Skip Navigation
103 comments

  • Oh so the party of law and order was meaning the party that keeps law enforcement busy

  • Both parties are capitalist and support First Past the Post voting in the states they control.

    Of course there are differences, don't you want more differences?

    Think the Republicans getting control in government is a existential threat? Then you should be open to using every and any tool available to fight this from becoming reality. That means taking a big gulp, and considering that perhaps the democrats don't have what it takes to take on the Republicans.

    So democrats need backup! They need help out there on that debate stage to fight Trump. We need to bring in outside perspectives with fresh ideas in the form of more viable political parties in the voting booth.

    This means we must do away with First Past The Post voting in each and every state in democratic control. Republican ones as well, but at the very least they have an excuse as to why they use a mathematically flawed voting system that doesn't represent everyone. What is the excuse blue states?

    Time to set aside your pride democrats. Perhaps you really aren't the future in the USA. You do want a future in the United States of America right? Would you be willing to risk your beloved democratic party not being relevant any longer to save this nation? I'd say, thats going to happen either way. Either the Republicans win it all, or we find a way around this massive blue roadblock of a political party.

    So you may as well do the right thing, and implement Ranked Choice voting in your state before the door hits you on the ass on your way out.

    Political parties are not the USA, the people are. We can set ourselves free with state level electoral reform. Now.

  • They both serve the rich first and foremost which is a critical issue for them to be "both sides" on. Yes, republicans are worse, but that doesn't make democrats good.

    • No party that "served the rich" would've even let people like Bernie into the party, let alone give them committee assignments and let them run for president on their ticket.

      There's no point in arguing that the Democratic Party is entirely controlled by the rich other than to encourage political nihilism. It has always been possible and always will be possible to beat wins out of (or even change/become) the party establishment through concerted effort and activism, as happened in the 30s, the Civil Rights Era, and the purging of the Blue Dogs after the Civil Rights era.

      Bernie's losses were disheartening, but abandoning any effort to sway the democrats and writing them off as "servants of the rich" when the decade before 2016 had been one of growing progressivism within the party and when Bernie unfortunately never even beat Hillary in a Dem Primary Poll, is the political equivalent of taking your ball and going home.

      Bash on the DNC and NDC all you want, but until we replace them with progressives like was done to the segregationist dems or lose doing so, there's no point in writing off the Democratic Party.

      • That they fought harder to stop Bernie from getting the nomination twice than they ever fought against trump speaks volumes. Just because they allow progressives to do a few minimal things, doesn't mean the party does not serve the rich first and foremost. This is like how freedom of speech is allowed until it becomes a threat to the establishment (see pro-Palestinian protests that were shut down with bullshit excuses). When the possibility arose that Bernie could make actual significant change, the party threw a shitfit.

        The democratic party will never be replaced with progressives because their donors won't allow it.

103 comments