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

[Elliott]

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 8 hours ago by Elliott

[Elliott]

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.

[Hatfort]

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. 

[Elliott]

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 6 hours ago by Elliott

[carterfelder]

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

[aurum]

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.

[Hatfort]

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.