Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On November 13 2025 02:52 Doublemint wrote: well, like god, this thread also moves in mysterious ways sometimes...
but to your point, it's important what the House of Representatives now does right? Schumer basically changed his position from the hot seat to "eject me now please I am ridiculously out of touch".
I can see why Democrats are doing it - the suffering is real, it is not just Republicans that are under fire the longer this goes. it is just idiotic politically for no gain in times of shamelessness. and Republicans are even for politician's standards invertebrate scumbags completely devoid of shame.
that is also me half pretending Dems are doing it not to get rid of the filibuster... who knows. the important thing is the court is now in the House so fingers crossed they are holding the line and make Republicans blink.
also impeach Trump a third time, do a "day of love" at the Capitol - for good this time and drag him out for balance's sake. what else do people need to see what's what...?
Other then the obvious (Trump is a pedophile and Epstein was a sex trafficker supplying victims to him) I have to say that, despite my belief that I couldn't despise him more after he released the "Donald is my best friend" tapes 3 days before the election when it was already too late for it to have any impact Michael Wolff surpassed my expectations.
Literally giving advice to this known fucking monster, just a despicable piece of shit masquerading as a journalist, there should be a special place in hell just for this fucking guy.
On November 13 2025 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote: I thought when I saw 30+ new posts people were finally discussing the end of the Democratic party and what to do or maybe even just some news on the Epstein files, but no. The two biggest US political situations aren't remotely as engaging as *checks notes* discussions on European credit cards and whatever irrelevant nonsense JJR could bait you all with.
On November 11 2025 22:21 Jankisa wrote: The only real way to have leverage over the Democratic party is for a significant enough number of Congress and Senate members to leave and form a party.
They can still vote and caucus with the Democrats on a majority of issues, but there is absolutely no point in the whole party and with it the whole left in the USA to be a hostage of a gerontocratic, rudderless and feckless party with no real leaders or ideas.
On the matter of who the politicians caved to and who the pressure came from, i think it's exactly the donor class who started to feel some consequences by having their private jet flights delayed so they gave the spineless 8 a call to cave.
The "vote blue no matter who" bullshit went out of the window when the Democratic Senate minority leader refused to endorse the winner of Democratic primary in New York, to me, Chuck Schumer is a cooky idiot and the fact that he is currently the most powerful democrat tells you all you need about how lost of a cause this party is under his "leadership".
Or is this what everyone that wanted/wants me to vote Democrat believes now?
Maybe people are just sick of your pious lecturing, ever considered that?
On November 13 2025 02:39 KwarK wrote: GH, Mamdani literally just showed proof of what we've all repeatedly explained to you. How to play a two party system where the least shit of the two parties is still not representing you. You stage a coup from within. You join it, you primary the incumbent, you replace them.
Trump is another example. After a mixed race man dared become President the racists were unhappy with the existing Republican Party which they felt was not doing enough to put minorities in their place. Trump's campaigns against Republicans who refused to submit have always been vicious, but only when no Democrat was running.
The game theory here is extremely simple. You dare not split the lesser evil vote when you're in a contest with the greater evil because that lets the greater evil win. But that vote is the last one in a long series, "blue no matter who" isn't where the battle is fought.
It's not difficult to oppose the existing Democratic Party without becoming an ally to fascists. It's actually incredibly easy. You fundraise for the Mamdanis of the world, you donate to them, you talk to people about them, and when the primary comes you vote for them (or against the Democratic Party establishment candidate if that makes you feel better).
And yet your solution always seems to be "why not let the fascists win on principle". You always insist that people who vote for the lesser evil are somehow endorsing it and demand to know why. And then they explain to you that voting against a greater evil is not the same as endorsing a lesser evil. And then a month later we're doing the same thing again.
Is this what everyone besides Jankissa believes now?
Republicans have just strongly rejected the softened Democratic offer for a one-year extension to the health care tax credits in exchange for what republicans are asking for. Not, "that doesn't quite work," but rather an implied, "Wait, you think we're going to give you anything other than a promise that we can renege on later? Nope."
Democrats really have no choice, it seems. Either dig in, or never have power again. The GOP is making that abundantly clear.
No one disagreed with Micro at the time, curious.
