1038
the ratchet is angry
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2025
1038 points (96.4% liked)
Political Humor
1255 readers
64 users here now
Welcome to Political Humor!
Rules:
- Be excellent to each other.
- No harassment.
- No sexism, racism or bigotry.
- All arguments should be made in good faith.
- No misinformation. Be prepared to back up your factual claims with evidence.
- All posts should relate to politics and be of a humorous nature.
- No bots, spam or self-promotion.
- If you want to run a bot, ask first.
- Site wide rules apply.
- Have fun.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I've been asking this for days and have not gotten a clear answer in what way is the DNC fighting the candidate put forth to the generals by the DNC?
He was put forth by the people not by DNC.
You don't get into the DNC primary via petition, my guy. You ask the DNC to join and they give out invitations to the ones who can run on their ticket.
They didn't expect him to win. He was the olive branch to people on the left in order to say "see? We had someone with more pro-social ideas and he wasn't popular enough. Let's try shifting further to the right and see if we get more votes that way."
We had Jeremy Corbyn do that over here. Absolutely romped into the Labour leadership.
Whereupon he was demonised and demolished by the press, ably assisted by the centrists in the party who think that actually giving a shit about the people is far too hardline lefty. Which then gifted us another five years of Tory cunts in power, which The Centrists decried despite the fact that THEY FUCKING PUT THEM THERE.
Cunts.
Anyway, now we have pretty much the most centre right "leftwing" government we've ever had. And that includes the Blair years.
All of which is to say: I hope your man wins, but he'll almost certainly be kneecapped by the Democrats because he runs the risk of costing them money.
They expect every candidate to have a chance of winning when they hold primaries. Bernie came somewhat close to beating HRC in 2016, if he had like 4 million more votes they wouldn't have been able to do anything about stopping him from running the entire nation, unlikely that they would try.
DNC is the left party, the party of progress, now and decades prior.
Bernie came close while simultaneously getting sandbagged at every opportunity by the DNC. If he'd gotten the same kind of attention as Hillary, there's a very good chance he would have won.
DNC is only the party of progress because there isn't another viable party that's better at it. It's up to us to push them to the left, because they're really bad at doing it themselves. NYC proved that it's possible; I only hope it mobilizes the rest of the left-leaning populace to take similar action. Vote blue and do what you can locally to enact change.
I repeat, he did lose by over 3 Million Votes. Supposed, uncoroborated, sandbagging aside, Hillary was the more popular candidate.
You're not pushing the party left by telling everyone they're an unviable bunch of corporate shills, you're just convincing people not to vote for them and letting Republicans win.
"Supposed" sandbagging... Right, OK fella.
Okay so you're saying the reason Hillary won 16 Million to 13 Million is because a couple of people behind closed doors said something kind of mean about him once? And how exactly did the millions of DNC voters hear about this and coordinate their votes accordingly, all secretively?
No, that's not at all what I'm saying.
I'm saying the DNC is supposed to be a neutral facilitator of primary elections, but were going out of their way to undermine the Sanders campaign by coordinating with donors and feeding stories and unflattering details of his campaign to reporters.
Could the impact of that interference be measured by some quantity of votes? Decidedly not. But did it have some impact? Almost certainly.
At the very least, the Sanders campaign was having to fight against the committee and put out fires they were starting, while they were supposed to be facilitating a 'fair' primary election. Even giving preferential treatment to one candidate over another calls into question the legitimacy of that primary.
The DNC is not a government entity, it is a private institution, it does not need to be impartial, but it's election was an honest one which did not manipulate votes or prevent Bernie Sanders from running.
Lmao, "they're a private institution they can do what they want"
I accept your resignation from the argument, better luck next time.
The DNC is very much a conservative party. To claim the democratic party to be left leaning is a complete lack of awareness or it’s propaganda.
Ah yes thank you for bringing up that one policy. /s
Toothless neolibs and neocons aren’t leftist, this is not an opinion, learn to operate outside of the U.S.’s Overton window.
"Toothless" says the one who does nothing but throw insults in the face of an argument.
Where did i insult you?
lmao
You're insulting the DNC. You haven't cited a single policy or vote or even quoted any statements out of context, you're basically just trolling instead of any good faith attempt to turn anyone over to your side.
Meanwhile, someone provides sources and you refused to read them. It looks like you just refuse to listen to anyone that doesn't agree with you.
Yeah, that's what sources are for, vetting information. If your source is unreliable then you get called out for it.
That's not "calling out unreliable sources", that's saying "any source you provide I'm not going to read".
Whats the matter, you hit your word limit and couldn't finish quoting?
I'll remind you we are currently in the thread where someone was "saying in their own words" and that wasn't good enough for you either.
Yeah, they couldn't say why, provide any evidence of their claim and neither could their articles, but I'm supposed to accept the claim as fact? I'm just supposed to sit down and read 6 articles which would print to like 80 pages and then accept their unsubstantial claims as fact for no reason but the sheer number of words placed in front of me? That's really dumb, anon.
Can you direct me to any of your posts here that provide evidence for your claims?
Yes, check the comments above which made claims.
I went up this thread and didn't see any links. Not interested in searching your entire post history.
Lmao
I accept your resignation from the argument, better luck next time.
Did you make a point to argue? It looks to me like you admitted you can't even figure out what my statement was. Do you want me to argue that you did understand and pretended not to? Why would I?
Sorry, as per your own rules you already resigned from the argument.
Calling a spade a spade is not an insult to the spade.
The party that has been running on "Everything is fine, status quo is great, we won't change anything" is the party of progress?
The party who taxes and audits the rich, the party who expands medical coverages, the party who removed money from politics until the conservative SCOTUS overturned the law with Citizens United decision, and the Party who hasn't had more than 50 senators in the past 10 years while everything has gone to shit.
If we want change we should elect the DNC, and even more importantly remove every single Republican.
Sounds like the DNC needs to do things that are actually popular with voters.