Despite his efforts, Dolan’s message did not gain enough traction. His campaign, funded largely by personal loans, couldn’t match Ocasio-Cortez’s $8 million war chest.
You people are living in an oligarchy and "who has more money for this season" being a perfectly normal news bit outside of popular sports is completely insane.
You realize that "you people" includes you, correct?
Or are the mega rich treated just like everyone else where you are?
Eh... There are a variety of end-runs around this mechanism.
Hiring politicians on as lobbyists or allowing friends and family to sit on private run boards and trusts can create a back channel for money to flow into a politician's pockets. Public money can be funneled into private profits for which the supporting politicians are also stockholders. And politicians can receive discounted/free services from friendly private sector constituencies. FOX News, the classic example, is a multi-billion dollar network dedicated to running Republican-friendly media. But when corporate lobbyists and political strategists can be found everywhere from the boards of NPR/PBS to the guest chairs of MSNBC to the editorial rooms of the WaPo/WSJ/NYT, there's really no safe spaces left.
You can mitigate the direct "bag of cash for favors" effect that, say, John Boehner cutting tobacco lobbyist checks on the floor of the House has produced in the past. But you can't keep public sector administrators from finding ways to receive kickbacks via private sector channels unless you completely divorce these institutions.
Eh… There are a variety of end-runs around this mechanism.
There are any number of hypothetical end-runs around just about anything you can think of, that doesn't make protections, mechanisms, controls, or safeties useless.
In the US, political bribery is nearly 100% legal. I'd rather have some hoops for corrupt officials to jump through. We don't even make them break a sweat in this country.
There are any number of hypothetical end-runs
Not even hypothetical. We just had the SCOTUS kick down the door on legal bribery in Snyder v United States.
I’d rather have some hoops for corrupt officials to jump through
I mean, if we've got a magic lamp I can do better than a few hoops. But the system is of the corrupt, by the corrupt, for the corrupt.
At some point, you're forced to recognized the farce of democracy at work.
IIRC, people were talking about places in this thread that aren't the US.
As stated, political bribery in the US is nearly 100% legal. You can even study it in school and make a career out of it.
The Canadian system has it's own share of corruption and bribery. Just check out Rob Ford, ffs.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that even discussing real or hypothetical measures to reign in corruption is inherently worthless because you can sometimes get around some of them.
I hate the US "either we solve everything, or nothing is worth doing" mindset that's pervasive in this country, and the only reason I responded is because you're providing a good example of it.
I hate the US “either we solve everything, or nothing is worth doing” mindset
I'm not a big fan of people wish casting naive solutions and then getting hostile when they hear the solutions aren't viable.
You can make this same, tired, ultimately invalid argument about anything you look to improve.
You can't prevent the spread of all communicable disease, so why bother taking any precautions?
Someone could build their own gun, so why bother preventing a convicted felon from buying an oozie?
Someone could evade a line item tax by hiring a fancy lawyer and setting up bespoke legal structures around themselves as an entity, so why bother looking at closing any of the existing tax loopholes?
The answer is that because it's not fucking all or nothing. Sure, someone could hypothetically do lots of things to evade any precaution that you put in place around dangerous or bad things, but that doesn't mean it's completely ineffective. If it's too much of a hassle, some people won't bother. Some people will actually get caught. Hell, with the existing lax corruption laws and lazy ass enforcement in the US people are still sometimes found in violation of them.
It isn't a "if you ain't first you're last" situation. Reasonable safeguards, laws, standards, practices, and the like save and improve lives.
ultimately invalid argument
This isn't about arguing. The arguments we make don't impact public policy.
I do not life in the US. However because of US hegemony and my country being a suck up to the US i have to follow what is going on there.
But in case there is any doubt. The country i live in, which is Germany is corrupt and authoritarian with a complicit public and private media as well as the "center" parties moving further to the right and helping fascism rise faster than ever before. The "liberal" middle class are to a large extent just self delusional racists and the country will become a fascist hellhole in the next ten years.
So if you have the opportunity, please help spread awareness about all the shit happening here too.
Feels like the whole world is on the same trajectory.
It is, expect everything to lurch to the right for the foreseeable future. Get ready for more humanitarian crises as we in the west increase sending climate and conflict refugees back to countries of origin or 3rd countries for "asylum processing" as climate change really starts to bite.
Also, I hope you enjoy Cold War 2: Arctic Summer Melt.
I don't know, Labour should win a landslide next week in the UK. And Conservatives will become a party #3 or even #4 for the first time since forever. Tories also ran out of money, lol.
I can’t imagine how nice it must be having more than two parties that’re viable to vote for.
It's still FPTP here, it's just that people got sick of Tories. Even billionaires got sick, imagine that.
You mean Keir "Tony Blair without the charisma and leadership abilities" Starmer's Labour? Fat lot of good THAT pack of ideologically bankrupt liberals are going to do other than freeing the UK from the even worse Tories! 😮💨
Are you on drugs?
Not right now, no. Why, you selling? 😛
Hopefully, the UK is going to take a couple of steps to the left shortly.
If it does, it’s not because the country is moving left but because the right fucked up.
Yeah, it's a great first few steps. Really hoping LibDem becomes the official opposition and it's just two Left™ parties driving each other leftward.
