More Democrats need to grow more of a spine!

[DocWatts]

4 hours ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

Bonus:

Thanks, my district is on that list. This is an encouraging sign - at least some Dems are realizing that they need to be campaigning their asses off over the next four years, while activists like myself are out on the streets building a civil resistance campaign against Trump's regime. One or the other on their own aren't going to cut it.

Edited March 16 by DocWatts

[Leo Gura]

11 hours ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

If you could register as a Dem without the spam, would you? Because the parties don't do that at all in my state.

No. I am non-partisan.

[Yimpa]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

No. I am non-partisan.

That must be like identifying as non-binary.

It sucks being misunderstood!

Edited March 16 by Yimpa

[Leo Gura]

Non-partisan is an identity like abstitence is a sex positon.

[Husseinisdoingfine]

But does it make sense to be non-partisan in America? What's the point if you're just going to register as Dem to vote in primary's and then switch back. Like how Bernie Sanders becomes a Democrat to run for President, but when he loses he switches back to being Independent. And even still he caucuses with the Democrats. 

I'm going through a bit of an identity confusion, I'm a registered Democrat because I want to vote for progressives in congressional primaries, but I'm wondering if that is me conforming to an institution and submitting to an ideology, something which these Guru's actively preach against. I don't at all identify with being a Democrat, but I am one just as a pragmatic strategy.

[Elliott]

It's not right to vote in the democrats primary if you're not a Democrat. For multiple reasons, one self-harming one is that it causes the party you do identify mostly with to have to do more work. In most states If third parties get enough registered members they need less signatures to get candidates on the ballot.

[Husseinisdoingfine]

51 minutes ago, Elliott said:

It's not right to vote in the democrats primary if you're not a Democrat. For multiple reasons, one self-harming one is that it causes the party you do identify mostly with to have to do more work. In most states If third parties get enough registered members they need less signatures to get candidates on the ballot.

The problem is that third parties are extremely not viable in America, and this seems to be an exclusively American problem.

I'm thinking I can vote in primaries for candidates that want to do things like abolish the electoral college and establish a proportional representation system. But until then, third parties are not viable. 

Also, there's plenty of good Democrats, particularly those who are members of the Democratic Socialists of America, such as Rashida Tlaib and Ocasio-Cortez. 

Edited March 17 by Husseinisdoingfine

[Elliott]

1 hour ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

The problem is that third parties are extremely not viable in America, and this seems to be an exclusively American problem.

I'm thinking I can vote in primaries for candidates that want to do things like abolish the electoral college and establish a proportional representation system. But until then, third parties are not viable. 

Also, there's plenty of good Democrats, particularly those who are members of the Democratic Socialists of America, such as Rashida Tlaib and Ocasio-Cortez. 

Do you think your choice in the democratic primary can win?

You're reinforcing the two party system.

I don't see a good argument in this day and age, there should be large grassroots campaigns for alternative candidates.

Even in times of Trump, I would register with my most aligned party and help them campaign, and then if it looks like my candidate doesn't have a chance in the general I would vote Harris, to use the last election as example.

First off, if Harris for example was not your choice for primary it should drive more people to your party, even if you vote harris in the general, because it's likely more people like you will be disatisfied with Democrats. You'll get more people in your third party running in the smaller races, which is how a party would be built, and again, registration numbers are very important here.

Third parties are viable, people just don't do the work.

Edited March 17 by Elliott

[Lyubov]

1 hour ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

The problem is that third parties are extremely not viable in America, and this seems to be an exclusively American problem.

I'm thinking I can vote in primaries for candidates that want to do things like abolish the electoral college and establish a proportional representation system. But until then, third parties are not viable. 

Also, there's plenty of good Democrats, particularly those who are members of the Democratic Socialists of America, such as Rashida Tlaib and Ocasio-Cortez. 

It’s cause our elections are held where a congressman just needs a plurality to win so it doesn’t make sense to have multiple parties in this system where the seats are allocated by the vote they represent but rather the person who get sene most votes takes the seat of a district. Realistically dems / republicans could be split into multiple parties and represented equally by the amount of people who vote for them but we have a winner take all system. 

[Elliott]

18 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

It’s cause our elections are held where a congressman just needs a plurality to win so it doesn’t make sense to have multiple parties in this system where the seats are allocated by the vote they represent but rather the person who get sene most votes takes the seat of a district. Realistically dems / republicans could be split into multiple parties and represented equally by the amount of people who vote for them but we have a winner take all system. 

That would trap candidates into parties though, and eliminate independents.

Edited March 17 by Elliott

[Husseinisdoingfine]

On 3/16/2025 at 10:26 PM, Elliott said:

That would trap candidates into parties though, and eliminate independents.

I mean, the goal is multiple parties.

[Lyubov]

On 3/16/2025 at 11:26 PM, Elliott said:

That would trap candidates into parties though, and eliminate independents.

That’s precisely what our voting system does due to its current design. The core design of it needs to be rearranged to something more democratic but that would mean some people giving up power. 

Edited March 18 by Lyubov

[Hardkill]

Democratic leadership needs a serious change:

 

[Husseinisdoingfine]

 

Speech of the year! 

[kavaris]

The appeal of trump, and further on then, his appeal w/elon, was like, they were doing things like "quick and clean", even at the expense of it being too quick or too early/forceful, they are like, a "do it quick and clean" team, instead of getting all balled up in the middle east, nd gettin dirty or bloody, nd stuff like that,. So now that we done things clean, we gotta get our genitals involved in complex things now (without anything bloody hopefully) as we've established what we can do w/ having like a business focused, and technology forward appeal to it, etc. now its like, *we get that*, and the next candidates are gonna have those qualities, assuming they are someone who knows how to separate/incoporate good qualities into their own system of qualities and decision making. Now its just like, taking the good w/ them, and realizing that each candidacy is like an experiment, an on going experiment to try nd see which way we can face, which direction(s) we can choose, and whether or not it aligns w/ the people, and the world. And those are things that a good president will be doing, and so hopefully we'll attract a plethora of good potential nxt, as they can realize like, *we just need a leader*, its not that hard to grapple w/. Its a tough job, but its like, it prolly takes time to get in a groove, and get on the same page w/every1. I mean, i guess we dont want ppl fightin to be president either, but ideally wed like to attract some commander-type thats multi-talented, who can specialize/think about all the country/wordly things nd such.

[Elliott]

On 3/18/2025 at 7:27 AM, Husseinisdoingfine said:

I mean, the goal is multiple parties.

No, it's non-partisanship.