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

[Apparition of Jack]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Tell that to them.

They are the ones who act so self-important.

The truth is that progressives are too self-absorbed to admit that they do not matter. This would kill them inside.

If this were true, why are Trump-AOC voters such a large demographic? 

You said something about Trump “awakening the lizard brain” in 100 million voters or something. The thing is, Trump and progressives have very similar economic messages - what do you think “drain the swamp” means?

The difference is, unlike Trump, progressives are actually sincere in their desire to fix the (incredibly obvious) catastrophic failures of modern American society. Trump isn’t (and will actually make things significantly worse.)

Like, are progressives lying when they say income inequality is out of control? Or that it’s borderline murder the US doesn’t have a public healthcare system yet? Etc. 

Hell, you would be considered a progressive by your voting record, Leo. There are certain ideological blindspots within progressivism but at the end of the day it’s not like progressives popped up out of nowhere. They are a very real and very legitimate response to the insanity of late capitalist society.

Of course you could argue that they’re “out of touch” for the common voter or whatever, but I hardly think that makes a difference when that voter then dies of black lung disease at 43 because their local hospital got defunded by Trump. 
 

EDIT: Let’s not forget that progressive policies are incredibly popular with the US electorate, it’s just people have been conditioned to oppose them by the insanely influential corporate media. I’m reminded of the time when Bernie Sanders got a room full of Fox News watchers of all people to agree with basically everything he said.

 

Edited yesterday at 06:17 PM by Apparition of Jack

[Apparition of Jack]

(Edit: Duplicate post.)

Edited yesterday at 06:11 PM by Apparition of Jack

[Daniel Balan]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The most important thing they need to do is to expand their worldview beyond their ideological echochamber. They need to be more realistic and understanding about why the majority of voters are not progressive. And they need to stop blaming centrists for everything.

They need to admit that progressivism is a minority position.

Progressives need to admit that no one wants to vote for them because they are corrupt devils! 

Is taxing 10000$ per year a farmer's property of 2 acres in California a sane thing to do? That farmer may not even generate that much profit in a year. 

Is forcing him to sell his farm land to an oligarch billionaire while he is forced to own nothing and live in a cubical with 6 other strangers, like a rat, a progressive value? How is living like a rat, owning nothing, a progressive ideal? 

What equality is that when you as a middle class person can't afford to even own a farm or land? Or only the ultra rich should be able to own these because only they have enough money to pay in taxes for those progressive lunatics to open government agencies that literally are paid to watch how the grass grows?

Progessive policies destroy the middle class, making everyone dirt poor, while allowing only the richest to have land and property, while the bottom 95% live in cubicals. 

I used to be progressive but for the last half a year I contemplated  a lot about politics, and I came to the conclusion that progessives are the biggest devils! 

I would rather vote for a right winger that cuts all regulations, all taxes, all public funded institutions, than to vote for a lunatic progressive that litteraly wants me to work 11 months a year just to pay astronomical taxes, that forces me to sell my home, that wants me to have no land, and live all my life as a tenant in a cubical with 6 other dudes. While only one month a year I could save some money for myself. 

All this to live like a rat and see that only the rich enjoy life while I am doing my hardest just to stay alive.

Progressives need a reality check ASAP

 

Edited yesterday at 09:04 PM by Daniel Balan

[Raze]

17 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Progressives have been responsible for Trump's victories.

This is beyond absurd and it’s insane you’re still saying this.

The democrats did literally the exact opposite of what progressives wanted. Progressives said not to run Hillary, they ran Hillary, progressives said Hillary should adopt Sanders health plan, she didn’t, and she lost to trump.

Progressives said not to run Biden, they ran him, progressives said not to run Kamala, they ran her, progressives said not to campaign with Liz Cheney, she did it. She lost to trump.

And the conclusion is: it’s progressives fault? That makes no sense, you can’t do the opposite of what someone tells you to do then blame them for the result.

There is no evidence it was progressives sitting out the election that cost Hillary or Kamala he victory either by the way. Sanders voters voted for Hillary at a higher rate than Hillary primary voters voted for Obama. Non voters in 2024 leaned even more towards trump than actual voters.

Edited yesterday at 09:41 PM by Raze

[Hardkill]

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The most important thing they need to do is to expand their worldview beyond their ideological echochamber. They need to be more realistic and understanding about why the majority of voters are not progressive. And they need to stop blaming centrists for everything.

They need to admit that progressivism is a minority position.

That’s fair to say. Progressives definitely need to step outside the bubble and learn how to appeal to a broader audience. But I’d argue their biggest weakness isn’t their ideas, it’s how they present them.

I agree they shouldn’t blame centrists for everything, but it’s also true that some centrist messaging has felt outdated in a populist era. Maybe the key isn’t to ‘ditch progressivism’ but to evolve its delivery — make it more culturally relatable, less activist-niche, and more grounded in shared values.

After all, Biden had to shift toward progressive populism just to energize his 2020 campaign and appeal to both moderates and progressives during his presidency. That really was not an accident.

All transformational movements begin as minority positions. Civil rights, Social Security, marriage equality, etc. had all started there.