We’ve all always believed in voting against neoliberal establishment Dems and we’ve all made this extremely clear a hundred times. But we also believe in voting against fascists and in the general election we had to choose which to vote against because we couldn’t vote against both. You’re pretending not to understand a very longstanding and easy to understand position for the purpose of shaming people for a thing they didn’t do.
Except/Accept that in reality, you could have voted against both and chose not to. The worst case (Trump winning) being what happened anyway.
On November 13 2025 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote: I thought when I saw 30+ new posts people were finally discussing the end of the Democratic party and what to do or maybe even just some news on the Epstein files, but no. The two biggest US political situations aren't remotely as engaging as *checks notes* discussions on European credit cards and whatever irrelevant nonsense JJR could bait you all with.
Surely someone disagrees with this?
On November 11 2025 22:21 Jankisa wrote: The only real way to have leverage over the Democratic party is for a significant enough number of Congress and Senate members to leave and form a party.
They can still vote and caucus with the Democrats on a majority of issues, but there is absolutely no point in the whole party and with it the whole left in the USA to be a hostage of a gerontocratic, rudderless and feckless party with no real leaders or ideas.
On the matter of who the politicians caved to and who the pressure came from, i think it's exactly the donor class who started to feel some consequences by having their private jet flights delayed so they gave the spineless 8 a call to cave.
The "vote blue no matter who" bullshit went out of the window when the Democratic Senate minority leader refused to endorse the winner of Democratic primary in New York, to me, Chuck Schumer is a cooky idiot and the fact that he is currently the most powerful democrat tells you all you need about how lost of a cause this party is under his "leadership".
Or is this what everyone that wanted/wants me to vote Democrat believes now?
Maybe people are just sick of your pious lecturing, ever considered that?
I was actually hoping you all were discussing it among yourselves. I'd actually prefer if you all weren't obsessed with making this stuff about me personally.
Hence me asking about the conflicting opinions among other posters, rather than me talking about how I think socialism should be guiding people's approach to what micronesia described as "Democrats never having power again" (which no one disagreed with).
On November 13 2025 02:39 KwarK wrote: GH, Mamdani literally just showed proof of what we've all repeatedly explained to you. How to play a two party system where the least shit of the two parties is still not representing you. You stage a coup from within. You join it, you primary the incumbent, you replace them.
Trump is another example. After a mixed race man dared become President the racists were unhappy with the existing Republican Party which they felt was not doing enough to put minorities in their place. Trump's campaigns against Republicans who refused to submit have always been vicious, but only when no Democrat was running.
The game theory here is extremely simple. You dare not split the lesser evil vote when you're in a contest with the greater evil because that lets the greater evil win. But that vote is the last one in a long series, "blue no matter who" isn't where the battle is fought.
It's not difficult to oppose the existing Democratic Party without becoming an ally to fascists. It's actually incredibly easy. You fundraise for the Mamdanis of the world, you donate to them, you talk to people about them, and when the primary comes you vote for them (or against the Democratic Party establishment candidate if that makes you feel better).
And yet your solution always seems to be "why not let the fascists win on principle". You always insist that people who vote for the lesser evil are somehow endorsing it and demand to know why. And then they explain to you that voting against a greater evil is not the same as endorsing a lesser evil. And then a month later we're doing the same thing again.
Is this what everyone besides Jankissa believes now?
Republicans have just strongly rejected the softened Democratic offer for a one-year extension to the health care tax credits in exchange for what republicans are asking for. Not, "that doesn't quite work," but rather an implied, "Wait, you think we're going to give you anything other than a promise that we can renege on later? Nope."
Democrats really have no choice, it seems. Either dig in, or never have power again. The GOP is making that abundantly clear.
No one disagreed with Micro at the time, curious.
We’ve all always believed in voting against neoliberal establishment Dems and we’ve all made this extremely clear a hundred times. But we also believe in voting against fascists and in the general election we had to choose which to vote against because we couldn’t vote against both. You’re pretending not to understand a very longstanding and easy to understand position for the purpose of shaming people for a thing they didn’t do.
Except/Accept that in reality, you could have voted against both and chose not to.
How is it that you still don’t understand simple plurality.