Current Labour concerns me with how it's moved rightwards, but Daddy Starmer has my vote regardless
Yes, that's right. The last European elections at the latest showed impressively that those dull people who are unable to see through the PR campaigns of the powerful are not an exclusive US problem. It is of course absolutely right that we in Europe rely far too much on the Americans and should set stricter limits to their capitalism, which in my opinion is completely out of joint. But I fear that we have already gotten too far into this quagmire. This is precisely why it is all the more important to raise awareness of this and to name those who are actually responsible for falling living standards and growing inequality - the US-type opportunists, the hangers-on and especially the blatant fascists in the ranks of our politicians and our societies. I am not at all convinced that the reasonable people have a shot, but I sure will continue to make an effort.
At least I heard that world war is unpractical thanks to nato..
Politics shift to the right when people feel disparity, and their future looks break. Politics shift left when people feel optimistic about their future.
Which is absolutely fucking stupid because we need leftist politics when the future looks bleak and when the future looks rosy that is the time to be more conservative about change...
But we're just human, we do everything ass backwards :/
We are the smartest of all the dumb animals in this world. Nothing more.
The country i live in, which is Germany is corrupt and authoritarian with a complicit public and private media as well as the “center” parties moving further to the right and helping fascism rise faster than ever before. The “liberal” middle class are to a large extent just self delusional racists and the country will become a fascist hellhole in the next ten years.
The funniest part is that this has been brought about by the common belief that idealism is stupid and dangerous and leads to fascism, while cynicism is very smart and realistic. One good thing about idealism is that it gives you a reason to fight and sense of good and evil.
What I mean is that idealism, say, 20 years ago would be associated with extremism, neo-Nazis, unreformed Bolsheviks, sect members, radical Islam. But somehow the actual fighting forces sporting all such ideologies work without it too.
As if that "sail" filled not with wind, but with popular emotion were worse than lack thereof, because without it your "boat" wouldn't be moved from the right (presumably) track. Turns out the "boat" also has "oars". Evil doesn't have to be charismatic, although it was that in the 1930s. It can do just fine with apathy and half-consent.
That's because billionaires have purchased SCOTUS. The outcome of a single court case has allowed unlimited money from whomever into election campaigns.
It amazes me that primaries are held this late in the year. It’s only four months or so until the election.
Only in America. Other counties campaign for a few weeks. The US turns it into a 12 month fund raising and media spectacular, with primaries at the halfway point.
A while back, HR 1 For the People Act promised to remedy much of the issue but it never got a vote in the senate because Republicans held the Senate Speaker until the next congress was formed.
And because, having gotten back in power, Dem leadership didn't take it up again as they too are getting rich from the current system.
TBF, after the 2020 election they were faced with issues like budget reconciliation and debt limit (without which nothing would be voted on at all during a government shutdown) as well as reimplementing some of the many regulations taken down by the Trump admin and finally passing a 1.9 Trillion Dollar infrastructure deal alongside a new round of stimulus checks (which the receiving states decided how to use, sadly), and many congressional hearings about corruption of the former administration and federal judges (which ultimately hasn't lead anywhere other than referrals to the DOJ).
So in the 2 year span that they held 48 + 2 senate seats and house majority, they were pretty tied up I would say.
EDIT: Plus, it would've been filibustered anyways.
Same reason Biden is talking about a potential tax on the rich but won't ever be caught talking about repealing the Trump tax raise on the working class that actually happened.
The Trump tax cut expires next year. Biden has promised not to renew it if he's reelected.
Get informed.
Uh huh.
And he didn't repeal it why?
You should probably not be asking smug rhetorical questions when you don't actually understand how the federal government works.
Use a search engine, educate yourself.
It was an act passed by congress and signed by a sitting president. Biden alone doesn't have the authority to change it, and if he did try that then it would be caught up in courts for years.
Why make election season much longer than needed?
Printing ballots can be done quite quickly.
And is 6 months of campaigning really better than 2 months?
Ffffuuuuuuucccckkk no its not better. It's just that our system predated most parliaments, and as such the founding fathers made some stupid choices that made it utterly impossible to amend basic quailty of life changes for our democracy.
What did the founding fathers decide that made it impossible to have short election seasons in the US?
The process to amend the constitution. It's all but impossible given modern politics, and that's largely been true for 50 years and counting.
That has nothing to do with how long election season is.
Are you even American?
Our election cycle cant be curtailed or shifted because our constitution can't realistically be amended to match the saner policies in other countries. When our constitution is so antiqued that that "money is speech" becomes the law of the land, there is a core problem with the founding document itself.
How it that not related to our election cycle?
Because a constitutional convention is so wildly unlikely it's just distracting from any actually helpful suggestions.
I'm talking about our broken government system, not what's helpful. The fact that a constitutional convention is impossible is exactly the problem. Its why many parts of our democracy are broken, and will likely ultimately be the downfall of our nation.
Thr founders called the Constitution a living document, with Jefferson specifically talking about how it must change to as American changes. To do that, they put in a wildly difficult mechanism that is nearly impossible to actually invoke, and added lifetime arbiter roles that can opt to unwind any law not written in pen and ink on that same paper.
