Psilynut2 said:

Quote:

Unfortunately that is systemically more difficult than changing the democratic party from the inside out

---

    It's almost like your saying Bernie couldn't have done much without the democratic party's  money , infrastructure and support .

---

Psilynut2 said:

I don't want to get excited but it looks like Texas  might turn blue . There's a chance , I kinda feel like making a  tray of pot brownies a life sentence wasn't a good idea for them .

---

Psilynut2 said:

Quote:

The only reason Trump has ever won is because Democrats refused to allow demoracy to play out in the primaries.

---

Or if Bernie had ran as the socialist independent he always was and just stayed the fuck  out of the democratic primary ...

---

Quote:

Had the Clinton campaign and the DNC not played dirty,

---

Quote:

I got 20 bucks on robinhood prediction market texas still goes red in 2 days.

---

The Ecstatic said:

Actually, the left demonstrably votes for the moderate than the moderates do for the left.

The most famous example is Hillary voters going for McCain at twice the rate that Sanders voters went for Trump.

Look at Lieberman. Manchin. Fetterman. Stevens. Elon.

These demons want to make sure the democrats are the same as the republicans, and the moment that project is threatened, or even spoken about, they cry foul and say “I’d love to be a democrat but these loony lefties and minorities are forcing me towards fascism.”

---

Excellent point. I did not know that factoid, about Clinton voters. Doesn't surprise me one bit

Quote:

There’s something to be said about Sanders hijacking the Democratic Party. At the same time, the Dems sue to keep third parties off the ballot. It’s “fall in line, vote blue no matter who” until the DSA gets popular, and then everyone tells them to fuck off and create a third party.

---

The only thing to be said about Bernie "hijacking" the Democratic party, is that it was clearly symptomatic of the fact that the Democratic voters are deeply dissatisfied. Not "Shame on Bernie!!!"

Think about it, Bernie is utterly lacking of charisma, he has never in his life been a good looking man, he is older than my life expectancy by a decade, he identifies as a 'Socialist', which carries a certain taboo with a very significant number of voters, and he had relatively zero name recognition.

Now let's consider Clinton, one of the most well-known names in American politics, husband was a very successful president, she had way more big fat checks from wealthy donors, her former campaign manager was head of the DNC, and was actively helping her rig the ection in her favor, etc etc etc...

2016 was a rebuke of the status quo, and the response from establishment Democrats broke all of our hearts, and destroyed whatever faith many of us had in the mere possibility of changing the system from within.

I do thank then for it, though. It really was eye-opening for me, and many others, and we needed that wake up call.

Quote:

So yeah, if this two party system is premised on the idea that it’s the only way to flesh out democracy in the U.S., then you have to respect the will of the voters. Of course, the democrats don’t want to do that because they don’t receive hundreds of millions of dollars every cycle to represent the people, they get it to preserve and expand the wealth of the ruling class.

---

Psilynut2 said:

Quote:

I got 20 bucks on robinhood prediction market texas still goes red in 2 days.

---

   
    You only have 20 dollars worth of confidence in their victory ?

---

sudly said:

She endorsed Mike rodgers which is as close as declaring herself a republican as you can get without making the final step in paperwork.

Fetterman did a Freudian slip and called himself a republican somewhat recently..

---

These social media posts aged like milk:





She was on Anderson Cooper this evening and gave the most mealy-mouthed response imaginable, trying to play both sides and pretend she’s still a member of the democratic party.

is=pJ_2QYQRooJuyi-l

Quote:

Maybe psilynut thinks the aristocracy ought to choose for us. Either way, it's a ridiculous, stupid ass thing to say.

---

Quote:

You kind of ignored  everything else I said too . So here's a repost , just for you .

---

Psilynut2 said:

Quote:

I just don't understand why people thought the DNC wasn't going to resist fundamentally being changed , by Bernie  .
Both Bernie and Hillary signed an agreement to give a portion of the money their campaigns raised to the DNC .
  Hillary raised a metric fuckton of money and gave the DNC 430 million . Bernie didnt raise any money through that agreement , he did grass roots and gave them nothing .
  Do you not see the problem ?

---

---

Psilynut2 said:

Quote:

Maybe psilynut thinks the aristocracy ought to choose for us. Either way, it's a ridiculous, stupid ass thing to say.

---

 
  Na bro I think the DNC should have said thanks for the 430  mil that made this possible  hilldog but we're going with the independent who gave us nothing cause democracy .
    How would they have funded the next primary ? With the 0 dollars Bernie contributed ?
  Is there some kind of magic ferry democracy dust that allows a political  party to operate ?

---