On November 13 2025 03:06 Jankisa wrote: Just so I'm not misconstrued, I don't think what I wrote is anything new, political pluralism is good, duopoly is bad, Schumer is a horrible leader, all of those things were true before the election, after the first folding instead of fighting and now.
I'm not an expert on American political system but isn't Bernie basically one of these guys who is but also isn't a Democrat? I kind of wish that after 2016 he took as many people he could have and actually made something similar to what I wrote, I think we'd be in a much better place right now.
FPTP makes it so if either party splinters in two, the one that stays as a unit is basically guaranteed supermajority in the short term.
Eventually the unitary party would lose steam, cause being in power has a negative effect on popularity, but it would take some election cycles for contests to re-center and become competitive again. That is, if the unitary party with zero concern for ethics and values doesn't complete its fascist power grab and get control over the judiciary in the meantime.
The US is probably the worst place to do this in, apart from FPTP the team sports-like loyalty to parties which people make into their identities is more pronounced than elsewhere. And more importantly the parties are very decentralized compared to Europe, anyone can run as anything so there's little you can only change from the outside and there's a huge boon in coverage from doing well in a primary while being a thorn. The GOP did not want Trump and he would have gotten 5% from outside of it for these reasons.
GOP has an internal mutiny and decides that Trump is too much. He shat his pants one too many times in the meetings, he's groping the female Senators, he is trying to declare war on Venezuela and the whole Tucker/Bannon/Alex Jones coalition along with all the "traditional conservatives" and anti-trumpers successfully outs him from the party.
Let's say it's 2028 and in this hypothetical, just to make it more fair it would be his 2nd term, not 3rd.
Also, let's say that he stays in the mental and physical form that he was during the 2024 elections.
He runs as an independent. GOP fields, I don't know, maybe Dan Crenshaw, a veteran, relatively well spoken, not too mired by scandal, a safe GOP pick.
Democrats field Klobuchar or someone else boring and safe as well.
On November 13 2025 05:14 Jankisa wrote: OK; let me pose you a hypothetical.
GOP has an internal mutiny and decides that Trump is too much. He shat his pants one too many times in the meetings, he's groping the female Senators, he is trying to declare war on Venezuela and the whole Tucker/Bannon/Alex Jones coalition along with all the "traditional conservatives" and anti-trumpers successfully outs him from the party.
Let's say it's 2028 and in this hypothetical, just to make it more fair it would be his 2nd term, not 3rd.
Also, let's say that he stays in the mental and physical form that he was during the 2024 elections.
He runs as an independent. GOP fields, I don't know, maybe Dan Crenshaw, a veteran, relatively well spoken, not too mired by scandal, a safe GOP pick.
Democrats field Klobuchar or someone else boring and safe as well.
Who do you think wins those elections?
Klobuchar / Boring / Safe Democrat would win because the Republican vote would be split.
And it would be split irrationally and stupidly. Half the loyal R voters would try to vote Republican and vote Trump instead because they didn’t know he wasn’t the candidate, despite the word Independent next to his name. But half of the MAGAs would vote Republican because they didn’t bother to check who the Republican candidate was. Remember that tens of thousands of Floridians famously voted for Bush and Gore in 2000 because, after a year of campaigning and a billion dollars in advertising, they didn’t understand that they were rivals. They tried to select the Gore President Bush VP ticket. 85 thousand overvotes out of just 6 million total. And they were on opposing sides.
Expecting the American public to understand your third party candidate and deliberately pick them is contrary to established reality.
The new Urban League complex received millions in government subsidies, allowing it to construct about 170 units of affordable housing as part of the project.
Why are you suddenly so zoomed in on what Mamdani will and can do and have already come to the conclusion if it is or isn't enough? Do you think what he starts now will be the only he accomplishes during his tenure?
Mamdani held up a mixed development, including 170 units of affordable housing as an example of what he wants to try and do. He didn’t say ‘I’ll build 170 affordable houses and that’s that’.
On November 13 2025 15:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Mayor-Elect Mamdani's plans all seem way too small to have an impact. Free buses, 5 grocery stores and 170 affordable housing units. He has promised "fast and free" buses. What does he mean by "fast" and how does he plan on making them fast? No details as of yet. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/mayor-elect-mamdani-highlights-housing-223026294.html
The new Urban League complex received millions in government subsidies, allowing it to construct about 170 units of affordable housing as part of the project.