Those are critical fuckups if you intend to have a living document and a shapeable democracy.
If you know it's not helpful why are you wasting time on it?
Why talk about the structure of our government? Education, general interest, activism?
Why are you wasting time talking about wasting time if it's just wasting time?
Why are you wasting time talking about wasting time if it's just wasting time?
I have seen that user repeatedly argue in bad faith. I assume they are doing something similar here. The wasting of time is the point. I think they're just a troll.
Just in the spirit of pedantry, its not really true to say that the US system predated most parliaments.
Like, maybe its technically true now due to the expansion of democratic and republic systems in the post-colonial era, but parliaments in Western Europe were plentiful and long-established in 1776.
The first American government was notable in that is was completely divorced from a hereditary Monarch, and I don't wanna downplay that, but a system in which a representitive body of land-owners is elected by an enfranchised class to decide policy and even pass legislation existed in, for example, Iceland since the 10th Century, Catalonia since the 12th, England since the 13th. It was arguably the standard during the enlightenment in Europe.
My two cents, the US system does seem to be remarkably inflexible. I guess it's complicated to unpack why exactly, but a combination of myth-making, bad-faith originalists, and the sheer size of the country probably all play a part in it
It's better for the politicians wallets.
Well no, it's better for the politician's campaign's wallets. If people could spend campaign funds however they wanted then Donald Trump would have quite a few less pending felonies.
First of all, there's TONS of ways to enrich yourself by running for office without technically breaking any of the very flimsy campaign finance laws. That's why people with literally no chance of winning keep running for public offices up to and including the presidency.
Second of all, the FEC, which is ALREADY as toothless as a nonagenarian who never brushed his teeth due to chronic deliberate underfunding and understaffing, has an EXTREME backlog of cases from having lacked a quorum for the better part of a year.
Third, even if the FEC was otherwise effective, this is TRUMP we're talking about here. He's getting away with TONS of campaign finance fraud and legal misuse of donations as is.
I agree. Why weren't they all done last November?
The Dem presidential primary still has like two more months.
Biden and his pick for DNC chair set the date, they could have made it whenever.
They choose after the deadline to get on all 50 ballots for some reason.
It's pretty recent that campaigning started so early. Even Obama didn't campaign as early as trump and Biden do.
Has Trump ever stopped campaigning since 2016? I feel like this has gone on for decades.
Dems? Primary?
ROFL.
Massachusetts has not held its Senate primary yet either. I had to check, it will be on September 3rd it seems.
Moderate? Marty Dolan is a full-blown conservative. Why do we keep pretending like being a Democrat means you can't be a conservative? The DNCs entire top brass is conservative. It's a conservative party by objective international standards.
Because the Overton window in the United States has many people viewing fascists as friends and anyone further left than center right as "extreme left wing socialist communist Nazi terrorists".
I hate it when ignorant people conflate Nazis and communists. I have argued with so many dumb people who think that the Nazis were a Socialist party, when the exact opposite is true. These people probably think that the DPRK is democratic, too.
It'd be like thinking the Democrats and Republicans are arguing about whether America should he a direct or representative democracy.
Well if'n it weren't properly a democracy how comes that 'ere Kim fella put it in the name, huh?
That's why they call em moderates. No need for the media to do it as well.
In the rest of the world. A 66 year old investment banker would be considered right wing
Suck it AIPAC.
The ones laughing at Bowman’s loss? Yeah, I’m sure they’re crying so hard tonight
Will you people shut up about the DNC/Israel/"Them" rigging everything now?
This guy doesn't know the difference between rigging and ratfucking, point and laugh at him.
I'd rather not give them even that level of attention.
Why? We get to tell the truth and apparently deeply bother you all at once. Seems like a win-win for everyone but you , and you don't matter.
I don't expect you to actually stop, I just expect to expose you as disingenuous partisans.
Feels like you’re pushing an agenda here that doesn’t really coincide with reality.
You could argue that AIPAC is partly responsible for the mess we're in, as well as other PACs. So, I don't think that they will stop. Hell, one could hold that stance while voting for questionable politicians on their side. You just gotta make sure that the threat of being primaried remain.
After what happened to Jamaal Bowman. Not a fucking chance.
Oh, did people pointing out the unfair latitude given to your favorite genocidal nation make you upset? Whoops.
Oh shit we got a new troll in da house
Good. Anyone described as a "moderate" in the US is actually a conservative at best. Anyone described as a "conservative" is actually a fascist at best.
I hate this divisive bullshit. Democracies require pluralities. You need to be a big tent party to govern.
Reality check: Repubs are trying to elect an insurrectionist promising to be a dictator. I'm sorry facts are divisive, I don't like the situation either.
Sorry. how does AOC defeating democratic moderate in a primary impact a republican getting elected. I don't think moderate D's or voting R on the presidential ballot. A moderate Democrat is still voting democrat.
The most divisive people in politics don't want that big tent to be a governable coalition. If you appeal to big tent politics they start trying to incite violence including political subjugation of the same opponents that you're trying to appeal to. You'll see them around.
It seems many described as "left" in the USSA are conservatives too.
Good for her. Sucks that Jamaal Bowman lost though.
