“Its everyone else’s fault but my own that I chose the misogynistic racist.”

It wouldn’t have mattered what the dems did. Trump offered the most concessions to the ultra wealthy. Just like when the Democrats win, thats what decides it.

I wish you the very best of luck. The main issues you’ll have will be, in order: funding, funding and funding.

Anyone being serious about this will have to spend most of their time thinking about that. Its why they always, eventually, end up being g captured by the powers that be. But they can do a lot of good before then, in the right circumstances.

One solution is through part of the party being a sort of union of trade unions. Unions have money, similar values and members who would potentially join. Membership subs would be another. They can do an awful lot of good but unions can also come with their own long list of problems you’ll have to keep your eye on.

Whatever name you choose, check out the formation of political labour movements, as a kind of road map to building what you want. An example would be the labour party in the UK or NZ. It’ll have to be done your way and for an American electorate of course but im sure you won’t need any inspiration from me or any other country for that part.

Then this would be the first time in modern American history that this has happened. If so, then thats a huge thing and most likely, it’ll be the social media owners now being more disproportionally ppowerful. That would be more in line with everything that’s happened before.

Youre also relying on accurate self reporting from musk, the republicans and trump there.

I’m basing what I’ve said on whats happened before. Election spending won’t be reliably verifiable this quickly.

On the contrary, they’re more important now than they’ve ever been. There also hasn’t been an election where the highest spender didn’t win. Its THE determining factor.

The same people who fund presidential campaigns for Republicans also spend lots of money on influencing democratic nominee choices. The whole things been captured.

Its like you all can’t see the woods for the trees, in the politest way possible. You see the state of trump and all the things that make him an aweful candidate and you say “how could the dems not beat that” instead of “what on earth could exert so much influence that even being that terrible couldn’t stop him?”

There’s no amount of “the dems not having a strong enough message” that overcomes the divide in the candidates, without huge influence. Their campaign wasn’t great but no where close enough to lose to someone like trump, in a fair fight. It would’ve had to have been utterly shocking from start to finish and, as bad as it was, it wasn’t that bad.

In capitalist America, Ambulance chases you.

I don’t think you’re allowed to burn boy scouts.

Imo, you’ve got all the prices. However, I would put them in a different order.

Short answer: Republican or Democrat, the candidate that spends the most wins. Therefore, fund raising is winning.

There’s a small group of king-makers in the US and the candidate who offers them the most becomes president. Recently, the people who decide who gets to be president has started to include social media companies and amazon, who hosts half the Internet. Trump also cozied up to the American owner of the company the owns tiktok. Thats how he won. Trumps also great for social media engagement and news channel views.

Even candidates who happen to be better than the republican candidate, no democratic hopeful worth being of “the left” will ever be given enough money to become the president of America. Even if they started from a position that would appeal to them, they would have to compromise on everything that made them that in order to be allowed anywhere near the Whitehouse by the American ultra wealthy.

What you’re seeing isn’t the failure of the Democrats to correctly triangulate but the strength of the American ultra wealthy consent manufacturing machine.

I think that’s certainly part of it. Imo, it’s a few things more also, not that you said it wasn’t anything else too:

Included in what you said, voter suppression. People being bombarded into apathy, has really kicked up a notch. Its identifying who’s susceptible and spamming them like mad with things the data you have on them says will work specifically.

There’s a real core of people in every country thats incredibly easy to wind up with emotive narratives that have enough truthyness to override what might otherwise be sound critical judgment skills.

America’s real problem is that the direct line to those people and their data is owned by a very small group of very wealthy people. On top of that, you have interference from a country that seems to some how be even better than America at foreign election interference and they’re very pro trump.

That’s before you get to the Democrats who, even if they were or weren’t any good, have to sell their soul to the highest bidder just to come close to Republican election spending. The side who spends the most is always the side who wins and a democrat will only ever be given enough money to win if they compromise to an extent that they’re, right or wrong, not different enough for a lot of Americans.

