• @kreskin
    link
    281 month ago

    the party is hopelesslty corrupted and wont even acknowledge why they lost. Its time to dump the dems and build up a progressive party.

    • @sfunk1x
      link
      13
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      That would be after FPTP voting is replaced with RCV or STAR in all 50 states. Trying a third party before those steps will hand the federal government to the GOP for the remainder of my life.

      • Cowbee [he/they]
        link
        fedilink
        31 month ago

        I don’t think RCV or STAR is either enough to disrupt the status quo with a third party nor feasible enough to get in place.

        • @sfunk1x
          link
          11 month ago

          Then we’re stuck with semi permanent GOP control, then.

          • Cowbee [he/they]
            link
            fedilink
            -11 month ago

            I doubt it, the DNC will likely run a faux-progressive campaign next election and perhaps win. However, the answer has always been revolution.

            • @sfunk1x
              link
              1
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              I’m talking less about the executive branch than I am the legislative branch. Congress has been firmly in conservative control for over 30 years (I’m old enough to remember third way Democrats, Reagan Democrats and the moral majority), and without a change to FPTP voting, we’re going to be stuck with it veering further to the right.

      • @Ensign_Crab
        link
        English
        1
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        That would be after FPTP voting is replaced with RCV or STAR in all 50 states.

        If we ever get that, there will be a new “that would be after” to replace it. If Democrats want to stop Republicans and are so worried about splitting the vote, maybe Democrats should abstain from running.

        They’re clearly not up to the task and would rather appease fascists here and abroad.

        • @sfunk1x
          link
          21 month ago

          Not really. What you’re asking for is for some unknown third party (like the Pacific Greens 😂😂😂) to pop up into place and immediately take the national reigns like a boss. That ain’t happening, bruv, otherwise it already would have. Ditching FPTP at least gives the average voter the opportunity to vote for different people (like Sanders not having to caucus with Democrats, or Working Families Party not having to caucus with Democrats, etc).

          Or you can sit back and vote third party in a defacto two party system. It’s worked well so far. 🤷🤷‍♀️🤷‍♂️

          • @Ensign_Crab
            link
            English
            11 month ago

            Ditching FPTP at least gives the average voter the opportunity to vote for different people

            And it only requires having people who are willing to pass it in office. Which isn’t ever going to happen. Which means it’s a great prerequisite that needs to be met before something you don’t want to happen.

            • @sfunk1x
              link
              21 month ago

              Perhaps in your state, but in Oregon, we can bring initiatives to the ballot through voter signatures. It’s how we got RCV in Multnomah county, and it’s how the (failed) Measure 117 landed on our ballot this year. Sadly, it was badly written and Oregon voters are gunshy after the (also horribly written and implemented) Measure 110 (narcotics decriminalization) got onto the ballot.

              • @Ensign_Crab
                link
                English
                2
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                Perhaps in your state,

                Yeah. No real referendums in my state. So naturally we’ll need it in all 50 before we consider changing the sweetheart deal centrist Democrats and their Republican buddies have.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      101 month ago

      Absolutely this.

      How many times are we gonna be Charlie Brown trying to kick the football before Lucy pulls the ball away?

      This party isn’t here for us. They do not represent our best interests. They simply care about the ruling class/ultra wealthy.

      They have purposely not followed through on their campaign promises so many times. Time to dump them.

      DNC isn’t getting my vote anymore. Time for a new party.

      • @DarkFuture
        link
        English
        01 month ago

        That’s all well and good, if you want to lose elections for the foreseeable future.

        Because it takes a long, long time to build up a new party and have it actually win federal elections.

        By then we won’t have elections anymore.

    • JaggedRobotPubes
      link
      English
      11 month ago

      Https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo

      This video shows why that may well likely have to be done within the democratic party itself. The information in that video is of central importance to a plan like to get progressivism on its feet.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -61 month ago

      I love how splitting the vote cost them a few seats, and your plan is to split the vote.

      • @Hawke
        link
        41 month ago

        That’s not necessarily the way to “build a progressive party”.

        On the right-wing side think of how MAGA has overshadowed “Republican”, eating it from the inside.

        • @samus12345
          link
          English
          21 month ago

          Hating people is easy. Caring about them is (apparently) hard. Quicker, easier, more seductive is MAGA compared to being progressive.

          • @Hawke
            link
            31 month ago

            Totally, but MAGA took decades to sprout from a Tea Party seed, or further back even.

            • @CharlesDarwin
              link
              English
              21 month ago

              I still call them teabaggers, or more appropriately, TeaBirchers, since what is now branded “MAGA” (eyeroll), and for a brief period of time called “teabaggers” [1], is the same warmed-over shit from the Birchers, basically.

              [1] Though they scream and lie about it now, they called themselves teabaggers. Some of them did not know about the sexual term, but I’m sure some did, and hoped to use it as a way they were going to be sexually dominating others and then laughing about it later. Once Maddow and others started openly mocking them for it, they figured it might not work out like they thought and then pretended the MEAN LIBERALS are the ones that called them this. I kept getting banned from Denver Post forums for calling them by their original name, because they had teabagging moderators.