Yeah, having to listen to Steve Innskeep gleefully break the news of Bowman's defeat on NPR this morning was not a great way to start the day.
And of course NPR frames it as confirmation that voters support genocide, not that AIPAC uses GOP money to sabotage the Democratic party. Their reporting is getting worse and worse by the day.
Listening to NPR is like consuming pure Liberal Zionist propaganda
They're pretty bad on Israel, yeah. All Things Considered is particularly terrible.
Innskeep and Mary Louise Kelly get me pissed of more than anyone else. Or Ayesha Roscoe. They're all terrible interviewers.
I hope people stop believing the bullshit that’s trying to get progressives to not vote or to vote for 3rd parties. Progressives absolutely can win democrat tickets, and that’s exactly why there’s so much propaganda trying to convince people otherwise. Progressives have a lot of political power right now, and the whole system can swing left if people don’t just give up. Progressives giving up is the only play the right has.
Progressives should absolutely vote in primaries and lower contests. They should also make it very clear there are limits to their graciousness when our president supports blatant war crimes and genocide.
Graciousness? I don't think that's the right word...you don't vote for someone because you're being gracious, you vote for someone because you think they'll deliver what you want - or in this case perhaps, the closest person who actually stands a hope in hell of getting elected.
Oh no. It's graciousness to vote for the guy you lost to and who went out of his way to break campaign promises on unions, climate change, and immigration. Another term is good loser.
But the point is there's limits. There have to be limits or else you're not a loser in a political contest, you're a blind supporter they never need to actually listen to.
The only other option is trump. Are you trying to get people to vote for trump? If so, why?
Ah yes, Reddit, and a Biden specific sub. The very material of unbiased analysis.
Also. You're responding to something pre-debate. There are very definitely other options now. Run a debate series with select candidates, open a comment period with the state parties, and culminate in an open convention.
I don’t disagree. But we’re living in interesting times.
I don’t like most of the people on the ticket I’ll be given in November, but you know what’s objectively worse? Actual fascism. Fascism always ends in genocide, and these white Christian nationalists aren’t even trying to hide it, going mask-off even before they have the power to back it up.
When fascists can be this bold and still keep their seats of power, that’s quite worrying.
As I saw someone say earlier, we’re in democracy triage.
I’d vote for Biden’s corpse before trump or not voting. We must wrest all power from the fascists before we can squabble about who’s more left.
We must be able to effectively fight it though. And blindly voting for the elite approved opposition ends in them holding the door open for fascists every time.
What does "moderate" mean, owned by some corp?
Yeah:
"We need to freeze the border and send that message to the world to stop the death and casualties along the way," says Dolan. "The Republicans are right on this issue. But that doesn’t make me a Republican. No party is right on every issue."
On his campaign website, Dolan who has served as managing director at banks including Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase, puts the city’s current plight thus: “Bail reform a disaster, the National Guard in the subway, toothpaste locked up in drugstores but criminals running free.
It’s hilarious to me that 40 years ago this person would have been solidly Republican. Now he’s a “moderate Democrat”. This term now means “conservative that doesn’t like Trump saying the quiet part out loud”
A lot of money has been pouring into propagandizing liberals in big progressive cities about crime specifically. Trying to promote a crime hysteria. And then part 2 of that plan is to recall the progressive politicians and elect in Republicans who will claim to fix everything.
It's had only modest success in actually electing Republicans so far but I get the sense it's a long game. People have absolutely bought into the "crime is at an all time high" lies.
Moderate: Conservative Democrat/I Can't Believe It's Not A Republican
I mean, no shit. Didn't she win her first election with 89% of the vote or something
Primary or general? General I would expect, given her district
To be fair, frogs are pretty dope.
This is the wrong post, but my point stands.
It was the comment this post needed. Thank you
You’re welcome, I’m glad I could remind you of frogs on this day.
Personal loans. Ouch.
Hopefully it's a painful enough lesson he never comes near politics again.
He's swimming in the bank pools, he'll be fine.
The loans are just so he can write that off.
It's a very progressive district, that's how she got elected in the first place. This is not a surprise.
I bet my politics fit closer to the other guy, but I'd still vote for AOC between the two because she has a national influence and disproportionate power in the Caucus. If you're actually voting to influence Congress towards helping your district in particular, AOC might get that done even if it's secondary to her national political project. Some moderate guy in a safe D seat would absolutely never get anything for your district.
In the rest of the Western world, AOC would be considered a moderate.
Welcome to the US where the left is still right of center
I wouldn't have a problem with liberals calling themselves the left if they knew why that was different from being a leftist
Would she? I’m not that informed on her politics but I think Bernie supported her, and Bernie is definitely a progressive even by rest-of-the-world standards.
Now at a greater scale!
"No MODERATE CHALLENGERS want to work anymore!!!"
Radicalize the moderates !
An article about an election without any numbers. How tight was the race? How many people voted? We will never know. In fact, the whole article contains no information that wasn't known beforehand. Probably written beforehand and just put online by a timer as the result was not surprising. News media is going downhill faster and faster.
Landslide win for AOC. Maybe USA today just didn't want us to know how absolutely not close the race was?
That's exactly it.
The lies in MSM aren't what they say, it's what they don't say.
