Kamala raised over $1 billion dollars for her campaign, most of which was from small donors.
If that doesn’t tell the Dems they don’t need oligarch money, nothing will.
Then they spent it on high per hour political consultants who paid Beyonce to perform
That’s a mere pittance compared to what the wealthy actually spend on conservatives and messaging. That’s 1 billion dollars every 4 years. Fox news, daily wire, OANN, and all the myriad of other propaganda outlets churn through more than that a year.
Yes, but we’re not talking about conservatives.
The Democratic party has a problem, and that problem is what Democratic voters want doesn’t align with what Democratic donors want. The voters want progressive policies passed, while the donors want the same neoliberalism that keeps them rich. And trying to appease one of those groups obviously alienates the other.
If any Democratic politician truly wants to help the American population, the fact that Kamala raised so much money in such a short amount of time, and the fact that many states passed progressive policies even though they voted for Trump, should tell them that they don’t need to kowtow to the wealthy because the voters will support them. Unfortunately, I don’t think they’re going to learn that lesson.
Republicans, of course, don’t have this problem because their voters and their donors all want the same thing.
The whole point of this was asking why Democrats are catering to wealthy conservative donors instead of progressive or left leaning voters. I just stated the reason why. The 1 billion dollars collected from small donors every four years for a presidential run is nice. But it’s nothing compared to what the wealthy dump into messaging and campaigning constantly. Until such time as small donors can even come close to remotely matching that. Sustaining entire media Outlet ecosystems to counter the propaganda from conservatives. Democrats aren’t going to give up trying to get some of that wealthy conservative money
Maybe if they go bankrupt we can start a new party that cares what its voters think and doesnt shit the bed so often.
X for doubt on that. Im sure they’ve said that though. That’s a lot of really expensive campaign parties for a three month run
Going further right didn’t help, now we need to go as left as possible
Radical ideas like Universal healthcare, paid maternity leave, free child care, taxing the rich.
Radical ideas the rest of the 1st world had had for 50 years and successfully implemented.
We’re well aware, and it’s honestly getting old hearing “wElL tHe ReSt Of ThE wOrLd,” yeah, the UK voted to leave the EU and ousted a party to replace them with Labour who don’t want to hold another referendum on the vote.
India continues to elect the populist and nationalist Modi as their PM, because he gives them bags of rice with his name on them and tells them it’s ok to hate Muslims.
Germany is flirting with fascism again, and they’ve got all the stuff Americans are apparently too fucking stupid to get done, right?
Dutch police just rounded up a bunch of pro-Palestinian protesters, protesting peacefully, and then started beating them for not moving fast enough.
Oh, and the majority of European countries are freaking the fuck out about immigration and the floods of immigrants trying to come into their countries. And funnily enough, your politicians speak about immigrants the same way our Republicans do.
But you’re right, the people who weren’t alive 50 years ago when all of this should have been done, yeah, that’s our fucking fault too, right?
Like that’ll ever happen.
The party is held by a group of political elites who are all about the establishment and power.
There needs to be a new party, a labor party, to represent the working class Americans.
It would be easier for progressives to take over the DNC and state Dems than to form an entirely new party and make it viable.
That would be ideal, but the people who are already there will never give it up.
And the problem with creating a new party is that it will divide the votes, while the conservatives are all united under the Republican party. Unless they split too. Maybe the non Trumpists can split off and form a more traditional party. But again, they’re too afraid to split THEIR votes.
Why not both? It’s easier to force your way under and into that tent/coalition with an organized front to do the talking. A political party that has well defined goals and objectives, while speaking for a big group, is bound to be better at working within a broader coalition than what we have now.
Only Democrats are allowed to vote to elect Democrat leadership… Need everyone in that coalition to register Dem and then vote for new leadership… 3rd party will always be spoiler until we take over and unrig everything
A reverse tea-party movement. That could work. We were laughing when the tea party started because it seemingly broke GOP unity, but they managed to shift the Overton window so far to the right that the GOP now is the tea party, and Dems are GOP lite. Reversing that trend is extremely necessary.
Correct, Biden just cozying up to Trump when he should be using emergency powers to arrest this madman who under the 14th Amendment isn’t even eligible to be President was absolutely sickening to me.
Right so… “let’s do the thing the fascist threatens to do because we’re right and it’s justified” is not the same thing as the fascist saying “we’ll do it because we’re right and it’s justified”.
Easy to justify the means when you believe in the ends… but of course every one thinks they are right and that everyone else will come to believe they are right, thusly conveniently avoiding any bad consequences.
Do you have any idea what would have happened if Biden just arrested Trump?
Breaking the rules isn’t fascism though. Fascism is fascism.
What do you think is a more ethical choice:
a) uphold the law, knowing it will let fascist come to power and kill thousands
a) break the law and stop him
Breaking the rules isn’t fascism though. Fascism is fascism.
