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
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.
“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.
Bernie is already third party, doofus. And if you want to fix anything you have to vote DNC.
The Freedom party
The Justice Party
The Individualist Party
I like Freedom Party, take that word back.
The Freedom party
I thought the Republicans were already the “freedom” party (even though they take all of your freedoms).
Also in the Netherlands the PVV (“party for freedom”) is far right so I don’t think that name reflects the right idea.
The Justice Party
Justice is pretty subjective and might not reflect the right idea either.
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.
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.
If the Dems don’t want to win an election, they don’t have to run a canidate.
there’s also a good chance that fixing it will simply fuck us even harder.
How’s that?
FPTP ensures that every vote in the winning party goes to the electoral college.
So if you vote 51% dem, and 49% republican, in a FPTP state 100% of all electoral votes are dem.
If you have a system like IRV where you split it between the electoral as fairly as possible, you lose literally half of your votes. And given that EVERY red state uses FPTP, aside from nebraska you’re running a wildly uphill battle. You should be targeting red states first. And blue states last, otherwise we will almost certainly end up in a worse position, losing TONS of our voting potential.
Yeah, right. So almost like a prisoner’s dilemma bind. And I guess a national change is fairly unlikely any time soon…
yeah, literally, you’re fucked if you do, and you’re fucked if you don’t. The only situation in which you win here is starting in red states.
also, a federal change to the law is illegal afaik, so it would have to be something that either, states individually agree on unanimously, or something the federal government can’t even control.
Unless it really works like it has the potential to. Then the repugs and dems would be totally cooked.
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.
EverForward Party
Onward Together Party
Inspired Collaboration Party
Positive Frontier 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
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/).
-
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!
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,
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 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.
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.
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.
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
that’s the hard part. That’s why trump is so effective at winning, he somehow figured out how to make the vote for him. That’s the fundamentally difficult problem to solve, and trump is the only one who seems to have a good solution right now.
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.
but 90% of these people do not care, would not care, and have no reason to care. It doesn’t matter, what matters is what appeals to them, and unfortunately it’s dumbass idiots on the internet.
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
Buddy half of American voters voted for trump.
Incorrect. Only 63.7% of eligible voters turned out to vote in the 2024 US General Election.
That comes out to around 155 million voters, of which around 77 million voted for Trump or ~49.8%. Democrats on the other hand got around 75 million or ~48.3%. of the vote.
This comes out to ~31.7% of eligible voters voting Republican with ~30.8% voting Democrat.
Less than a third of Americans wanted Trump in office, not half. Let’s get the facts straight.
The reality is that the majority of American voters
~31.7% of Americans is not a majority, according to the American Heritage Dictionary.
are stupid, lazy, or both.
Have you considered that the actions of Republicans gerrymandering voting districts to hell and passing anti-voting laws and policies, that the actions of Democrats failing to represent their constituents by veering more and more Right, and that the pressures of capitalism, rising inflation, stagnating wages, and a lack of a national holiday where people take off work to go exercise their civic duties are reasons for why more people don’t go out and vote?
Noooooooo, that can’t be. Voters are stupid. Voters are racist. Voters are lazy. And it isn’t the system that has stripped away their material needs that is the problem.
I find these types of comments funny because it shows how far in denial some people are. You arguing semantics with a random person on the internet doesn’t change reality. Trump won. Fair and square. Stop making excuses for people. No one works a 24 shift for 2 weeks straight. Considering the bullshit Trump is putting us through I think it’s safe to say that missing an hour or 2 from work every 4 years to make sure a piece of shit like him never holds office is worth the $30-$60 dollars you’ll lose for the day.
People need to wake the fuck up and stop expecting the world to work around their needs. Once every 4 years they have to vote. That is the bare minimum and people like you want to blame it on not having a voting holiday or some other excuse. In my eyes I can’t afford NOT to vote on this year shows why.
Trump won. Fair and square.
nobody disagrees lil bro, the difference is that we know it’s because people on the left simply didn’t vote. The turnout is obvious compared to 2020. The election that mattered, 2024, people simply didn’t vote.
I find your comment funny because the person you’re responding to is not the one in denial. They gave you the statistical facts of the situation. I know you want to cynically point the finger at everyone around you being dumber and lazier than you, that you have it as hard as anyone could possibly have it and you managed to do it so why don’t they. I know you want to believe America is a democracy just because we hold elections and the votes that come in are counted.
