Hardkill

TYT says that no Corporate Democrat can win the presidency in 2028

76 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Hatfort said:

Look, Bernie lived in the time he lived, it's not on him that the good policies that he was advocating for have not been implemented, when there's everyone in the media and political establishment preventing it. It's on them, not on him. 

He made his choice to try to change things from inside the Democratic Party, which was the right one. It would have been good to start a new party, if the US system wasn't totally rigged against that option in practice. Maybe there will be a time to try that in the future, it wasn't on his. It's also a pain in the UK, not as much, but Corbyn grew some balls and is going for it. That won't really be splitting the left, but giving voice to it, because Starmer is rightwing. Margaret Thacher said that her best achievement was Tony Blair, which means that what was supposed to be the Labour left, integrated rightwing policies into it, which is the same that has been happening in the US Democratic Party, and in many other countries in Europe is similar too. 

Bernie is not a democrat and has never worked to improve the democratic party, he's literally not a registered democrat, he only tried to hijack the party because again, socialists are lazy. He's a charlatan.

You're trying to say the u.s. system is rigged to prevent socialists from winning local positions, state seats? Preposterous, socialists have never put in any work, and never will, it's literally their nature.

Edited by Elliott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are intrinsic problems with socialism. Socialism is completely unnecessary and yet comes with steep dangers.

 

Captialism works, we currently don't have capitalism. Capitalism requires regulation, elimination of monopolies, and disproportionately taxing corporations and the wealthy: which is only fair because they benefit more from tax revenue.

 

You do not need socialism to take care of the needy, you can have free housing, healthcare, and food for the needy without socialism. You can have free education without socialism.

 

Socialism is fundamentally based on the false premises that capitalism is opposed to cooperation, and that humans are naturally ethical. Even in tribes, fellow tribe members steal from each other, kill each other, harm each other. Capitalism is completely based on cooperation.

 

Socialism puts all your eggs in one basket, for instance Trump would be in charge of our healthcare and income right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Bernie is not a democrat and has never worked to improve the democratic party, he's literally not a registered democrat, he only tried to hijack the party because again, socialists are lazy. He's a charlatan.

You're trying to say the u.s. system is rigged to prevent socialists from winning local positions, state seats? Preposterous, socialists have never put in any work, and never will, it's literally their nature.

Bernie has been an independent, but due to the US bipartisan system, he has indeed worked inside the Democratic party, and he has tried to push some progressive policies, which is a way of improving it. He is not lazy, he has been working his whole life, neither are socialists in general like you say. 

No, I'm not trying to say what you wrote. What I said, and you can read, is that creating a new party in the bipartisan system of the US is inviable in practice. So the way for now is what Bernie did, try to get seats in a party hostile to them, winning the votes of the people by advocating for their rights and life improvement. Mamdami is kind of doing it now, but the challenge is huge, because they have the apparatus of the party where they are operating is against them. 

What I also say is that if the Democratic Party apparatus, instead of charging against those progressives, should try to integrate them and their good policies. The Democratic potential voters are more progressive than the party ever goes, but you gotta have their backs, so they got yours in exchange. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hatfort said:

Bernie has been an independent, but due to the US bipartisan system, he has indeed worked inside the Democratic party, and he has tried to push some progressive policies, which is a way of improving it. He is not lazy, he has been working his whole life, neither are socialists in general like you say. 

No, I'm not trying to say what you wrote. What I said, and you can read, is that creating a new party in the bipartisan system of the US is inviable in practice. So the way for now is what Bernie did, try to get seats in a party hostile to them, winning the votes of the people by advocating for their rights and life improvement. Mamdami is kind of doing it now, but the challenge is huge, because they have the apparatus of the party where they are operating is against them. 

What I also say is that if the Democratic Party apparatus, instead of charging against those progressives, should try to integrate them and their good policies. The Democratic potential voters are more progressive than the party ever goes, but you gotta have their backs, so they got yours in exchange. 

The fact that he's independent disproves it is a formidable two-party system.

 

In your estimation what progressives voted for trump, how many, and how many sat out the vote?

 

Mamdani won the democratic primary with little resistance, democrats didn't even run a contender against him.

The problem is that Socialist policies are mindless in my opinion, lack any reasoning and are full of contradiction. For example, how many people are leaving the "wage slavery" system to live more self-sustainable lives, how many people are selling their suburban million-dollar homes and moving out to humble rural areas to grow their own food. I didn't say why isn't everyone, I understand many people cannot do this, but why aren't more people doing this? Why aren't more people car-less and riding bicycles. Why do so many people have expensive vacations, working class people, why is tourism a leading industry? Why is fast food a leading industry? It's because the system works for the people, again it's not a zero sum gain system, yes the rich are disproportionately getting richer, we need to tax the heck out of them, BUT the system works for the people too. Socialists are just envious and lazy.

How many of these popular hard-working activists have started health insurance co-ops? Grocery chain co-ops?

Why don't they focus in on some progressive towns and grow the movement from them? It's because their theory is flawed.