The best place to see this is at Planet Fitness, or similar place with TVs constantly tuned to all the major outlets. Watch them all at once and observe what each isn't saying.
This sounds like you were going to segue to today's sponsor, Ground News.
I'd actually been wanting to check them out, but now that I have Nebula, nobody is plugging their affiliate links.
fuck moderates, we're fighting for our goddamn lives and the life of American democracy. We got no room for both-siders.
You people are living in an oligarchy and "who has more money for this season" being a perfectly normal news bit outside of popular sports is completely insane.
You realize that "you people" includes you, correct?
Or are the mega rich treated just like everyone else where you are?
If so, where is this magical land of fairness?
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/party-financing lots of countries limit how much can be given to politicians
Eh... There are a variety of end-runs around this mechanism.
Hiring politicians on as lobbyists or allowing friends and family to sit on private run boards and trusts can create a back channel for money to flow into a politician's pockets. Public money can be funneled into private profits for which the supporting politicians are also stockholders. And politicians can receive discounted/free services from friendly private sector constituencies. FOX News, the classic example, is a multi-billion dollar network dedicated to running Republican-friendly media. But when corporate lobbyists and political strategists can be found everywhere from the boards of NPR/PBS to the guest chairs of MSNBC to the editorial rooms of the WaPo/WSJ/NYT, there's really no safe spaces left.
You can mitigate the direct "bag of cash for favors" effect that, say, John Boehner cutting tobacco lobbyist checks on the floor of the House has produced in the past. But you can't keep public sector administrators from finding ways to receive kickbacks via private sector channels unless you completely divorce these institutions.
There are any number of hypothetical end-runs around just about anything you can think of, that doesn't make protections, mechanisms, controls, or safeties useless.
In the US, political bribery is nearly 100% legal. I'd rather have some hoops for corrupt officials to jump through. We don't even make them break a sweat in this country.
Not even hypothetical. We just had the SCOTUS kick down the door on legal bribery in Snyder v United States.
I mean, if we've got a magic lamp I can do better than a few hoops. But the system is of the corrupt, by the corrupt, for the corrupt.
At some point, you're forced to recognized the farce of democracy at work.
IIRC, people were talking about places in this thread that aren't the US.
As stated, political bribery in the US is nearly 100% legal. You can even study it in school and make a career out of it.
The Canadian system has it's own share of corruption and bribery. Just check out Rob Ford, ffs.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that even discussing real or hypothetical measures to reign in corruption is inherently worthless because you can sometimes get around some of them.
I hate the US "either we solve everything, or nothing is worth doing" mindset that's pervasive in this country, and the only reason I responded is because you're providing a good example of it.
I'm not a big fan of people wish casting naive solutions and then getting hostile when they hear the solutions aren't viable.
You can make this same, tired, ultimately invalid argument about anything you look to improve.
You can't prevent the spread of all communicable disease, so why bother taking any precautions?
Someone could build their own gun, so why bother preventing a convicted felon from buying an oozie?
Someone could evade a line item tax by hiring a fancy lawyer and setting up bespoke legal structures around themselves as an entity, so why bother looking at closing any of the existing tax loopholes?
The answer is that because it's not fucking all or nothing. Sure, someone could hypothetically do lots of things to evade any precaution that you put in place around dangerous or bad things, but that doesn't mean it's completely ineffective. If it's too much of a hassle, some people won't bother. Some people will actually get caught. Hell, with the existing lax corruption laws and lazy ass enforcement in the US people are still sometimes found in violation of them.
It isn't a "if you ain't first you're last" situation. Reasonable safeguards, laws, standards, practices, and the like save and improve lives.
This isn't about arguing. The arguments we make don't impact public policy.
I do not life in the US. However because of US hegemony and my country being a suck up to the US i have to follow what is going on there.
But in case there is any doubt. The country i live in, which is Germany is corrupt and authoritarian with a complicit public and private media as well as the "center" parties moving further to the right and helping fascism rise faster than ever before. The "liberal" middle class are to a large extent just self delusional racists and the country will become a fascist hellhole in the next ten years.
So if you have the opportunity, please help spread awareness about all the shit happening here too.
Feels like the whole world is on the same trajectory.
It is, expect everything to lurch to the right for the foreseeable future. Get ready for more humanitarian crises as we in the west increase sending climate and conflict refugees back to countries of origin or 3rd countries for "asylum processing" as climate change really starts to bite.
Also, I hope you enjoy Cold War 2: Arctic Summer Melt.
I don't know, Labour should win a landslide next week in the UK. And Conservatives will become a party #3 or even #4 for the first time since forever. Tories also ran out of money, lol.
I can’t imagine how nice it must be having more than two parties that’re viable to vote for.
It's still FPTP here, it's just that people got sick of Tories. Even billionaires got sick, imagine that.
You mean Keir "Tony Blair without the charisma and leadership abilities" Starmer's Labour? Fat lot of good THAT pack of ideologically bankrupt liberals are going to do other than freeing the UK from the even worse Tories! 😮💨
Are you on drugs?
Not right now, no. Why, you selling? 😛
Hopefully, the UK is going to take a couple of steps to the left shortly.
If it does, it’s not because the country is moving left but because the right fucked up.