When you have a third of the population that doesn’t vote for one reason or another, when you have some voters with several times the voting power of others, and the two candidates we get to vote for are donald fucking trump or the person that somehow lost to D.F.T.; it’s time to start thinking about the systems that produced those results instead of passing the blame off on bootstraps and personal responsibility. This is the classic reactionary rhetoric that never leads to anything being fixed, because it exists so you have something to be angry at without challenging anything fundamental to the system. Because you can change systems, you cannot change people except by giving them what they need to change themselves.
The good thing is that human behavior at that scale is actually reasonably predictable, again, given the material conditions that those people are subjected to. Which is why systems are so important.
A system does what it is designed to do, and benefits who it is designed to benefit. Everything else is just noise. Stop pointing the finger at everyone around you and start pointing it up at the people who actually have a direct hand in those systems and profound power to change them. Elected or otherwise. That is the only way that change has ever been wrought in this country, even in the most dire of circumstances.
based and chad the numbers comment, we love the numbers, they dont lie.
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.
The “Do Something” party
Check out the Working Families party. They’re not in every state, but they’re a start.
Sadly
White Christians who love guns and hate abortions. The clowns will never see it coming.
New Democrat(ic) Party!
The Common Sense party.
Please can we just ban the phrase “Common Sense” from politics already
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 vote for Luigi party
Party in the USA
Let’s get this Party started
Party Animal
Birthday Party
The Party 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.
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
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
The 99% Party. It’s a slick way of calling it a worker’s party without sounding like a communist party.
That’s like the population of a small town
The left makes fun of Trump for bragging about crowd size. Can we not do this please? I don’t give a shit about the size of your rally; what are you going to actually do to take the country back from oligarchs?
I think the important difference is that they actually compared it to other crowd sizes that (may or may not, I haven’t looked) actually were smaller, like “largest in Denver” and “larger than the DNC”
Versus just claiming something then have it be demonstrably false, “I have the biggest crowd in the history of the world” or something along those lines
The important part is the organization, and showing there are people that can/will do something, then we can figure out what to do next
The DNC has been “figuring out what to do next” for decades.
Can you not do this please? I don’t give a shit about what you think about the size of rallies; and are you really trying to apply arbitrary tolerance policies onto the very people who are attending rallies and showing their frustration about what’s happening?
How is it possible to be so fucking stupid?
Keep in mind, Lemmy’s big enough to have malicious actors on it.
I’m fairly certain I’ve encountered one in the last week. Not going to name names, but the conversation thread was fucking weird.
arbitrary tolerance policies onto the very people who are attending rallies and showing their frustration about what’s happening?
What? I think it’s clear their frustration is with the progressive movement, headed by Bernie himself, celebrating the tour as the end all be all of resistance when quite frankly nothing of note is happening.
No, the making fun is when he pretends to have the largest crowd that has ever gathered.
No one says that crowd size is unimportant or without impact.
The left makes fun of Trump for bragging about crowd size.
Yeah that’s when it’s Republicans doing it; when it’s a center-left rally it’s a “demonstration of opposition” or “show of force”.
what are you going to actually do to take the country back from oligarchs?
Nothing, the answer is nothing. Bernie is going to do nothing because for all the good he’s done the progressive movement he’s still Bernie; this is how he’s always done things and he’s not going to change now.
lol, hilarious stance to take in this moment
Why?
I am not going to defend Bernie Sanders past a certain point here, I fundamentally agree with any criticism of the U.S. left in terms of impact and willingness to appear “radical” to the status quo media narrative for decades but also… Bernie Sanders has been INCREDIBLY influential as a politician both in terms of practical across the isle legislation created and passed but more importantly in dropkicking the Overton Window over the fence and at least into very very moderate european style “socialist” politics.