The issue is how to scale up without alienating, not to abandon the ideas altogether.

 

Edited yesterday at 09:36 PM by Hardkill

[Daniel Balan]

51 minutes ago, Hardkill said:

That’s fair to say. Progressives definitely need to step outside the bubble and learn how to appeal to a broader audience. But I’d argue their biggest weakness isn’t their ideas, it’s how they present them.

I agree they shouldn’t blame centrists for everything, but it’s also true that some centrist messaging has felt outdated in a populist era. Maybe the key isn’t to ‘ditch progressivism’ but to evolve its delivery — make it more culturally relatable, less activist-niche, and more grounded in shared values.

After all, Biden had to shift toward progressive populism just to energize his 2020 campaign and appeal to both moderates and progressives during his presidency. That really was not an accident.

All transformational movements begin as minority positions. Civil rights, Social Security, marriage equality, etc. had all started there.

The issue is how to scale up without alienating, not to abandon the ideas altogether.

 

Progressives will lose forever all elections because people aren't the stupid slaves the progressives think. 

While the ones proposing free health care to all went to ivy leagues universities, are deca millionaires and were spoiled all their life, they don't take into account that people don't want to be milked to death by the government via exorbitant taxes just to have average ass public services. People aren't sacks of potatoes to be put all close together in rented small overcrowded cubicals as the progressives want. Progressives are the biggest hypocrites. While they live in unspeakable luxury they want to take the land away from small farmers that have had that property passed from father to son for generations. 
Progressives will eternally lose because people don't want government to be their daddy. People want from government strong police, strong military, firefighters, strong court and legal system, good roads and infrastructure and some public schooling and moderate oversight over markets to check corruption. Thats ALL!! People don't want to work all their lives like slaves for a fat government that pisses tax payer money for stupid gender studies or tampons for men in public bathrooms. 
How hypocritical are the progressives. They want to tax to death fuel based vehicles but they fly all over the world in private jets to attend climate meetings. The people who get taxed to death for owning a fuel based car have to travel for work 60 miles every day just to work all they long to pay the taxes to those lunatic progressives. 

Man I hate those spoiled brats so much. They have no clue how reality works, they are so privileged and so spoiled, they are even worse than right wingers in some sense because at least the right is aware of how reality works, at least it doesn't live in lala fantasy land. 

Edited 23 hours ago by Daniel Balan

[Apparition of Jack]

3 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

Progressives will lose forever all elections because people aren't the stupid slaves the progressives think. 

While the ones proposing free health care to all went to ivy leagues universities, are deca millionaires and were spoiled all their life, they don't take into account that people don't want to be milked to death by the government via exorbitant taxes just to have average ass public services. People aren't sacks of potatoes to be put all close together in rented small overcrowded cubicals as the progressives want. Progressives are the biggest hypocrites. While they live in unspeakable luxury they want to take the land away from small farmers that have had that property passed from father to son for generations. 
Progressives will eternally lose because people don't want government to be their daddy. People want from government strong police, strong military, firefighters, strong court and legal system, good roads and infrastructure and some public schooling and moderate oversight over markets to check corruption. Thats ALL!! People don't want to work all their lives like slaves for a fat government that pisses tax payer money for stupid gender studies or tampons for men in public bathrooms. 
How hypocritical are the progressives. They want to tax to death fuel based vehicles but they fly all over the world in private jets to attend climate meetings. The people who get taxed to death for owning a fuel based car have to travel for work 60 miles every day just to work all they long to pay the taxes to those lunatic progressives. 

Man I hate those spoiled brats so much. They have no clue how reality works, they are so privileged and so spoiled, they are even worse than right wingers in some sense because at least the right is aware of how reality works, at least it doesn't live in lala fantasy land. 

Yeah good point man. Our tax dollars should go to Amazon subsidies and Israeli weapons instead! That’s what real tough-as-nails American workers want 😎 

[Apparition of Jack]

5 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

Progressives need to admit that no one wants to vote for them because they are corrupt devils! 

Is taxing 10000$ per year a farmer's property of 2 acres in California a sane thing to do? That farmer may not even generate that much profit in a year. 

Is forcing him to sell his farm land to an oligarch billionaire while he is forced to own nothing and live in a cubical with 6 other strangers, like a rat, a progressive value? How is living like a rat, owning nothing, a progressive ideal? 

What equality is that when you as a middle class person can't afford to even own a farm or land? Or only the ultra rich should be able to own these because only they have enough money to pay in taxes for those progressive lunatics to open government agencies that literally are paid to watch how the grass grows?

Progessive policies destroy the middle class, making everyone dirt poor, while allowing only the richest to have land and property, while the bottom 95% live in cubicals. 

I used to be progressive but for the last half a year I contemplated  a lot about politics, and I came to the conclusion that progessives are the biggest devils! 

I would rather vote for a right winger that cuts all regulations, all taxes, all public funded institutions, than to vote for a lunatic progressive that litteraly wants me to work 11 months a year just to pay astronomical taxes, that forces me to sell my home, that wants me to have no land, and live all my life as a tenant in a cubical with 6 other dudes. While only one month a year I could save some money for myself. 