 

Edited by Elliott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought all you male youngsters were going red? Get with the program, y'all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the majority of people were actually progressive, it wouldn't be progressive anymore. It'd just be centrism.

Centrism by definition is the majority position.


"Finding your reason can be so deceiving, a subliminal place. 

I will not break, 'cause I've been riding the curves of these infinity words and so I'll be on my way. I will not stay.

 And it goes On and On, On and On"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Elliott said:

The fact that he's independent disproves it is a formidable two-party system.

In your estimation what progressives voted for trump, how many, and how many sat out the vote?

Mamdani won the democratic primary with little resistance, democrats didn't even run a contender against him.

The problem is that Socialist policies are mindless in my opinion, lack any reasoning and are full of contradiction. For example, how many people are leaving the "wage slavery" system to live more self-sustainable lives, how many people are selling their suburban million-dollar homes and moving out to humble rural areas to grow their own food. I didn't say why isn't everyone, I understand many people cannot do this, but why aren't more people doing this? Why aren't more people car-less and riding bicycles. Why do so many people have expensive vacations, working class people, why is tourism a leading industry? Why is fast food a leading industry? It's because the system works for the people, again it's not a zero sum gain system, yes the rich are disproportionately getting richer, we need to tax the heck out of them, BUT the system works for the people too. Socialists are just envious and lazy.

How many of these popular hard-working activists have started health insurance co-ops? Grocery chain co-ops?

Why don't they focus in on some progressive towns and grow the movement from them? It's because their theory is flawed.

It is a two-party system in practice, Democrat and Republican, Bernie worked within the Democratic Party. 

I'm not going to estimate anything, Kamala didn't get the votes she needed, we all saw the results, lost every swing state.

I agree with you about taxing the richest, that has to be done. The system is running, I didn't say it isn't, but it's not getting better for more people, the opposite. Some of the things you list as good like taking vacations used to be affordable for a bigger portion of people, now it's a just a no for too many. Cost of education and healthcare is bigger too. The cost of housing where there are jobs is an impossible deal. That's not happening because people now is more stupid, it's happening because the politicians are legislating in favour of the companies and the richest. There is regulation, but in their favour. The wealth that used to be in people's hands and in circulation, benefiting the real economy, now just goes to the corporations that hoard it. This has to be reversed, and I'm not asking the Republican Party to do that, they won't, I'm asking the Democratic Party to do it, and with no hesitation. 

Socialists are neither lazy nor envious, that's stupid. They are normal people willing to improve things for the majority, using common-sense regulations and putting limits on the corporations so they don't fuck people over. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Hatfort said:

It is a two-party system in practice, Democrat and Republican, Bernie worked within the Democratic Party. 

I'm not going to estimate anything, Kamala didn't get the votes she needed, we all saw the results, lost every swing state.

I agree with you about taxing the richest, that has to be done. The system is running, I didn't say it isn't, but it's not getting better for more people, the opposite. Some of the things you list as good like taking vacations used to be affordable for a bigger portion of people, now it's a just a no for too many. Cost of education and healthcare is bigger too. The cost of housing where there are jobs is an impossible deal. That's not happening because people now is more stupid, it's happening because the politicians are legislating in favour of the companies and the richest. There is regulation, but in their favour. The wealth that used to be in people's hands and in circulation, benefiting the real economy, now just goes to the corporations that hoard it. This has to be reversed, and I'm not asking the Republican Party to do that, they won't, I'm asking the Democratic Party to do it, and with no hesitation. 

Socialists are neither lazy nor envious, that's stupid. They are normal people willing to improve things for the majority, using common-sense regulations and putting limits on the corporations so they don't fuck people over. 

I think it's safe to say that you're just making stuff up

 

 

 

R (2).jpg

 

R (1).jpg

Screen Shot 2012-04-05 at 12.32.58 PM.png

 

chart.png

us-fast-food-industry-market-size-over-time.jpg

R (3).jpg

Screenshot 2025-08-06 072323.png

Edited by Elliott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Elliott said:

I think it's safe to say that you're just making stuff up

No i'ts not, and I haven't. You have though, you gotta twist reality into saying things like the US system is not bipartisan, or that Bernie has not tried to change the Democratic Party, and gratuitously drop peyorative califications into him and socialists in general that are not based in truth, just for the sake of insulting them. That's low-level discussion. 

I've made a case of why I think Democrats should adopt a more progressive approach, emphasizing in the economic issues, and that people will respond positively to that. It's important to have charismatic figures as well, someone has to step in. If they do that genuinely, they win. The problem is they are sold out to corporate donors as well. Not as much as Republicans, but quite a lot too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

 

I've made a case of why I think Democrats should adopt a more progressive approach, emphasizing in the economic issues, and that people will respond positively to that. It's important to have charismatic figures as well, someone has to step in. If they do that genuinely, they win. The problem is they are sold out to corporate donors as well. Not as much as Republicans, but quite a lot too. 

Then why doesn't bernie win? should be able to run on his own and win 80% of the vote, no? why isn't the socialist party more than 2.000 members?

Edited by Elliott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Elliott said:

Then why doesn't bernie win? should be able to run on his own and win 80% of the vote, no?

