• Pnut@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    7 days ago

    She’s one of only half a handful of Dems that sound ready to lead people into battle. The difference between how she uses knowledge and intelligence to speak to people is in stark comparison to Trump sounding exactly like he has dementia. She listens and responds. Trump just keeps interrupting any question he doesn’t like. Fuck you Maga. Fuck you entirely. You god damn idiots.

  • MochiGoesMeow@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    7 days ago

    Disagree. The Democrats dont know who they are anymore. Pelosi and the old Democrats have got to go.

    AOC should just make a new party.

  • Tigeroovy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    7 days ago

    She’s one of like 3 US politicians that I don’t just kind of low-key actively hate.

  • Korne127@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    7 days ago

    I hope she will be successful in actually overtaking the party to some degree, as most high-ranking party members would certainly see that differently

  • WraithGear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    I have said this elsewhere, but i will not again vote for the Democratic Party until they actually put up progressive candidates. Not pinky swear to pass progressive policy. That means the candidates has to have a provable history of struggling against the Democratic Party to pass progressive policy. There are only two i know of and that’s Bernie Sanders (who is too old for the presidency), and AOC. Else it’s third party until the democrats learn better.

  • chemicalprophet@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 days ago

    If she jettisons neoliberalism and takes a stand against genocide and imperialism she could begin to make a difference.

  • JustAThought@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 days ago

    I feel like this is actually what republicans want. Feels like they want another minority woman to run right into them again. She’s wonderful but it feels like political sabotage.

  • AreaKode@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    311
    ·
    8 days ago

    Weird. The party that claims to be “for the people” keeps putting centrists in charge. We’re ready for someone who is actually for the people!

    • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 days ago

      Conservatives, they are putting conservatives in charge. Don’t be fooled by how republicans label themselves. They haven’t been conservative since before the turn of the century.

      It’s DNC leadership that has taken up that mantle.

    • rational_lib@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      The party The people that vote in the primaries for the party that claims to be “for the people” keeps putting centrists in charge.

      Most people don’t vote in the Democratic primaries. Did you?

    • fluxion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      206
      ·
      8 days ago

      Quickest way to mobilize the Democratic party is to threaten to put a progressive in charge

      • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        156
        ·
        8 days ago

        They learned their lesson with Obama. The funny thing is he’s not even a fucking leftist, the party is just so full of dinosaurs they think a modern centrist is a leftist.

        • WarlordSdocy@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          58
          ·
          8 days ago

          With Obama they just learned how to take a somewhat progressive candidates and bend them into a moderate. It’s the same thing that happened with Kamala, although of course it’s hard to say if either were ever really progressive or if they just used that for votes and didn’t mind discarding it once they got pressured by the party and consultants.

            • frezik@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              33
              ·
              8 days ago

              Neither was Obama. Not long after he put a bow on the nomination, he voted for an expansive security bill. A lot of people were surprised, but not me.

            • WarlordSdocy@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              8 days ago

              Yeah I definitely agree, both Kamala and Obama are candidates that acted progressive in their primaries but as soon as they eventually got the nomination they went towards the corporate Democrat establishment. My main question is whether they were progressive at some point but let themselves be changed by the establishment, consultants, and donors or if they never really cared that much to begin with. The end state is the same but the difference is important as it gives us insight into how much power the consultants and others have over candidates vs if they didn’t really care then it wouldn’t have taken much to change them.

              • Redditsux@lemmy.worldOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                7 days ago

                Kamala was picked as VP because Dems thought she would get votes from the republicans who aren’t so MAGA. She’s on the conservative side of things: tough on crime as AG, opposed cannabis legalization (changed position later), opposed abolition of death penalty (flipped later), etc.

                • Womble@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  7 days ago

                  I’m not even sure it was as deep as that, IMO they shoo’d her in without any chalengers as she could legally use the Biden-Harris bribes donations they had already collected. Thats about the extent of their thinking.

            • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              8 days ago

              In general, no. In terms of specific policies as an AG, there were some.

              I’d say she’s a centrist, with some progressive policies and some regressive. Just my opinion obviously.

          • Flames5123@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            8 days ago

            Obama wasn’t even somewhat progressive before the Democratic Party. He was against gay marriage for a while.

        • rumba@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          8 days ago

          The dinosaurs know they’re marching right, that’s where all the money is (for them).

        • SippyCup@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          28
          ·
          8 days ago

          From the business owners to the CEOs, the Democrats are here to hear you. All the people, white or tan, brown people of light complexion as long as they have a 401k and 10 million in assets they will LISTEN

        • tburkhol@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          8 days ago

          Voter turnout in primaries is pathetic. In 30 states, you have to be registered with the party - i.e.: give them your name and address for fund-raising purposes - to vote. This all works to bias primaries to ‘establishment’ candidates, or at least people well known among party apparatchiks. They are, theoretically, the best way to get progressives or populists into office, but practically, those progressives are fighting demographics and the general apathy of voters under 40.

          The same phenomena that let MAGA take over the GOP keep the moderates in charge of the Dems. At least, until someone figures out how to motivate all the young internet revolutionaries to actually go and vote instead of memeing about how useless voting is.

            • tburkhol@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              7 days ago

              Not really. I’m saying that the system discourages change. If there’s blame for the DNC, it’s that their message has constantly been something along the lines of “be reasonable & empathetic; improve the world through measured change” which tends to demoralize people who think the system is seriously fucked. That empowers the career politicians. GOP propaganda, at least for the last 50-or-so years, has been “More guns! More babies! No brown people!” which tends to attract passionate radicals.

              • 13igTyme@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 days ago

                Okay, but the states decide if there are open primaries or not. The State is to blame for that, but it can be changed if made a state ballot measure.

                That’s not really up for debate. It’s literally state law and dependent on the state. The DNC and GOP don’t decide that.

        • gobbles_turkey@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          8 days ago

          Sort of, sometimes. They can and will heavily disadvantage candidates they dont like. Like when they gave Hillary the questions for debates beforehand but not to Bernie, and let hillary control the funding of races, including her own. And like when they cut new hampshire out of the primary results this year because the New Hampshire dems wouldnt move the date for the primary to when the dnc wanted. So sure you could vote in that primary, but nothing was done with the results. Straight to the garbage can with those ballots.

          Russia says they have a democracy too, with votes and everything. Not saying we’re the same, but proving we have “democracy” by the fact that voting happens is not that firm of a thing. Its easily corrupted.

    • chunes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      8 days ago

      Sadly I don’t think it’s possible to have a party “for the people” with only two parties. There’s too much pressure for both of them to champion the status quo.

      • Saleh@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 days ago

        Yes it is. If the part “for the people” turns out to be captured you drop it and get in an actual party for the people. Rinse and repeat as needed. There is a problem with political parties growing too old and becoming too institutionalized. But keeping them in power instead of giving them the boot is a choice made by the voters.

    • Signtist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      8 days ago

      It all makes sense when you realize who makes the cutoff for what they consider “people.”