All this to live like a rat and see that only the rich enjoy life while I am doing my hardest just to stay alive.

Progressives need a reality check ASAP

 

Progressives would shift the tax burden heavily to billionaires. The whole point is to get billionaires to actually give back to society that they dramatically benefit from (so better highways, better hospitals, proper trade schools, etc.) and free up the economic productivity the working and middle classes provide. Right now, most of the wealth workers produce goes towards giving Muck Zuckerberg another Hawaiian island. They see no benefit from their labor.

Edited 20 hours ago by Apparition of Jack

[sholomar]

5 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

Progressives need to admit that no one wants to vote for them because they are corrupt devils! 

Is taxing 10000$ per year a farmer's property of 2 acres in California a sane thing to do? That farmer may not even generate that much profit in a year. 

Is forcing him to sell his farm land to an oligarch billionaire while he is forced to own nothing and live in a cubical with 6 other strangers, like a rat, a progressive value? How is living like a rat, owning nothing, a progressive ideal? 

What equality is that when you as a middle class person can't afford to even own a farm or land? Or only the ultra rich should be able to own these because only they have enough money to pay in taxes for those progressive lunatics to open government agencies that literally are paid to watch how the grass grows?

Progessive policies destroy the middle class, making everyone dirt poor, while allowing only the richest to have land and property, while the bottom 95% live in cubicals. 

I used to be progressive but for the last half a year I contemplated  a lot about politics, and I came to the conclusion that progessives are the biggest devils! 

I would rather vote for a right winger that cuts all regulations, all taxes, all public funded institutions, than to vote for a lunatic progressive that litteraly wants me to work 11 months a year just to pay astronomical taxes, that forces me to sell my home, that wants me to have no land, and live all my life as a tenant in a cubical with 6 other dudes. While only one month a year I could save some money for myself. 

All this to live like a rat and see that only the rich enjoy life while I am doing my hardest just to stay alive.

Progressives need a reality check ASAP

 

They're not devils, they are naive combined with idealistic. They act on their emotional ideals of what they "think" an idealized society would be and yet the policies don't work partly for the reasons you mentioned.  A system can only support so many parasites before it collapses. Right now it's the top and bottom that are the biggest parasites on the system, thanks to quantitative easing, too big to fail, bailouts, and money printing to pay for unfunded liabilities.   They think you can afford to just pay people to get free everything, and then wonder why there are supply shortages, or a 3 year wait for a surgery... but it's not the top 10% who have a problem affording these things... they got their overinflated stonks and multiple investment properties.

The left has no real solution to the problems of wealth concentration that would actually work, they just think they do.  Their solution of printing more money and handing it out doesn't work. We need to bleed the liquidity away from the investor class, with high top end taxes on investments and net worth, and reform the concept of a corporation at it's core, but neither side will do this.   Wait you're saying I as a "centrist" support taxing the rich? Well the fact is the rich have gotten a lot of central bank welfare post 2008 and especially post 2020.  Wealth is concentrating while middle class affordability is decreasing.   Using the money to invest in new housing and businesses is one thing, using the money to gobble up real estate and existing housing and pump up the stock market is another. This is what "private equity" is now doing, with central bank blessing. 

Edited 19 hours ago by sholomar

[Elliott]

Trump won 2016 due in large part to backlash from progressive actions democrats took; gay marriage, Obamacare, expanding Medicaid, Obama implemented the largest tax increase on the wealthy since the 1950s, home buyer credits, child tax credits, green initiative,.... Listen to conservatives, they go on and on about all of it all the time.

Trump won 2024 due in part to the Obama progress and then Biden continuing it with student loan forgiveness. Inflation was the largest contributor, but in what was in the control of Democrats, you can only mark the narrow loss up to progressivism.

Democrats will win easy in the upcoming elections. Hakeem Jeffries polls just as well as AOC or Mamdani. You don't want a very enthusiastic politician because they will never be able to deliver in the end which leads to backlash against the party. You can't just look at trumpism in the short term, you have to look bigger picture, he could actually wind up effectively ending the republican party, he cannot deliver anything, he is going to make america shit very quickly like no one living has seen.

 

What we need is a sane democratic party to retain control long enough to pack the supreme court, then we need the socialists to break off into the other major party. We will continue this idiotic cycle with another Republican if we keep implementing policies before getting enough public support for them.

 

https://www.newsweek.com/maria-elvira-salazar-florida-congressional-poll-2108810

Democrat Edges Out Incumbent Florida Republican in New Poll

5 hours ago · Democrat Edges Out Incumbent Florida Republican in New Poll. Published Aug 04, 2025 at 5:39 PM EDT. By . Andrew Stanton is a Newsweek weekend reporter based in Maine

 

 

9 hours ago, Hatfort said:

But they do matter. 

Democrats will not win if they don't integrate progressive votes, and for that, they need to concede on some things, not only by word, but with real action. Figures like Mandami are getting success for something. It's different in the UK, but Jeremy Corbyn is successfully creating a new party. Although he won the Labour Party primaries some years ago, the establishment didn't accept this, and managed to kick him out. 