We need more than just Bernie Sanders and AOC, we can’t rely on them, but they are extremely effective at what they do, I constantly hear young, driven, effective progressive activists cite Bernie Sanders as the person that first set them on the path to where they are now, even if their politics have since become much more leftist than Bernie’s lane ( and no… “radical” these people may be labeled, before anyone says shit these people are always obviously driven by a kindness and desire for better lives for all USians ) Bernie Sanders gets people to take a second look at leftist politics purely on the basis of the consistency and genuine integrity Bernie has vs. basically every other politician in U.S. politics… which isn’t to defend Bernie as somehow a virtuous figure, the bar is just insanely low for U.S. politicians especially in the wake of Citizens United opening up the floodgates to dark money warping politics in the U.S. to an extreme degree…
…something that no other figure in U.S. politics (or media in general for that matter) has more effectively raised awareness about than Bernie F’king Sanders by the way!!!
To right now say that Bernie and AOC are ineffective and will continue to be ineffective is probably the most obviously incorrect moment to do so I can possibly think of during the span of… my entire life?
To right now say that Bernie and AOC are ineffective and will continue to be ineffective is probably the most obviously incorrect moment to do so I can possibly think of during the span of… my entire life?
You misunderstood me then, so I’ll rephrase: Bernie is effective at what he does (AOC less so, but same difference), but what Bernie does is not lead a movement. He talks, he inspires, but he doesn’t act. He has his place, but that place is not as the leader of a political movement and absolutely not as the leader of a resistance movement. That’s what I’m trying to say here; Bernie will not suggest effective methods of resistance because they go against what he, at the core, stands for. Someone else needs to become the leader the progressive movement needs to hit the streets and take back America, because simply Bernie won’t cut it.
I could not disagree more, I think Bernie is the rare movement leader who understands that as egoecentric as they are (must be to be a politician?) that in terms of raw power, time you spend stoking a movement based on ideas and desired results pays back in future gains FAR MORE vs. focusing on cultivating the strength, charisma and cultural relevancy of certain political leaders to make them into the superheroes we need to save us…
…most people in the U.S are ready to vote for anybody but Trump so long as they don’t perceive that figure is part of an ossified Democratic establishment that is barely better than Republicans at times.
In this environment, Bernie’s strategy of always emphasizing his ideas and policy visions over his specific character or genius was wise or perhaps really the only realistic play given the political realities somewhat leftist figures like Bernie Sanders face at the national level in the U.S.
It is the opposite of the Trump strategy of trying to forge cultural figures that motivate people based on who they are as characters in a cultural landscape of grievances or perceived threats.
For this reason conservatism has utterly failed to do anything other than motivate ignorant people into violent beliefs while progressivism has radically reshaped what is possible in political conversation in the U.S., what younger people believe is possible for our future in the U.S., and brought legions of semi-informed voters into a practice of focusing on, critiquing and discussing policy as if they were working in politics and knew all of the specifics because they had to.
time you spend stoking a movement based on ideas and desired results pays back in future gains FAR MORE vs. focusing on cultivating the strength, charisma and cultural relevancy of certain political leaders to make them into the superheroes we need to save us…
So here’s the thing: Leaders and agitators are different. Bernie is an agitator; he helps radicalize people and show them the light, so to speak. That’s one thing, but it’s not leadership; it completely ignores the people who already see the light and want to reach it, because to those people Bernie only says “ask politely but firmly for it to come to you”. An effective leader will turn to those people and say something along the lines of “walk” or “run”. Note that the leader doesn’t need to be one person, but something resembling executive leadership needs to exist. I’ll also add that you say “future gains,” but at this rate by the time those future gains come back America will be fully fascist and it’ll be too late. Action needs to be taken now, alongside agitation efforts. There’s more than enough energy for this already, and that energy needs to be harnessed before it dissipates into willfully ignorant apathy, because that’s what happens when a movement is concerned too much with lofty ideals and too little with concrete action and material results.
Nothing, and they’ll keep taking money from neolib oligarchs because they think they’re on the same side. They’re on their side.
I’m educated enough in American politics to understand elusive news about Musk ans Trump but about not that Bernie guy. Is that a first or last name and what was the point of the rally? Also is a rally like a démonstration?
It’s a first name. He’s a politician somewhere between PS and UDI on the spectrum, so for Americans he is an extreme radical leftist, for normal people a basically sensible centrist with some heart. Has a cult following for a long time, seems like a nice guy probably.
A rally is like a demonstration but with establishment politicians speaking.
so for Americans he is an extreme radical leftist
literally only right wingers would call him that.