It is precisely fascism. It’s ignoring the rule of law to achieve authoritarian aims. Why is it ok when you agree with the outcome and not ok when you don’t? But way more importantly, once you do it you cannot go back. If Biden did this and Trump ended up winning - make no mistake Biden has no authority to remove candidates from ballots - then Trump would feel completely justified in jailing his opponents.
What do you think is a more ethical choice
A. Because the premise of your choice is flawed. You do not know that breaking the law would stop him. You do not know -with certainty- that not breaking the law would result in that outcome. But we do know that being authoritarian to achieve aims we believe in is no better than people we disagree with doing the exact same. What would happen if Biden was successful in stopping Trump but then, because we wouldn’t ever keep unfettered presidential power… right? RIGHT? We’re the “good” guys… what would happen if MAGA Republicans won in 2028? I doubt we’d ever have another election again.
Do you have any idea what would have happened if Biden just arrested Trump?
If he would’ve done it early in his term, I suspect Trump would not have been elected president again. But instead he pushed the idea through some absurdly bureaucratic system that allowed Trump to run the clock out on everything.
If he would’ve done it early in his term, I suspect Trump would not have been elected president again.
We would have had a civil war or at least an attempted one. Then the next time a MAGA-esque Republican came along, which would probably be in 2028 or 32 they’d feel free to completely take the gloves off. We would have validated and enabled that behavior by doing it ourselves.
I do find it fascinating that you seem to be attributing this all to Biden. We have a relatively weak executive branch and separation of powers through different branches of government for a reason. Overturning that is the worst possible idea.
Yeah, it might be just to arrest him, but America clearly doesn’t give a fuck. The fact of the matter is the people picked Trump this election, if nothing else arresting him will only galvanize his followers and legitimatize their own turn to fascism. There’s no good outcome in this scenario, we missed that opportunity on election night. It sucks but right now we’re the kid playing with fire; obviously we need to learn the hard way. We should’ve learned from the last trump presidency you say? Yeah, we really, really should’ve.
Not arresting this man the second the Supreme Court gave Joe the opportunity will end with millions dead, we both know that.
Not arresting this man the second the Supreme Court gave Joe the opportunity will end with millions dead, we both know that.
I think millions is an exaggeration but it’s also pretty irrelevant whether it’s a 1000 or 1 million, it’s gonna be very very bad. I’m very sympathetic to this argument and in a whishy hopey kinda way would have loved to see it happen…
But: the SC ruling doesn’t allow a president to act with impunity. It’s way more complicated than that.
It states that a president has “absolute immunity” for actions “within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority” and “presumptive immunity” for all official acts. The complete shitstorm that would follow an arrest of Trump “for reasons” would include significant debate about which one of these it was. I have to think that “because he will do bad things and for reasons” is going to push this to the second classification at best. And at that point a whole lot of lawyers are going to be working overtime to show that "applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”
(Opinion here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf)
It would end up in the Supreme Court. What do you think would happen then? The SC would rule that Biden did not act appropriately and Trump would be released. I don’t have a lot of faith in running out the clock on him running or any other “good” outcome.
in this reply and the others following it you seem to be completely glossing over the most salient point here, which is that TRUMP SHOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT. Taking extreme measures to prevent him from getting access to unprecedented power is not sacrificing the rule of law for our beliefs, it is defending the rule of law, in which we believe, from a madman who openly despises it!
“TRUMP SHOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT”
I agree. But in fact “should not” is a question of law and despite your assertion that somehow removing him is not sacrificing the rule of law, there is no law that says Trump is ineligible to serve as president. I’d like there to be some rules disqualifying him and a bunch of other people, but alas there isn’t.
Go ahead, find the law that says Trump is ineligible and describe how you might defend that in court.
Biden doesn’t even know wtf is going on. If he does, the last thing he’s doing is trying to salvage his legacy. He’s got no fight in him.
He truly fucked us. Not saying Harris would’ve won necessarily, but having only 3 months to run a campaign against someone who’s been running for 8 years is tricky. You can see why given the number of people googling if Biden dropped out…
A legacy of “Used powers given to him by the Supreme Court to stop Hitler 2.0” would be better than “Sucked Trump’s dicker harder than Elon did.”
For real. Dudes got 15-20 years left on this Earth, at the maximum. Stopping Trump and actually making sure he is charged for his crimes would be quite the footnote in the history books. I can’t imagine being that old and passing an opportunity like that up, but then again I am a simple prole.
He’s not Hitler 2.0 yet though. This is Hitler 2.0 RC 1.
The history books won’t know what will not have had happened.
What I’m saying is, if a madman is stopped before he goes mad, then wouldn’t he then never have been a madman? Was the one stopping him, justified? Can you defend their actions based on their presuppositions, even if the descent into madness is already evident?
Biden cozying up to a candidate the party portrayed as literally Hitler during the campaign will never not be funny to me
I instead see them not learning a damn thing and putting up Nancy Pelosi as the Presidential candidate for 2028.