I'm all for Newsom, he has charisma, and can punch back. I'd tell him he should take notes from Mamdami's campaign. AOC would be my VP pick for him, but they need to step down from the Israrel bus, it's a pariah state doing the worst things we've seen this new century. 

Why would progressives sit out the vote next time? Barely anyone voted third party in 2024 and Trump won, everyone knew what is happening now would happen if trump won, do you believe progressives were okay with that?

 

6 hours ago, Daniel Balan said:

 

Is taxing 10000$ per year a farmer's property of 2 acres in California a sane thing to do? That farmer may not even generate that much profit in a year. 

Is forcing him to sell his farm land to an oligarch billionaire while he is forced to own nothing and live in a cubical with 6 other strangers, like a rat, a progressive value? How is living like a rat, owning nothing, a progressive ideal? 

Progressives tax corporations, not small time farmers, conservatives tax small time farmers and not corporations. You only pay tax on profit. Taxing corporations, hurts corporations, it levels the playing field for family farms, progressives want to tax corporations almost out of existence.

Edited 18 hours ago by Elliott

[Hatfort]

2 hours ago, Elliott said:

Trump won 2016 due in large part to backlash from progressive actions democrats took; gay marriage, Obamacare, expanding Medicaid, Obama implemented the largest tax increase on the wealthy since the 1950s, home buyer credits, child tax credits, green initiative,.... Listen to conservatives, they go on and on about all of it all the time.

Trump won 2024 due in part to the Obama progress and then Biden continuing it with student loan forgiveness. Inflation was the largest contributor, but in what was in the control of Democrats, you can only mark the narrow loss up to progressivism.

Democrats will win easy in the upcoming elections. Hakeem Jeffries polls just as well as AOC or Mamdani. You don't want a very enthusiastic politician because they will never be able to deliver in the end which leads to backlash against the party. You can't just look at trumpism in the short term, you have to look bigger picture, he could actually wind up effectively ending the republican party, he cannot deliver anything, he is going to make america shit very quickly like no one living has seen.

What we need is a sane democratic party to retain control long enough to pack the supreme court, then we need the socialists to break off into the other major party. We will continue this idiotic cycle with another Republican if we keep implementing policies before getting enough public support for them.

https://www.newsweek.com/maria-elvira-salazar-florida-congressional-poll-2108810

Democrat Edges Out Incumbent Florida Republican in New Poll

5 hours ago · Democrat Edges Out Incumbent Florida Republican in New Poll. Published Aug 04, 2025 at 5:39 PM EDT. By . Andrew Stanton is a Newsweek weekend reporter based in Maine

Why would progressives sit out the vote next time? Barely anyone voted third party in 2024 and Trump won, everyone knew what is happening now would happen if trump won, do you believe progressives were okay with that?

Progressives tax corporations, not small time farmers, conservatives tax small time farmers and not corporations. You only pay tax on profit. Taxing corporations, hurts corporations, it levels the playing field for family farms, progressives want to tax corporations almost out of existence.

There's always some wearing and backlash every term, and people take for granted the little economy healing that happens more under left-leaning policies in such an individualistic society that the propaganda media encourages, so they turn to the right again, but then reality bites. In both cases, Trump won against a woman, there's a factor of antifeminism that a lot of men buy, that was more clear in the 2016 one, but it was Hillary's fault, because she made it more about that, and Trump gladly did too. Hillary didn't integrate Bernie votes, Biden did. Biden didn't forgive the student loans in the end, he should have, he lost thousands of votes there. Then he supported Israel no question and lying to the face of everyone, saying he personally saw the 40 beheaded baby pictures that never existed and was called Genocide Joe. He also supported the war in Ukraine, liberals liked that, but not progressives. He could have taken a way out of that that liberals would have bought if he wanted to. Trump was ambiguous enough to sell that for his benefit too, although he is continuing Biden's path on both fronts in the end. Kamala represented a continuation of Biden, and she was a weak personality candidate on top of that. 

Hakeem Jeffries will never win anything, he's worse than Kamala, what a bland man, there's nothing genuine about him. He has made it to the top positions of the party by being a yes-man to its establishment, but there's no way he can appeal to the people to generate any real movement that winning an election requires. He should be put on the backside because he is not public figure material. He is a cryptonite to winning elections, just hear him speak. 

Kamala didn't appeal to enough people, she lost all the swing states, even if the third parties didn't get that much, it's clear she didn't either. Trump fooled a lot of people once more, many have regretted their vote already, and more will do, because he'll keep breaking the economy, as well as he already has. It's true he talked about the tariffs in his campaign, but people is not informed enough to understand how these policies will affect, which is negatively. Tax cuts for the corporations and billionaires so they multiply their hoarding, in expense of the real economy of the people, that will see some consequences in services like medicare and in job destruction. A lot of farmers already regret their vote, you see, some of the cuts of the food aid the US was providing to the third world was also what was sustaining US production, the food was going out, but the money was staying in the US farms. There has not been any saving anyway, it's all spent in the military industry and billionaire tax cuts as said. All the tariff wars, China knows it has an upper hand too, soy is one of the things they stopped buying from the US, instead they get it from Brazil, well done, Trump. Latinos for Trump are not happy either, they have a target in their back now, that will affect Florida votes, indeed. 