…which are essentially the entire electorate and media apparatus supporting both parties…
That description is a bit tongue in cheek, but most Americans would call him far left or whatever they think is a non pejorative way to say the same thing. Just look at this very thread, you have people calling him a socialist and “truly left”, they are not right wingers, or at least they wouldn’t think of themselves that way, and you probably wouldn’t either. And like, yeah, he has some lefty ideas, but globally speaking he runs a pretty centrist platform. I guess it’s necessary in America, supporting trade unions and healthcare is as far left as you can go, maybe his personal views are a bit better and it is just a calculation.
Bernie Sanders is a Senator for the state of Vermont. Be has run for president and went pretty far on a socialist platform. Far enough that when you refer to him by his first name while discussing politics, just about every American knows who you are talking about. If there is a truly left wing politician in American government, it’s Bernie. And while it doesn’t say a lot about the state of things, it does say quite a bit that so many people showed up to hear him speak.
LOL socialist
God I really needed this. Finally some positivity against the insanity. Glad we are finding our backbone!
The worst part is that Republicans unironically believe that these are all paid actors.
How can I sign up for that job?
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).
“It was fauci and the chemtrails”
They can say George Soros or Bill Gates, pretty common namedrops on conservative media.
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?”
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.
Cool, now win an election
Well, they are sitting members of the legislative branch.
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?
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’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.
The approval rating of the Democratic Party has dropped to a record low. People are seeing the grift.
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.
sadly he wont be elgible til 2028, he knows this.
Don’t threaten me with a good time, buddy
Cool. So what policy changes did they enact? None? Then who gives a fuck?
Action, not words, AOC. Action, not words, Bernie. Fucking stfu and DO something.
Getting their base energized and angry about the current situation is doing a lot more than introducing a bill that has a 0.00% chance of getting passed. The chances of them talking to the high ranking party officials and getting them to reverse course probably has the same chance of success.
It helps to use your brain to actually think about the outcomes of actions. On the off chance that I’m just being an asshole, please let me know what is a better use of their time.
“introducing a bill that has a 0.00% chance of getting passed” is Bernie’s function.
So he can look like the real leftist who is really trying.In this environment … bipartisan politics haven’t played a meaningful role in national US government since … Oh. George W Bush, maybe.
If another four years of Trump and the threat of project 2025 wasn’t enough to make these people do the bare minimum it would have taken to stop it, I honestly don’t see how a few empowered speeches will do more than jack-shit to motivate them.
I wish it were different, but we’re taking about a group of people who have a proven track record of stopping short of walking the walk.
You’re right it is much better for them to give up.
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Or the ok, or the mildly evil in this case.
What are you doing besides uselessly bitching and moaning about how others aren’t doing enough. Grow up, shit will never be perfect in the real world and we are on the edge of a fascist regime coup. Even if Bernie doesn’t do shit, getting that many people together is still a net positive compared to him voting on stuff or talking to people or introducing bills that will never pass just so morons think he is doing something better than rallies.
Getting large groups of people together repeatedly is the most important thing that can happen right now. Quit bitching and fucking do something.
lol… again. Gathering people in large groups is not an action. It’s just accumulation. VOTING is an action.
No mountain was moved moved because a bunch of people gathered at is base and shouted at it.
And I find it ironic that the advice you’re suggesting is the exact same thing I see presented to the far left/progressive do-nothings that sit at home and watch everyone else try and cast their votes to save their sorry asses, or wait until shit gets this bad before they mobilize into larger clusters of do-nothings to stand around and smugly criticize everyone that warned them this would fucking happen.
They helped make the bed. They can lie in it with the rest of us that didn’t.
The real irony is that currently there are not even local elections to be had where I am. I’m case you are new at voting, it’s not continuous. Saying the only action is voting is… Well if you haven’t gotten the point by now you are not going to.
I vote. I don’t just vote every 4 years either, and that didn’t just start with Trump. If you don’t understand that more action is required than just voting at this point you need to look up from whatever you have your head stuck in. We are already in uncharted territory and while the rallies are not perfect, they are better than doing nothing and sitting on your hands until the next election.
“They helped make the bed. They can lie in it with the rest of us that didn’t.”
Yes there are a lot of dumb fucks who seriously fucked up the election, and yeah they were wrong on so many levels. This isn’t about being right, or having superior principals. This is actually about survival. The collapse and changes will be violent, and we are so fucking close to changes you can’t even imagine. So grow up, stop complaining about how other people didn’t do enough. It is just a childishly small thing to get hung up on.