Yeah, it's a great first few steps. Really hoping LibDem becomes the official opposition and it's just two Left™ parties driving each other leftward.
Current Labour concerns me with how it's moved rightwards, but Daddy Starmer has my vote regardless
Yes, that's right. The last European elections at the latest showed impressively that those dull people who are unable to see through the PR campaigns of the powerful are not an exclusive US problem. It is of course absolutely right that we in Europe rely far too much on the Americans and should set stricter limits to their capitalism, which in my opinion is completely out of joint. But I fear that we have already gotten too far into this quagmire. This is precisely why it is all the more important to raise awareness of this and to name those who are actually responsible for falling living standards and growing inequality - the US-type opportunists, the hangers-on and especially the blatant fascists in the ranks of our politicians and our societies. I am not at all convinced that the reasonable people have a shot, but I sure will continue to make an effort.
At least I heard that world war is unpractical thanks to nato..
Politics shift to the right when people feel disparity, and their future looks break. Politics shift left when people feel optimistic about their future.
Which is absolutely fucking stupid because we need leftist politics when the future looks bleak and when the future looks rosy that is the time to be more conservative about change...
But we're just human, we do everything ass backwards :/
We are the smartest of all the dumb animals in this world. Nothing more.
The funniest part is that this has been brought about by the common belief that idealism is stupid and dangerous and leads to fascism, while cynicism is very smart and realistic. One good thing about idealism is that it gives you a reason to fight and sense of good and evil.
What I mean is that idealism, say, 20 years ago would be associated with extremism, neo-Nazis, unreformed Bolsheviks, sect members, radical Islam. But somehow the actual fighting forces sporting all such ideologies work without it too.
As if that "sail" filled not with wind, but with popular emotion were worse than lack thereof, because without it your "boat" wouldn't be moved from the right (presumably) track. Turns out the "boat" also has "oars". Evil doesn't have to be charismatic, although it was that in the 1930s. It can do just fine with apathy and half-consent.
That's because billionaires have purchased SCOTUS. The outcome of a single court case has allowed unlimited money from whomever into election campaigns.
It amazes me that primaries are held this late in the year. It’s only four months or so until the election.
Only in America. Other counties campaign for a few weeks. The US turns it into a 12 month fund raising and media spectacular, with primaries at the halfway point.
A while back, HR 1 For the People Act promised to remedy much of the issue but it never got a vote in the senate because Republicans held the Senate Speaker until the next congress was formed.
And because, having gotten back in power, Dem leadership didn't take it up again as they too are getting rich from the current system.
TBF, after the 2020 election they were faced with issues like budget reconciliation and debt limit (without which nothing would be voted on at all during a government shutdown) as well as reimplementing some of the many regulations taken down by the Trump admin and finally passing a 1.9 Trillion Dollar infrastructure deal alongside a new round of stimulus checks (which the receiving states decided how to use, sadly), and many congressional hearings about corruption of the former administration and federal judges (which ultimately hasn't lead anywhere other than referrals to the DOJ).
So in the 2 year span that they held 48 + 2 senate seats and house majority, they were pretty tied up I would say.
EDIT: Plus, it would've been filibustered anyways.
Same reason Biden is talking about a potential tax on the rich but won't ever be caught talking about repealing the Trump tax raise on the working class that actually happened.
The Trump tax cut expires next year. Biden has promised not to renew it if he's reelected.
Get informed.
Uh huh.
And he didn't repeal it why?
You should probably not be asking smug rhetorical questions when you don't actually understand how the federal government works.
Use a search engine, educate yourself.
It was an act passed by congress and signed by a sitting president. Biden alone doesn't have the authority to change it, and if he did try that then it would be caught up in courts for years.
Why make election season much longer than needed?
Printing ballots can be done quite quickly.
And is 6 months of campaigning really better than 2 months?
Ffffuuuuuuucccckkk no its not better. It's just that our system predated most parliaments, and as such the founding fathers made some stupid choices that made it utterly impossible to amend basic quailty of life changes for our democracy.
What did the founding fathers decide that made it impossible to have short election seasons in the US?
The process to amend the constitution. It's all but impossible given modern politics, and that's largely been true for 50 years and counting.
That has nothing to do with how long election season is.
Are you even American?
Our election cycle cant be curtailed or shifted because our constitution can't realistically be amended to match the saner policies in other countries. When our constitution is so antiqued that that "money is speech" becomes the law of the land, there is a core problem with the founding document itself.
How it that not related to our election cycle?
Because a constitutional convention is so wildly unlikely it's just distracting from any actually helpful suggestions.
I'm talking about our broken government system, not what's helpful. The fact that a constitutional convention is impossible is exactly the problem. Its why many parts of our democracy are broken, and will likely ultimately be the downfall of our nation.
Thr founders called the Constitution a living document, with Jefferson specifically talking about how it must change to as American changes. To do that, they put in a wildly difficult mechanism that is nearly impossible to actually invoke, and added lifetime arbiter roles that can opt to unwind any law not written in pen and ink on that same paper.
Those are critical fuckups if you intend to have a living document and a shapeable democracy.
If you know it's not helpful why are you wasting time on it?
Why talk about the structure of our government? Education, general interest, activism?
Why are you wasting time talking about wasting time if it's just wasting time?