[Elliott]

5 hours ago, Hatfort said:

There's always some wearing and backlash every term, and people take for granted the little economy healing that happens more under left-leaning policies in such an individualistic society that the propaganda media encourages, so they turn to the right again, but then reality bites. In both cases, Trump won against a woman, there's a factor of antifeminism that a lot of men buy, that was more clear in the 2016 one, but it was Hillary's fault, because she made it more about that, and Trump gladly did too. Hillary didn't integrate Bernie votes, Biden did. Biden didn't forgive the student loans in the end, he should have, he lost thousands of votes there. Then he supported Israel no question and lying to the face of everyone, saying he personally saw the 40 beheaded baby pictures that never existed and was called Genocide Joe. He also supported the war in Ukraine, liberals liked that, but not progressives. He could have taken a way out of that that liberals would have bought if he wanted to. Trump was ambiguous enough to sell that for his benefit too, although he is continuing Biden's path on both fronts in the end. Kamala represented a continuation of Biden, and she was a weak personality candidate on top of that. 

Hakeem Jeffries will never win anything, he's worse than Kamala, what a bland man, there's nothing genuine about him. He has made it to the top positions of the party by being a yes-man to its establishment, but there's no way he can appeal to the people to generate any real movement that winning an election requires. He should be put on the backside because he is not public figure material. He is a cryptonite to winning elections, just hear him speak. 

Kamala didn't appeal to enough people, she lost all the swing states, even if the third parties didn't get that much, it's clear she didn't either. Trump fooled a lot of people once more, many have regretted their vote already, and more will do, because he'll keep breaking the economy, as well as he already has. It's true he talked about the tariffs in his campaign, but people is not informed enough to understand how these policies will affect, which is negatively. Tax cuts for the corporations and billionaires so they multiply their hoarding, in expense of the real economy of the people, that will see some consequences in services like medicare and in job destruction. A lot of farmers already regret their vote, you see, some of the cuts of the food aid the US was providing to the third world was also what was sustaining US production, the food was going out, but the money was staying in the US farms. There has not been any saving anyway, it's all spent in the military industry and billionaire tax cuts as said. All the tariff wars, China knows it has an upper hand too, soy is one of the things they stopped buying from the US, instead they get it from Brazil, well done, Trump. Latinos for Trump are not happy either, they have a target in their back now, that will affect Florida votes, indeed. 

And women running is progressive.

There is only backlash if enough people don't support the policies, there was not enough support for Obamacare, Snap and Medicaid expansion, student loan forgiveness, trans sports,..... People vote Republican for less government action, less progress, they don't consider who is the better or smarter candidate, they don't listen to the candidates, the parties are binary to them based on the issues.

We have a ton of progressive action right now, Obamacare, Medicaid expansion, environmentalism, trans rights, student loan forgiveness, open borders, taxes, ...... It's easy to paint a target that shows democrats mean higher prices, because they do, just for good reasons. The problem is, we're doing all these things already and then you have idiots like AOC shouting from the rooftops for free college, reparations, defund the police, nationalize healthcare,...... And they don't explain their positions, their only argument is "it's a right!" It's stupidity, lazy, I support the proposed changes, but the sales technique is as dumb as Trump's, so you get backlash just like Trump does from liberals. Items need to be addressed in a prioritized manner, one at a time, and THOROUGHLY explained to the public, you need to get the public on board before implementation, otherwise you get republicans.

 

Kamala only lost the entire election by a few thousand votes in two states. Hakeem polls just as good as AOC and Mamdani, I wasn't suggesting him for President, he's not running for president. Democrats have won Governor in RED states, Kentucky, Arizona, North Carolina,.... both senate seats in Georgia, Arizona, Virginia,.... democrats are doing great, progressive is inherently the underdog, change is always an uphill battle. 2024 had record inflation, it would be a hard race for anyone and Kamala almost won with 100 days to run.

https://apnews.com/article/student-loans-debt-cancellation-forgiveness-d213afe3ea69da3c6b9e713c7dc16a9a

Jan 13, 2025 · President Joe Biden has now overseen the cancellation of student loans for more than 5 million Americans

Edited 10 hours ago by Elliott

[Hatfort]

45 minutes ago, Elliott said:

And women running is progressive.

There is only backlash if enough people don't support the policies, there was not enough support for Obamacare, Snap and Medicaid expansion, student loan forgiveness, trans sports,..... People vote Republican for less government action, less progress, they don't consider who is the better or smarter candidate, they don't listen to the candidates, the parties are binary to them based on the issues.

We have a ton of progressive action right now, Obamacare, Medicaid expansion, environmentalism, trans rights, student loan forgiveness, open borders, taxes, ...... It's easy to paint a target that shows democrats mean higher prices, because they do, just for good reasons. The problem is, we're doing all these things already and then you have idiots like AOC shouting from the rooftops for free college, reparations, defund the police, nationalize healthcare,...... And they don't explain their positions, their only argument is "it's a right!" It's stupidity, lazy, I support the proposed changes, but the sales technique is as dumb as Trump's, so you get backlash just like Trump does from liberals. Items need to be addressed in a prioritized manner, one at a time, and THOROUGHLY explained to the public, you need to get the public on board before implementation, otherwise you get republicans.