On November 13 2025 15:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Mayor-Elect Mamdani's plans all seem way too small to have an impact. Free buses, 5 grocery stores and 170 affordable housing units. He has promised "fast and free" buses. What does he mean by "fast" and how does he plan on making them fast? No details as of yet. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/mayor-elect-mamdani-highlights-housing-223026294.html
The new Urban League complex received millions in government subsidies, allowing it to construct about 170 units of affordable housing as part of the project.
On November 13 2025 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote: I thought when I saw 30+ new posts people were finally discussing the end of the Democratic party and what to do or maybe even just some news on the Epstein files, but no. The two biggest US political situations aren't remotely as engaging as *checks notes* discussions on European credit cards and whatever irrelevant nonsense JJR could bait you all with.
Surely someone disagrees with this?
On November 11 2025 22:21 Jankisa wrote: The only real way to have leverage over the Democratic party is for a significant enough number of Congress and Senate members to leave and form a party.
They can still vote and caucus with the Democrats on a majority of issues, but there is absolutely no point in the whole party and with it the whole left in the USA to be a hostage of a gerontocratic, rudderless and feckless party with no real leaders or ideas.
On the matter of who the politicians caved to and who the pressure came from, i think it's exactly the donor class who started to feel some consequences by having their private jet flights delayed so they gave the spineless 8 a call to cave.
The "vote blue no matter who" bullshit went out of the window when the Democratic Senate minority leader refused to endorse the winner of Democratic primary in New York, to me, Chuck Schumer is a cooky idiot and the fact that he is currently the most powerful democrat tells you all you need about how lost of a cause this party is under his "leadership".
Or is this what everyone that wanted/wants me to vote Democrat believes now?
Question about "the end of the Democratic party": I totally think that the 8 Democrats who caved should feel ashamed and should be primaried during next election. They should be voted out, and not be trusted any longer to advocate for what's best for their constituents. And on top of that, if another pivotal, high-stakes showdown happens between Democrats and Republicans and a few other Democrats cave during that next situation, those other Dems should be primaried (and so on, and so forth). I think many people would be okay with this gradual approach of replacing individual Democrats as needed, if in fact those Democrats do lose their next primary and are voted out of their jobs (which may or may not be realistic, depending on funding and if there is any opposition within the next primary).
I know that approach is a lot slower and less revolutionary than what you'd prefer, but what do you think would be the best way to accomplish these successful primary challenges, if that was your/our objective? + Show Spoiler +
It's essentially creating a Ship Of Theseus out of a political party, where we might still call it the Democratic party 20 years from now, but its identity might significantly shift by removing so many "leaders", one at a time. I feel like Mamdani is a recent example of this, even though mayors and governors aren't Congressional leaders. Every time a spineless Democratic leader gives in to the Republicans or no longer represents what's best for the people, replace them next election with an AOC or a Mamdani or whoever.
I'm still hopeful micronesia will address the idea that voting for Democrats that will never have functional power again is misguided. Or that those that think voting for Democrats is a viable plan will address the unchallenged assertion that this shutdown was do or die for Democrats.
That aside, it starts (in this context) with someone like you being able to identify whether someone like Cory Booker needs to be primaried or not?
On November 13 2025 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote: I thought when I saw 30+ new posts people were finally discussing the end of the Democratic party and what to do or maybe even just some news on the Epstein files, but no. The two biggest US political situations aren't remotely as engaging as *checks notes* discussions on European credit cards and whatever irrelevant nonsense JJR could bait you all with.
Surely someone disagrees with this?
On November 11 2025 22:21 Jankisa wrote: The only real way to have leverage over the Democratic party is for a significant enough number of Congress and Senate members to leave and form a party.
They can still vote and caucus with the Democrats on a majority of issues, but there is absolutely no point in the whole party and with it the whole left in the USA to be a hostage of a gerontocratic, rudderless and feckless party with no real leaders or ideas.