I have seen that user repeatedly argue in bad faith. I assume they are doing something similar here. The wasting of time is the point. I think they're just a troll.
Just in the spirit of pedantry, its not really true to say that the US system predated most parliaments.
Like, maybe its technically true now due to the expansion of democratic and republic systems in the post-colonial era, but parliaments in Western Europe were plentiful and long-established in 1776.
The first American government was notable in that is was completely divorced from a hereditary Monarch, and I don't wanna downplay that, but a system in which a representitive body of land-owners is elected by an enfranchised class to decide policy and even pass legislation existed in, for example, Iceland since the 10th Century, Catalonia since the 12th, England since the 13th. It was arguably the standard during the enlightenment in Europe.
My two cents, the US system does seem to be remarkably inflexible. I guess it's complicated to unpack why exactly, but a combination of myth-making, bad-faith originalists, and the sheer size of the country probably all play a part in it
It's better for the politicians wallets.
Well no, it's better for the politician's campaign's wallets. If people could spend campaign funds however they wanted then Donald Trump would have quite a few less pending felonies.
First of all, there's TONS of ways to enrich yourself by running for office without technically breaking any of the very flimsy campaign finance laws. That's why people with literally no chance of winning keep running for public offices up to and including the presidency.
Second of all, the FEC, which is ALREADY as toothless as a nonagenarian who never brushed his teeth due to chronic deliberate underfunding and understaffing, has an EXTREME backlog of cases from having lacked a quorum for the better part of a year.
Third, even if the FEC was otherwise effective, this is TRUMP we're talking about here. He's getting away with TONS of campaign finance fraud and legal misuse of donations as is.
I agree. Why weren't they all done last November?
The Dem presidential primary still has like two more months.
Biden and his pick for DNC chair set the date, they could have made it whenever.
They choose after the deadline to get on all 50 ballots for some reason.
It's pretty recent that campaigning started so early. Even Obama didn't campaign as early as trump and Biden do.
Has Trump ever stopped campaigning since 2016? I feel like this has gone on for decades.
Dems? Primary?
ROFL.
Massachusetts has not held its Senate primary yet either. I had to check, it will be on September 3rd it seems.
Moderate? Marty Dolan is a full-blown conservative. Why do we keep pretending like being a Democrat means you can't be a conservative? The DNCs entire top brass is conservative. It's a conservative party by objective international standards.
Because the Overton window in the United States has many people viewing fascists as friends and anyone further left than center right as "extreme left wing socialist communist Nazi terrorists".
I hate it when ignorant people conflate Nazis and communists. I have argued with so many dumb people who think that the Nazis were a Socialist party, when the exact opposite is true. These people probably think that the DPRK is democratic, too.
It'd be like thinking the Democrats and Republicans are arguing about whether America should he a direct or representative democracy.
Well if'n it weren't properly a democracy how comes that 'ere Kim fella put it in the name, huh?
That's why they call em moderates. No need for the media to do it as well.
In the rest of the world. A 66 year old investment banker would be considered right wing
Suck it AIPAC.
The ones laughing at Bowman’s loss? Yeah, I’m sure they’re crying so hard tonight
Will you people shut up about the DNC/Israel/"Them" rigging everything now?
This guy doesn't know the difference between rigging and ratfucking, point and laugh at him.
I'd rather not give them even that level of attention.
Why? We get to tell the truth and apparently deeply bother you all at once. Seems like a win-win for everyone but you , and you don't matter.
I don't expect you to actually stop, I just expect to expose you as disingenuous partisans.
Feels like you’re pushing an agenda here that doesn’t really coincide with reality.
You could argue that AIPAC is partly responsible for the mess we're in, as well as other PACs. So, I don't think that they will stop. Hell, one could hold that stance while voting for questionable politicians on their side. You just gotta make sure that the threat of being primaried remain.
After what happened to Jamaal Bowman. Not a fucking chance.
Oh, did people pointing out the unfair latitude given to your favorite genocidal nation make you upset? Whoops.
Oh shit we got a new troll in da house
Good. Anyone described as a "moderate" in the US is actually a conservative at best. Anyone described as a "conservative" is actually a fascist at best.
I hate this divisive bullshit. Democracies require pluralities. You need to be a big tent party to govern.
Reality check: Repubs are trying to elect an insurrectionist promising to be a dictator. I'm sorry facts are divisive, I don't like the situation either.
Sorry. how does AOC defeating democratic moderate in a primary impact a republican getting elected. I don't think moderate D's or voting R on the presidential ballot. A moderate Democrat is still voting democrat.
The most divisive people in politics don't want that big tent to be a governable coalition. If you appeal to big tent politics they start trying to incite violence including political subjugation of the same opponents that you're trying to appeal to. You'll see them around.
It seems many described as "left" in the USSA are conservatives too.
Good for her. Sucks that Jamaal Bowman lost though.
Yeah, having to listen to Steve Innskeep gleefully break the news of Bowman's defeat on NPR this morning was not a great way to start the day.
And of course NPR frames it as confirmation that voters support genocide, not that AIPAC uses GOP money to sabotage the Democratic party. Their reporting is getting worse and worse by the day.