For many reasons, he has been swimming against the current of an already established party apparatus with donors that oppose his policies because they go against their interests, and the traditional media work for the other side too, so they massage the candidates they like, and demonize or just completely ignore the ones like him in screen time, or cut their interventions disingenuosly.

Despite of this, he got a small niche in Vermont, and make some noise in the 2010s. Did he win? No, in the end he didn't, the powers he opposed did. But he has my respect for his life work and for trying, he did change some narratives, and put the healthcare right in the discussion as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

For many reasons, he has been swimming against the current of an already established party apparatus with donors that oppose his policies because they go against their interests, and the traditional media work for the other side too, so they massage the candidates they like, and demonize or just completely ignore the ones like him in screen time, or cut their interventions disingenuosly.

Despite of this, he got a small niche in Vermont, and make some noise in the 2010s. Did he win? No, in the end he didn't, the powers he opposed did. But he has my respect for his life work and for trying, he did change some narratives, and put the healthcare right in the discussion as well. 

So, it doesn't work for bernie but you think it will work for democrats, the "media and big corporate" will stop bernie, but not democrats?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Elliott said:

So, it doesn't work for bernie but you think it will work for democrats, the "media and big corporate" will stop bernie, but not democrats?

Times are changing, I forgot to mention that he was too advanced for his time, and also boomers got it better than the millennials and zoomers. The traditional media still has a huge weight, but since the Internet, it's possible to spread some messages that in the 20th century wouldn't have made even a minute of screentime, and to be insulted at best, in the traditional TV channels. When something gets too big, even the media has to address it.

So it's worth trying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

Times are changing, I forgot to mention that he was too advanced for his time, and also boomers got it better than the millennials and zoomers. The traditional media still has a huge weight, but since the Internet, it's possible to spread some messages that in the 20th century wouldn't have made even a minute of screentime, and to be insulted at best, in the traditional TV channels. When something gets too big, even the media has to address it.

So it's worth trying. 

So, the majority of Americans helping themselves politically, is a more difficult task than women's and black's voting rights or ending slavery?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, you're making odd questions and comparisons. 

Americans have the potential to make their general conditions for all of them better. The upper class successfully confronts the medium and lower ones against each other, and in the meantime, they hoard the wealth. In the long run, it's bad for them too, but they can't see it, it's like an addiction to hoard more money than they will ever be able to spend. The lower class having more money is good for the economy, because unlike the rich ones, they spend it in businesses, money circulates, and this creates jobs, spiraling even more growth. 

Inequality is the number one issue, it takes it's sub forms in the affordability of housing or healthcare. Families are bankrupted by medical bills, how is that good for the economy? Young ones will have to pay rent for life or mortgages of fifty years for normal houses. Vacation what?

I'm not asking for a revolution though, just for the Democrats to adopt more progressive approaches to help the economy and the people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

Man, you're making odd questions and comparisons. 

Americans have the potential to make their general conditions for all of them better. The upper class successfully confronts the medium and lower ones against each other, and in the meantime, they hoard the wealth. In the long run, it's bad for them too, but they can't see it, it's like an addiction to hoard more money than they will ever be able to spend. The lower class having more money is good for the economy, because unlike the rich ones, they spend it in businesses, money circulates, and this creates jobs, spiraling even more growth. 

Inequality is the number one issue, it takes it's sub forms in the affordability of housing or healthcare. Families are bankrupted by medical bills, how is that good for the economy? Young ones will have to pay rent for life or mortgages of fifty years for normal houses. Vacation what?

I'm not asking for a revolution though, just for the Democrats to adopt more progressive approaches to help the economy and the people. 

So, you admit that the electorate doesn't buy what you're selling? It's not a winning political issue to get elected?

Edited by Elliott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Elliott said:

So, you admit that the electorate doesn't buy what you're selling? It's not a winning political issue to get elected?

Well, yeah, Trump won. lol

People can be fooled, and repeatedly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

Well, yeah, Trump won. lol

People can be fooled, and repeatedly.

This thread is about democrats winning elections.

 

Have you considered that you might be wrong about the theories you espouse? That the electorate might understand something better than you do? That's what critical thinking is, critically questioning your conclusions and information you've used to come to conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Elliott said:

That the electorate might understand something better than you do?

What exactly is it they understand better? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Joshe said:

What exactly is it they understand better? 

I was sincerely just asking for people to think critically.

 

They understand capitalism vs. socialism better, they understand human nature better.

 

Socialists believe socialism is about cooperation while capitalism is solely about competition, but capitalism is based on cooperation, free will cooperation while socialism is based on forced cooperation. Socialists believe people will cooperate together ethically if we ban competition, that's not how people work, even fellow tribesmen steal from each other and harm each other. 'Competition' means immediate options, means immediate free will, which means immediate repercussions for businesses and people behaving unethically. Socialism in practice has a harder hurdle to police ethics.

Socialists think that government healthcare would be better for people, but Trump would be in charge of our healthcare right now.

Socialists believe americans have no agency, that they have no choices, it's not true, a lot of americans just make dumb choices.

Edited by Elliott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now