Kamala only lost the entire election by a few thousand votes in two states. Hakeem polls just as good as AOC and Mamdani, I wasn't suggesting him for President, he's not running for president. Democrats have won Governor in RED states, Kentucky, Arizona, North Carolina,.... both senate seats in Georgia, Arizona, Virginia,.... democrats are doing great, progressive is inherently the underdog, change is always an uphill battle. 2024 had record inflation, it would be a hard race for anyone and Kamala almost won with 100 days to run.

https://apnews.com/article/student-loans-debt-cancellation-forgiveness-d213afe3ea69da3c6b9e713c7dc16a9a

Jan 13, 2025 · President Joe Biden has now overseen the cancellation of student loans for more than 5 million Americans

Women running is inevitable at this point in history. Hillary won her primaries, but Bernie was the progressive candidate. Kamala wasn't even chosen in primaries, but she was the VP when Biden showed his decline. Neither of these women were progressive in what matters, policy. Being a woman politician doesn't make you a progressive, look at Nikky Haley or MTG. You gotta see the content the figure provides, that's what matters. No progressive woman, gay, black or latino person rejected Bernie for being an old white straight man. 

There is support for many progressive policies, Medicare for all for instance, but you have the Democrat establishment fearmongering about it like it's some kind of monster for start, so progressives have to swim against the current, and finally they get tired or even drown. Why does the establishment do that, because they work for their donors instead of for the people they should, not to talk about the media, same bosses. You are making a mockery about some progressive figures and how they only campaign for something because it's right, and that's all their messaging, which is just not true. There are books written about M4A, how much cheaper it is and how doable. Obama implemented his halfass ObamaCare, things can get done once in power. Look, I'm not sure how much student loan relief Biden provided, but what I remember about that is that in the real moment he hesitated and let a legal loophole prevent it from happening. If he did something in January 2025, I didn't even hear from it, so there's a messaging failure there. Weren't the elections in November anyway? 

It's true progressives are the underdogs, so they have to concede more, and they do. But if the moderates pretend to win without them, they are not going to. Kamala didn't do a good job, you are trying to minimize a disastrous result. Fooling people like Obama did promising a change that never pretended to provide is going to work less and less. 

[Elliott]

1 hour ago, Hatfort said:

Women running is inevitable at this point in history. Hillary won her primaries, but Bernie was the progressive candidate. Kamala wasn't even chosen in primaries, but she was the VP when Biden showed his decline. Neither of these women were progressive in what matters, policy. Being a woman politician doesn't make you a progressive, look at Nikky Haley or MTG. You gotta see the content the figure provides, that's what matters. No progressive woman, gay, black or latino person rejected Bernie for being an old white straight man. 

There is support for many progressive policies, Medicare for all for instance, but you have the Democrat establishment fearmongering about it like it's some kind of monster for start, so progressives have to swim against the current, and finally they get tired or even drown. Why does the establishment do that, because they work for their donors instead of for the people they should, not to talk about the media, same bosses. You are making a mockery about some progressive figures and how they only campaign for something because it's right, and that's all their messaging, which is just not true. There are books written about M4A, how much cheaper it is and how doable. Obama implemented his halfass ObamaCare, things can get done once in power. Look, I'm not sure how much student loan relief Biden provided, but what I remember about that is that in the real moment he hesitated and let a legal loophole prevent it from happening. If he did something in January 2025, I didn't even hear from it, so there's a messaging failure there. Weren't the elections in November anyway? 

It's true progressives are the underdogs, so they have to concede more, and they do. But if the moderates pretend to win without them, they are not going to. Kamala didn't do a good job, you are trying to minimize a disastrous result. Fooling people like Obama did promising a change that never pretended to provide is going to work less and less. 

A woman running for president is progressive. It's progressive action, it takes up some of the available bandwidth for progressive action. Too many people are inundated and overwhelmed with too much stuff all at once, this causes a knee-jerk reaction toward 'nazism'. You have to look at all action currently proposed, the American voter has to process all of this and they don't understand most of it, so they vote out of fear for what they do know, the status quo.

Of course there is support for SOME progressive policies, the problem is the other policies. Medicare for all is a monumental task for implementation and would require a super majority in congress to be able to pass an effective system, look at how republicans just effectively repealed Medicaid for example, would you want Medicare for all and then 4 years later Republicans sabotage healthcare for 70% of Americans.