Listening to NPR is like consuming pure Liberal Zionist propaganda
They're pretty bad on Israel, yeah. All Things Considered is particularly terrible.
Innskeep and Mary Louise Kelly get me pissed of more than anyone else. Or Ayesha Roscoe. They're all terrible interviewers.
I hope people stop believing the bullshit that’s trying to get progressives to not vote or to vote for 3rd parties. Progressives absolutely can win democrat tickets, and that’s exactly why there’s so much propaganda trying to convince people otherwise. Progressives have a lot of political power right now, and the whole system can swing left if people don’t just give up. Progressives giving up is the only play the right has.
Progressives should absolutely vote in primaries and lower contests. They should also make it very clear there are limits to their graciousness when our president supports blatant war crimes and genocide.
Graciousness? I don't think that's the right word...you don't vote for someone because you're being gracious, you vote for someone because you think they'll deliver what you want - or in this case perhaps, the closest person who actually stands a hope in hell of getting elected.
Oh no. It's graciousness to vote for the guy you lost to and who went out of his way to break campaign promises on unions, climate change, and immigration. Another term is good loser.
But the point is there's limits. There have to be limits or else you're not a loser in a political contest, you're a blind supporter they never need to actually listen to.
That’s objectively bullshit.
The only other option is trump. Are you trying to get people to vote for trump? If so, why?
Ah yes, Reddit, and a Biden specific sub. The very material of unbiased analysis.
Also. You're responding to something pre-debate. There are very definitely other options now. Run a debate series with select candidates, open a comment period with the state parties, and culminate in an open convention.
I don’t disagree. But we’re living in interesting times.
I don’t like most of the people on the ticket I’ll be given in November, but you know what’s objectively worse? Actual fascism. Fascism always ends in genocide, and these white Christian nationalists aren’t even trying to hide it, going mask-off even before they have the power to back it up.
When fascists can be this bold and still keep their seats of power, that’s quite worrying.
As I saw someone say earlier, we’re in democracy triage.
I’d vote for Biden’s corpse before trump or not voting. We must wrest all power from the fascists before we can squabble about who’s more left.
We must be able to effectively fight it though. And blindly voting for the elite approved opposition ends in them holding the door open for fascists every time.
What does "moderate" mean, owned by some corp?
Yeah:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/06/17/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-primary-challenger-marty-dolan/74074419007/
It’s hilarious to me that 40 years ago this person would have been solidly Republican. Now he’s a “moderate Democrat”. This term now means “conservative that doesn’t like Trump saying the quiet part out loud”
A lot of money has been pouring into propagandizing liberals in big progressive cities about crime specifically. Trying to promote a crime hysteria. And then part 2 of that plan is to recall the progressive politicians and elect in Republicans who will claim to fix everything.
It's had only modest success in actually electing Republicans so far but I get the sense it's a long game. People have absolutely bought into the "crime is at an all time high" lies.
Holy red flags, Batman!
Umm doesn't the State have a bigger hand in that instead of the Federal government?
Moderate: Conservative Democrat/I Can't Believe It's Not A Republican
I mean, no shit. Didn't she win her first election with 89% of the vote or something
Primary or general? General I would expect, given her district
To be fair, frogs are pretty dope.
This is the wrong post, but my point stands.
It was the comment this post needed. Thank you
You’re welcome, I’m glad I could remind you of frogs on this day.
Personal loans. Ouch.
Hopefully it's a painful enough lesson he never comes near politics again.
He's swimming in the bank pools, he'll be fine.
The loans are just so he can write that off.
It's a very progressive district, that's how she got elected in the first place. This is not a surprise.
I bet my politics fit closer to the other guy, but I'd still vote for AOC between the two because she has a national influence and disproportionate power in the Caucus. If you're actually voting to influence Congress towards helping your district in particular, AOC might get that done even if it's secondary to her national political project. Some moderate guy in a safe D seat would absolutely never get anything for your district.
In the rest of the Western world, AOC would be considered a moderate.
Welcome to the US where the left is still right of center
I wouldn't have a problem with liberals calling themselves the left if they knew why that was different from being a leftist
Would she? I’m not that informed on her politics but I think Bernie supported her, and Bernie is definitely a progressive even by rest-of-the-world standards.
Now at a greater scale!
"No MODERATE CHALLENGERS want to work anymore!!!"
Radicalize the moderates !
An article about an election without any numbers. How tight was the race? How many people voted? We will never know. In fact, the whole article contains no information that wasn't known beforehand. Probably written beforehand and just put online by a timer as the result was not surprising. News media is going downhill faster and faster.
Better source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-primary-elections/new-york-us-house-district-14-results
Landslide win for AOC. Maybe USA today just didn't want us to know how absolutely not close the race was?
That's exactly it.
The lies in MSM aren't what they say, it's what they don't say.
The best place to see this is at Planet Fitness, or similar place with TVs constantly tuned to all the major outlets. Watch them all at once and observe what each isn't saying.
This sounds like you were going to segue to today's sponsor, Ground News.
I'd actually been wanting to check them out, but now that I have Nebula, nobody is plugging their affiliate links.
fuck moderates, we're fighting for our goddamn lives and the life of American democracy. We got no room for both-siders.
Let that be a lesson.