DO SOMETHING. Protect yourself, your family, your friends and those that can’t protect themselves.
lol. Naah. We’re done. It’s over. I’m just making sure that those responsible are able to see what they’ve done. See the damage they caused to so many people. They walked lockstep with the trumpers, and now they will suffer alongside them.
Best now to just make sure everyone can recognize them for who they are and properly lay the blame at their feet where it belongs.
Because ALL of this was avoidable.
Now, there’s not much else to do about it.
I really hope you are a TURF account, I would have more faith in humanity at that point, at least that person is doing something.
I didn’t think you are. Your apathy, hate, and small world view combined with you ignorance in how bad situations can get and the privilege to think it can’t happen to you is really sad.
If you are dead set on lying in bed and doing nothing, please do that and shutt the fuck up. Don’t spread shit that only benefits the fascists just because you are to ideologically pure to do something.
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.
If only this turn out had actually opposed trump at the polls
Okay, 34,000 people gathered together for their cause, and then what? What did they actually do?
Did they use the opportunity to communicate and organise themselves, set concrete goals and choose the leaders of their movement that could execute on these goals with their support? Did they all leave with an understanding of what their next actionable steps towards their goals would be?
I look at this a bit like a work meeting in a way, you’ve gathered people together but if all they’re accomplishing is hanging out patting each other on the back for agreeing with each other for a few hours then wrapping up, that’s a pointless meeting.
They need to have a command structure, an organised plan, and a goal with concrete next steps to try to work towards it.
34,000 people took time off work, away from their families, etc, to travel there for something they’re very passionate about, you’d think they’d use that time with their allies wisely and constructively, right?
Given that the media isn’t on their side, just showing up in large numbers to mill about for a bit isn’t going to make big waves, it’ll be quietly reported on and immediately forgotten by those not already a part of their cause. Protesting just isn’t going to cut it. Not until 34,000 becomes 3,400,000 anyway.
But it’s still a great opportunity to build your new movement. Imagine if all those people had gone home knowing who is in charge, what the chain of command is (it’s not like everyone can liaise with the movement’s leader directly all the time, you need a structure to your movement/organisation), and imagine if they had a concrete plan of actionable things they can do before the next meetup (which should have been set by those leading at lower parts of the organisation - don’t leave an important meeting without knowing when your next check-in will be).
Imagine what they could do if they really, actually organised for effective action, instead of just harmlessly protesting.
They have so much power, they’ve just never been taught how to wield it.
This reminds me of the “Why aren’t people protesting?” comments, ignoring that people…are.
The consistency of protests and town halls even in red districts has indicated to me that people are attuned and active, even if the news cannot (and in some cases refuses to) fully cover every square inch of their actions. As many have said, “The revolution will not be televised.”
it’s like the tech industry developed an AI for self-driving goal posts
afaik every person there bought a gun and joined the Soup And Rifles Collective on the way home. the entire state has declared open rebellion, the ICE facility (GEO group owned) in aurora has been broken open and the captives reunited with their families. throughout the streets Les Miserables is heard and the revolutionary council has elected a spokeswoman to bring their demands to Washington. all from one rally! i really think they could’ve done more but we’ll see what next weekend holds
👆 Room temperature IQ take.
This is the opposite of a headless mob with no goals. This is an explicit show of support for these politicians and their platform. The goal is to elevate the message both generally and within the Democratic party.
If nobody shows up to support it then the top brass can ignore them. The large crowds force the issue, it’s a de facto primary on policy. Suppressing and ignoring the issue is a bad look. It only works if opposition doesn’t reach a critical mass to tip the scales.
The exact same thing happened when Trump hijacked the Republican party. Opposition Republicans were faced with getting on board or losing on a split ticket, and suddenly every primary at every level was a MAGA-off
Does she mean Democratic National Convention or Democratic National Committee the later being the common thing referred to as DNC?
The National Convention is almost five thousand delegates with a plus one or two. Its not exactly a rally its the body that confirms or votes for the party’s Prez candidate. They have guest, speakers, other elected Democrats(who aren’t delegates), and invite the Press.
I took it as the convention. It’s the other publicly visible gathering of folks.
Are you ready for a Miracle? Ready as I can be!
Start showing up.
