating of the Democratic Party has dropped to a record low. People are seeing the grift.
That’s like assigning arriving patients at the ER their own room and asking them to report their self-diagnosis and treatment back to the front desk.
The DNC cannot fix itself. The system has evolved this way because the money flowing to DNC has allowed them to remain powerful but not challenging the power structure.
I think you’re giving the DNC too much credit. They didn’t “pick” Hillary…she cheated and colluded with Debbie Wasserman Schultz to steal the nomination from Bernie.
I’m still in favor of many individual Democratic candidates even if many people are waking up to the misuse of power at the top.
A lot of people are wowed by their theoretical policies, and then decide to run as candidates under their platform. Very few of their politicians ever get “A Crash Course In How To Appeal To Money” as a result of that allegiance. So unless anyone wants to suggest kinks in this plan, we can hate the institution democrats and still support the progressive democrats; and I think there are far more of the latter than the former. It just means people facing a local election have to actually read through someone’s life story, as opposed to “Oh, they’re the Democrat? Great, then them.”
The Republican Party also went through a similar transition (for the worse) as Trump took it over.
the gop cant win without TRUMP, or his endorsement.
I’d take a look at the workings of Scientology, invented by L. Ron Hubbard. Even long after the founder’s death, and his admission that it was a gigantic hoax, the cult kept going for a long time. I’d find it likely many in the GOP could invent a platform “in Donald Trump’s memory”.
The worries shift and become clearer once it’s made apparent that it’s a cult.
sadly he wont be elgible til 2028, he knows this.
Don’t threaten me with a good time, buddy
If Bernie was 20 or 30 years younger, AOC and him would smash the fucking Government of Putin.
in AOC and Bernie I trust
No. Don’t make them into idols. Let them be good leaders, and let Americans do good worthy of trust.
Of course, but inspirational and encouraging.
Truly hopeful
Bernie, the best president the USA never had.
If you have any wisdom, you will support them. Full left or nothing else will work.
Lol they aren’t even full left, at all. We’ve deluded ourselves into thinking common sense and not being bought by the billionaires and corporate lobbies is “full left”
As far as I know, they are social-democrats, full-left would be anti-capitalist or anarchist, which they are not.
I thought Bernie was at least an actual socialist. That’s the impression I got.
He claims democratic socialist, but his stated policies are social democrat.
Isn’t it compatible with the democrat socialist philosophy of progressive change as opposed to a revolution?
Yeah I was just clarifying that Bernie is not a democratic socialist himself, he just misuses the label (although that misuse is more common than not nowadays)
What I am saying is that he may actually be one, but he pushes social democrat politics as progressive steps towards democratic socialism. Also probably by electoralism, to avoid scaring some voters.
Looking into it further, you may be right. It looks like in his younger days he was more vocally socialist and pushed harder for more immediately and obviously socialist ideas but tempered that at some point, likely to make himself more appealing to win elections. Some people claim he is not a real socialist regardless because he is reformist.
You seem to be correct according to his Wikipedia pages, he describes himself as a democrat socialist (which is more anti-capitalist than social democrat), but also an admirer of Northern European social democracies, and certainly an opponent of neo-liberalism. I guess he would oppose communism in his vision of giving economical power to people through democratic worker unions and cooperatives, rather than having everything centralized by an authoritarian state.
These discussions never lead to anything productive.
I firmly-believe most people who engage in them are autistic.
I fear for her safety. I hope she stays safe.
How many billionaires did they kill?
Literally my first thought. All other avenues have been exhausted.