On the matter of who the politicians caved to and who the pressure came from, i think it's exactly the donor class who started to feel some consequences by having their private jet flights delayed so they gave the spineless 8 a call to cave.
The "vote blue no matter who" bullshit went out of the window when the Democratic Senate minority leader refused to endorse the winner of Democratic primary in New York, to me, Chuck Schumer is a cooky idiot and the fact that he is currently the most powerful democrat tells you all you need about how lost of a cause this party is under his "leadership".
Or is this what everyone that wanted/wants me to vote Democrat believes now?
Question about "the end of the Democratic party": I totally think that the 8 Democrats who caved should feel ashamed and should be primaried during next election. They should be voted out, and not be trusted any longer to advocate for what's best for their constituents. And on top of that, if another pivotal, high-stakes showdown happens between Democrats and Republicans and a few other Democrats cave during that next situation, those other Dems should be primaried (and so on, and so forth). I think many people would be okay with this gradual approach of replacing individual Democrats as needed, if in fact those Democrats do lose their next primary and are voted out of their jobs (which may or may not be realistic, depending on funding and if there is any opposition within the next primary).
I know that approach is a lot slower and less revolutionary than what you'd prefer, but what do you think would be the best way to accomplish these successful primary challenges, if that was your/our objective? + Show Spoiler +
It's essentially creating a Ship Of Theseus out of a political party, where we might still call it the Democratic party 20 years from now, but its identity might significantly shift by removing so many "leaders", one at a time. I feel like Mamdani is a recent example of this, even though mayors and governors aren't Congressional leaders. Every time a spineless Democratic leader gives in to the Republicans or no longer represents what's best for the people, replace them next election with an AOC or a Mamdani or whoever.
I'm still hopeful micronesia will address the idea that voting for Democrats that will never have functional power again is misguided. Or that those that think voting for Democrats is a viable plan will address the unchallenged assertion that this shutdown was do or die for Democrats.
That aside, it starts (in this context) with someone like you being able to identify whether someone like Cory Booker needs to be primaried or not?
On November 13 2025 02:25 GreenHorizons wrote: I thought when I saw 30+ new posts people were finally discussing the end of the Democratic party and what to do or maybe even just some news on the Epstein files, but no. The two biggest US political situations aren't remotely as engaging as *checks notes* discussions on European credit cards and whatever irrelevant nonsense JJR could bait you all with.
Surely someone disagrees with this?
On November 11 2025 22:21 Jankisa wrote: The only real way to have leverage over the Democratic party is for a significant enough number of Congress and Senate members to leave and form a party.
They can still vote and caucus with the Democrats on a majority of issues, but there is absolutely no point in the whole party and with it the whole left in the USA to be a hostage of a gerontocratic, rudderless and feckless party with no real leaders or ideas.
On the matter of who the politicians caved to and who the pressure came from, i think it's exactly the donor class who started to feel some consequences by having their private jet flights delayed so they gave the spineless 8 a call to cave.
The "vote blue no matter who" bullshit went out of the window when the Democratic Senate minority leader refused to endorse the winner of Democratic primary in New York, to me, Chuck Schumer is a cooky idiot and the fact that he is currently the most powerful democrat tells you all you need about how lost of a cause this party is under his "leadership".
Or is this what everyone that wanted/wants me to vote Democrat believes now?
Question about "the end of the Democratic party": I totally think that the 8 Democrats who caved should feel ashamed and should be primaried during next election. They should be voted out, and not be trusted any longer to advocate for what's best for their constituents. And on top of that, if another pivotal, high-stakes showdown happens between Democrats and Republicans and a few other Democrats cave during that next situation, those other Dems should be primaried (and so on, and so forth). I think many people would be okay with this gradual approach of replacing individual Democrats as needed, if in fact those Democrats do lose their next primary and are voted out of their jobs (which may or may not be realistic, depending on funding and if there is any opposition within the next primary).
I know that approach is a lot slower and less revolutionary than what you'd prefer, but what do you think would be the best way to accomplish these successful primary challenges, if that was your/our objective? + Show Spoiler +
It's essentially creating a Ship Of Theseus out of a political party, where we might still call it the Democratic party 20 years from now, but its identity might significantly shift by removing so many "leaders", one at a time. I feel like Mamdani is a recent example of this, even though mayors and governors aren't Congressional leaders. Every time a spineless Democratic leader gives in to the Republicans or no longer represents what's best for the people, replace them next election with an AOC or a Mamdani or whoever.