You think Obama wasn't progressive; the largest tax increase on the wealthy since the 50's, expanded medicaid and snap, Obamacare, home buyer credit, child tax credit, environmental policy? That's some socialist propaganda you're smoking. Sanders has been in office for 50 years and his only accomplishment is getting RID of medicaid, he isn't a progressive, he's a cartoon character, completely ineffective. Biden was dealing with the trump recession and covid, you have to deal with emergencies before you worry about some whiny suburban socialists wanting free college and universal basic income. You think medicare for all should have been a priority in 2020? That's crazy, the u,s, is in terrible financial position, the dollar is on brink of collapse. Socialists have lost us Medicaid, SNAP funding, USAID, school funding, and environmental protections: but hey, 'suburban baristas and amazon workers really need to be able to buy new cars!!', strawmanning of course, but this is what socialists look like to most people.


https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/mood_of_america_archive/generic_congressional_ballot/democrats_expand_lead_in_2026_congressional_forecast
Jul 22, 2025 · The next midterm elections are still more than a year away, but the Democratic Party has widened its lead over Republicans in the battle to control the House 

Edited 8 hours ago by Elliott

[Hatfort]

26 minutes ago, Elliott said:

A woman running for president is progressive. It's progressive action, it takes up some of the available bandwidth for progressive action. Too many people are inundated and overwhelmed with too much stuff all at once, this causes a knee-jerk reaction toward 'nazism'. You have to look at all action currently proposed, the American voter has to process all of this and they don't understand most of it, so they vote out of fear for what they do know, the status quo.

Of course there is support for SOME progressive policies, the problem is the other policies. Medicare for all is a monumental task for implementation and would require a super majority in congress to be able to pass an effective system, look at how republicans just effectively repealed Medicaid for example, would you want Medicare for all and then 4 years later Republicans sabotage healthcare for 70% of Americans.

You think Obama wasn't progressive; the largest tax increase on the wealthy since the 50's, expanded medicaid and snap, Obamacare, home buyer credit, child tax credit, environmental policy? That's some retarded socialist propaganda you're smoking. Sanders has been in office for 50 years and his only accomplishment is getting RID of medicaid, he isn't a progressive, he's a cartoon character, completely ineffective. Biden was dealing with the trump recession and covid, you have to deal with emergencies before you worry about some whiny suburban socialists wanting free college and universal basic income. You think medicare for all should have been a priority in 2020? That's crazy, the u,s, is in terrible financial position, the dollar is on brink of collapse.

https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/archive/mood_of_america_archive/generic_congressional_ballot/democrats_expand_lead_in_2026_congressional_forecast
Jul 22, 2025 · The next midterm elections are still more than a year away, but the Democratic Party has widened its lead over Republicans in the battle to control the House 

That's a very superficial way of seeing this matter you have. If the person is not progressive, no matter what gender it is, it's not progressive. MTG is a woman and is not progressive. You gotta see what they run for, that's basic. 

Sanders was in politics for 50 years, indeed. But with very limited power, that's not being ineffective. He did what he could, advocating for the working class and denouncing the billionaire corporations and inequality. Obvioulsy it's another case of swimming against the current in his country's general politics, his own party's and not to speak about the media. Sometimes you plant the seeds, but the trees have to grow, that's what he did. He was too early, and it was too late for him when he got some success. If he had had the Democratic Party rowing with him in 2016, he would have won against Trump. When the Democratic Party puts its machinery to work for more progressive outcomes with charismatic, genuine candidates, people are going to respond, and push them to victory. 

It's true you some policies like M4A would face objection from the establishment and different insurance or drug companies, nobody said it would be easy, but you still fight and push. If you don't, you certainly won't get anything done. Well, I'm more progressive than what Obama showed to be, but there's indeed a limit on what he could achieve, so I'm not going to completely reject him either. Trump is destroying the economy, and has still stupid fools applauding him. If it wasn't an important matter, it would be even funny.

The problem is Democrat presidents seem to go one step forward, while Republicans make two backwards. Inecuality is not being reduced if we count the last four decades, it's going up, so whatever the Democrats are doing when they are in power, is not enough. The table is getting more and more to the right, and it's not progressives' fault.

[Elliott]

8 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

That's a very superficial way of seeing this matter you have. If the person is not progressive, no matter what gender it is, it's not progressive. MTG is a woman and is not progressive. You gotta see what they run for, that's basic. 

Sanders was in politics for 50 years, indeed. But with very limited power, that's not being ineffective. He did what he could, advocating for the working class and denouncing the billionaire corporations and inequality. Obvioulsy it's another case of swimming against the current in his country's general politics, his own party's and not to speak about the media. Sometimes you plant the seeds, but the trees have to grow, that's what he did. He was too early, and it was too late for him when he got some success. If he had had the Democratic Party rowing with him in 2016, he would have won against Trump. When the Democratic Party puts its machinery to work for more progressive outcomes with charismatic, genuine candidates, people are going to respond, and push them to victory. 

It's true you some policies like M4A would face objection from the establishment and different insurance or drug companies, nobody said it would be easy, but you still fight and push. If you don't, you certainly won't get anything done. Well, I'm more progressive than what Obama showed to be, but there's indeed a limit on what he could achieve, so I'm not going to completely reject him either. Trump is destroying the economy, and has still stupid fools applauding him. If it wasn't an important matter, it would be even funny.

The problem is Democrat presidents seem to go one step forward, while Republicans make two backwards. Inecuality is not being reduced if we count the last four decades, it's going up, so whatever the Democrats are doing when they are in power, is not enough. The table is getting more and more to the right, and it's not progressives' fault.

No you don't, you should consider the common voter, is a woman running for president "woke" to them?