My country’s greatest export is class subjugation. America’s is the manufacture of consent. America was amazing at it even before social media etc. which would be a dictators dream. Now, I’m not saying the people with all the power are as bad as bad as stalin or anything like that. But, with something like that at your disposal, you wouldn’t have to be.

TLDR: America is the ever evolving blueprint to how consent will be manufactured around the world.

You seem like someone who would ask “why should I vote for better oppression?” without a hint of irony.

Still, it’s good to see that you’ll be alright, either way. That’s good to know, at least. I’m glad you won’t be effected by any of this.

Next they’ll be wanting jobs, to own property and to wear trousers too!

I have nothing to hide. I also have nothing I want to show people either

In the history of politics

They do realise that there were political ads during the suffragette movement, right?

You would have to define how you’re using “have to” here. I mean, I wouldn’t try to come and attack you for neither agreeing not disagreeing with a subject you still managed to have such strong a need to inject in.

Partly because you might be bigger than me but mostly because I generally only see doing that as soemthing I strongly frown upon, in even the most severe of cases. I’m not particularly keen on forcing people to do anything, in fact.

Really, though only you can answer that question.

I’m glad we agree that our lives are probably better now than they for the people who literally had to live in caves, thousands of years ago, though. Thank you for including that important point.

Work has never been so unstressful, if you look back at the history of mankind.

I agree that it was even worse before. Although, I’m a little puzzled as to what point is being made. Are you agreeing with me or not? I can’t tell.

Industrialization killed workers with 60 hour shifts in unsafe environments. Middle ages made you work 18 hours a day once you were 7 and made you starve if the harvest was bad. In the stone age your family died from hunger after you got killed on the hunt.

Life expectancy was never as high as today.

Looking back at what I wrote, what point is all this agreeing with or refuting?

To me, it seems like you’re arguing that the passage of time is a good thing. I don’t remember saying that the passage of time wasn’t good.

I know what you mean, when I put to nazis and bigots, through various civil discourses, the most agreeable and cordial justifications for their systematic capture and extermination or deportation, to my great surprise, they never acquiesce to any form of intellectual exchange, regarding the legitimate concerns I raise.

Its the most bizzare thing because, just previously, they’d been more than happy to declare thus and so the most polite and reasonable argumentations supporting the very same thing for other people. More so, they many were lamenting how unfair it was for them to be denied the opportunity to pontificate on such matters, just a short time previously.

I’m sure you can only imagine my surprise when they did this, after their claims of wanting nothing more than “civil discourse.”

Honey covered iron fists

Lol, Republicans tried this before under bush, right about the time his brother was running for reelection in florida. Bush whacked huge tariffs on a number of things coming into the US from the EU

The EU “florida hey? Nice oranges you guys have out there. Wouldn’t it be a shame if someone was to, oh I dunno, put astronomical tarrifs on those delicious oranges, right in the run up to the florida governor election?”

It cut to the heart of the cronyism in the US political system. Not that anyone else has less or more. We all have it to one extent or another. Its just, imagine if it was your country’s exact flavour of it laid bare and made public like that.

The Republicans were very embarrassed have hated the EU ever since.

Who knows, maybe this time it’ll work.

Its sad how western colonial imperialists will try describe ethnic cleansing as a good or necessary thing.

As I suggested, the idea is and always has been to force palestinians out from Palestine, so they can be denied the right to ever return to thier homeland

In the exact way Israel has done to thousands of palestinians before and were all supposed to pretend we can’t see exactly what we’re looking at.

Also, “war” implies either side could win. This isn’t a war, its ethnic cleansing, for the express purpose of illegally colonising stolen land.

Are you trying to tell me that the spirit of capitalism won’t return to us, dressed in the splendor of new technology, to absolve us of our past planetary transgressions, and take us to a new, perfect place amongst the stars where we will live in profit and harmony for ever?

Well, thats the second time I’ve fallen for that story…

I don’t remember saying that skill shortages don’t exist.