I'm still hopeful micronesia will address the idea that voting for Democrats that will never have functional power again is misguided. Or that those that think voting for Democrats is a viable plan will address the unchallenged assertion that this shutdown was do or die for Democrats.
That aside, it starts (in this context) with someone like you being able to identify whether someone like Cory Booker needs to be primaried or not?
I asked you the question.
And I'm telling you that I believe part of the best way to accomplish what you're talking about is for people like you, that ask the question, to be able to identify which Democrats need to be primaried.
Cory Booker is a personally relevant example. If people can't identify whether or not their own representatives need to be primaried, they're dead in the water.
When the focus is "reform from within", all of that power remains in the meantime. Leadership within the party is very powerful because of the donor funding continuing to roll in while the whole "reform" process takes place. Simply walking away from the party and letting it crumble from being irrelevant is a better long-term solution.
For those of you who still insist on reform from within, I am curious how many years from now you would say is too long to wait. Lets say 10 years go by and we still have the same general dynamic we currently see, where party leaders are clearly corporate-focused and other such things. I think I can just vaguely gesture at what we all agree is not ideal about the democratic party and you all get what I mean. If 20 years ago by and its still like that, would you be willing to just walk away from the party?
Its kinda like the whole "I can fix her" thing. The booty is fat, and it always feels like progress is being made. Then she, once again, does something blatantly billionaire-aligned. Then its 10 years later and you're miserable and wish you just ditched her after the first time she voted for billionaires.
On November 14 2025 01:21 Legan wrote: Is there some specific reason why I haven't seen a push for a No Kings like protest over the Epstein files?
There is not an Epstein party to protest against. Trump literally campaigned on releasing them. Everyone wants them released except for those that they incriminate, which is very clearly includes Trump, or the republicans would have done it by now. However they can't exactly say "We support pedophiles" so there's not anything to *protest* against.
Yesterday's e-mails and Maxwell living in a minimum security prison-resort as a result of her saying she didn't see Trump do anything wrong after Trump visited her would be enough to impeach any president in the history of ever until MAGA happened. Hell even Prince Andrew was stripped of his titles.
On November 14 2025 01:39 Mohdoo wrote: When the focus is "reform from within", all of that power remains in the meantime. Leadership within the party is very powerful because of the donor funding continuing to roll in while the whole "reform" process takes place. Simply walking away from the party and letting it crumble from being irrelevant is a better long-term solution.
For those of you who still insist on reform from within, I am curious how many years from now you would say is too long to wait. Lets say 10 years go by and we still have the same general dynamic we currently see, where party leaders are clearly corporate-focused and other such things. I think I can just vaguely gesture at what we all agree is not ideal about the democratic party and you all get what I mean. If 20 years ago by and its still like that, would you be willing to just walk away from the party?
Its kinda like the whole "I can fix her" thing. The booty is fat, and it always feels like progress is being made. Then she, once again, does something blatantly billionaire-aligned. Then its 10 years later and you're miserable and wish you just ditched her after the first time she voted for billionaires.
The overwhelming majority of non-Republicans are much more moderate than you are. Redrawing lines doesn't change that.
If reform doesn't happen it's because not enough people want it to happen, simple as. The leadership of the party was clearly against Mamdani and he won anyway, same with Trump in 2016. Bernie didn't because not enough people voted for him, donations and creme-de-la-creme staffers aren't an insurmountable obstacle. It's contradictory to act like the will of Chuck Schmuck is an unstoppable force you have to concede to, but the forces opposing a splinter progressive party or a revolution would somehow be smaller.
It's kinda like you're in a low sports car that struggles to clear a normal speed bump and you want to take it off road on the mountain. I'm not trying to stop you, I'm just explaining why all the Bernies, AOCs, Mamdanis are choosing the more logical challenge.
Things tend to... make sense. If the DSA's membership were to explode to 7 figures you'd have had your reform, if it were to explode to 8 figures you'd have had your new party, you don't because it didn't.
EPT