You should not fight for policy, you should educate the public to the point they agree with you, policy change should be from a consensus. It's lazy to just want to push new policy through, progress requires outreach and educating.

"Inequality" you have to stop thinking like the world is zero sum gain, rich getting richer does not mean the poor are not doing better. The democrats do progressive policy when in power. The world has REDUCED inequality due to democrats, globally, the people have gained in equality, again you're cherry picking a selective snapshot, and what's funny is that it is a snapshot of suburbanites in America, as a 'socialist' you're supposedly supposed to care about all people.

[Hatfort]

3 minutes ago, Elliott said:

No you don't, you should consider the common voter, is a woman running for president "woke" to them?

You should not fight for policy, you should educate the public to the point they agree with you, policy change should be from a consensus. It's lazy to just want to push new policy through, progress requires outreach and educating.

"Inequality" you have to stop thinking like the world is zero sum gain, rich getting richer does not mean the poor are not doing better. The democrats do progressive policy when in power. The world has REDUCED inequality due to democrats, globally, the people have gained in equality, again you're cherry picking a selective snapshot, and what's funny is that it is a snapshot of suburbanites in America, as a 'socialist' you're supposedly supposed to care about all people.

Most who would say that would be on the Republican side anyway, so that's a them problem. Neither Hillary nor Kamala were good candidates for different reasons. Neither of them, got the progressives on their boat. You need that to win, no matter your gender or race. Obama had it, Biden to a less degree, he kept Bernie closer instead of ostracizing him. If you get the progressive base and media enthusiastically pushing for you, you win as a Democrat, if you alienate them and have them demotivated, Republicans win, even if they get less votes than what they did before. 

It's a bit like MAGA base with the Republicans, they provide the enthusiasm dose needed in elections the very least. Then moderates move their asses too. The difference is progressive policies are good for the economy, unlike MAGA ones which are practically a scam, like Trump's big beautiful bill, like he calls it. It's a big ugly bill, Americans will pay the price. 

[Elliott]

56 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

Most who would say that would be on the Republican side anyway, so that's a them problem. Neither Hillary nor Kamala were good candidates for different reasons. Neither of them, got the progressives on their boat. You need that to win, no matter your gender or race.

You have to quit thinking about voters as two different nations, they're American voters, how did Biden win in 2020 then? 1/3 of voters are swing voters, between democrats and republicans by the way, not socialists.

Quote

Obama had it, Biden to a less degree, he kept Bernie closer instead of ostracizing him. If you get the progressive base and media enthusiastically pushing for you, you win as a Democrat, if you alienate them and have them demotivated, Republicans win, even if they get less votes than what they did before. 

Biden won over progressives, that's why he won? LMAO,  the 90 year old white career senator, that said he would veto medicare for all? But Harris wasn't progressive enough, the candidate that is open to Medicare for all and occasionally pushes for it? Biden was so enthusiastic, huh?

Quote

It's a bit like MAGA base with the Republicans, they provide the enthusiasm dose needed in elections the very least. Then moderates move their asses too. The difference is progressive policies are good for the economy, unlike MAGA ones which are practically a scam, like Trump's big beautiful bill, like he calls it. It's a big ugly bill, Americans will pay the price. 

Liberal policies are good for the economy. Medicare for all, free college, 'Stop Oil', cutoff Israel, universal basic income, reparations, DEI are bad for the economy. The economy is not what's most important though, and we have to admit some progressive policies will hurt the economy because they are better for the people.

 

Biden got the most votes ever by the way. Old white, out of touch Biden. Too much energy apparently, lol, oozing with enthusiasm.

Edited 6 hours ago by Elliott

[Elliott]

You think Bernie has done something in 50 years, let me prove to you very easily that he hasn't, why hasn't he built up the socialist party, why doesn't he build the socialist party every 4 years by running an enthusiastic Socialist primary? Why doesn't he support smaller socialists to run and build the party, the position of mayor in nyc is not a small position by the way. By your assessment of reality it should be extremely easy given everyone wants bernies policies and no one likes democrats.

 

Just because socialists haven't been in power doesn't mean they couldn't do anything, they haven't built their party, at all, haven't even tried.

Before you go on about splitting the left, that doesn't apply to state and local positions, it would make no difference to split the vote in many areas. You can build a socialist party, but just like socialist policies and public outreach, they're lazy as fuck.

Edited 6 hours ago by Elliott

[Hatfort]

1 hour ago, Elliott said:

You think Bernie has done something in 50 years, let me prove to you very easily that he hasn't, why hasn't he built up the socialist party, why doesn't he build the socialist party every 4 years by running an enthusiastic Socialist primary? Why doesn't he support smaller socialists to run and build the party, the position of mayor in nyc is not a small position by the way. By your assessment of reality it should be extremely easy given everyone wants bernies policies and no one likes democrats.

Just because socialists haven't been in power doesn't mean they couldn't do anything, they haven't built their party, at all, haven't even tried.

Before you go on about splitting the left, that doesn't apply to state and local positions, it would make no difference to split the vote in many areas. You can build a socialist party, but just like socialist policies and public outreach, they're lazy as fuck.

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.