I just read that one of the Democrats said none of that is true and there was no deal

I think you may have just read my quote and not the article< or there’s a misunderstanding here.

What exactly do you mean “none of that is true”?

The quote doesn’t say there was a deal, just that a vote was taken…

“I will say that a vote was taken,” Wild said. “As many of you know, this committee is evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans — five Dems, five Republicans — which means that in order to affirmatively move something forward, somebody has to cross party lines and vote with the other side — which happens a lot, by the way, and we often vote unanimously.”

If you’re wondering who these politicians are that agree across party lines on ethical issues:

Republicans

Chairman Michael Guest, Mississippi

David P. Joyce, Ohio

John H. Rutherford, Florida

Andrew R. Garbarino, New York

Michelle Fischbach, Minnesota

Democrats

Ranking Member Susan Wild, Pennsylvania

Veronica Escobar, Texas

Mark DeSaulnier, California

Deborah K. Ross, North Carolina

Glenn F. Ivey, Maryland

For some reason I just got a shit ton of notifications all from your account…

All with just a period.

What are you doing?

Is this intentional and you’re fucking with people?

What?!

The 80s were fucked, but if you’re saying it was worse than the response to the Civil Rights movement…

McCarthyism…

Jim Crow…

Or the KKK destroying reconstruction…

Like, I could see saying that last one was the point, only if you start the clock immediately after resolving the civil war. Cause obviously a Civil War is what really happens after a point of no return. We lasted a couple years in between the two points.

For as fucked as the last 40 years has been, as far as America goes we’re beating the average on basic human decency.

What’s happening now isn’t new, it’s a slip backwards, which is unfortunately common when you try to fight fascism with moderate politics. It works for a little bit because they’re coasting off the last people who really fought. But all moderate politcs really are, is giving fascist time to regroup in the shadows like fucking Sauron.

It’s a cycle, and we live in a time when you can learn pretty much anything about history in a few minutes on Wikipedia

America can not afford for voters to stay ignorant. We need people who know what happened last time, what worked then, and what might work again. Stop acting like we live in unprecedented times, and start reading up on how fascism has been defeated historically.

Cuz we’re up, like it or not shits getting real again. And the more people know what we’re doing then better.

Well, let’s see what Chuck Schumer probably thinks…

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary?cycle=All&ind=Q05&recipdetail=S

Number 7 on one of the few bipartisan lists in DC, nestled right between hos buddies Mitch McTurtle and Rafael “Ted” Cruz…

One of the few areas Biden is really head and shoulders above the rest though.

But Israel pays way too much money to both parties for either party’s leaders to actually do what’s best for America.

They’re gonna do what’s best for their campaign donations.

Edit:

Since some people may be surprised number 2 doesn’t sound familiar, it’s this guy:

https://apnews.com/article/bob-menendez-new-jersey-senate-resignation-9941e49020a032da3861f5f5cf118ec2

One of the most corrupt Dems to ever be held accountable (technically the trial is still happening).

He was Hillary’s co-campaign chair in 07 when she lost to Obama, and then Obama made him chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for some fucking reason. He was indicted shortly after in 2018, but charges were then dropped for 5 years till 2023 when he was committing crimes and accepting bribes from foreign government with a legitimately trumpian level of skill at hiding his crimes.

Like, at one point I remember him trying to argue that storing gold bars inside of the suits in his closet was a totally normal thing and not related to him googling how to smuggle gold bars into America while he was in Qatar and just accepted gold bars as bribe…

“following politics” is not the same as “voter engagement”.

Someone that never pays attention but votes R every two years like clockwork for example.

They’d be “do not follow closely” on that, but if they 60 years old and voted R every election since they’re were 18…

How exactly are they “politically disengaged”?

They’re still voting, just not paying attention.

Like, there are loads of over things we’re going to have to clear up for you to understand, but getting that difference is step 1.

If you understand this mistake, we can probably move forward and cover other stuff. But if you don’t get this comment, nothing past it is going to be productive.

A lot of this is coming from the horrible headline that co flates the two, and is outright false.

So far trump has the most votes, he literally won with the politically engaged, because those are the people who voted.

Article takes it further.

It’s not egg before chicken

It’s egg before multicellular life.

Which is groundbreaking and is pretty shocking.

This just seems like another example of a great scientific article, that just had a random clickbait headline thrown on it by the editor or maybe some intern to generate clicks.

The irony that you can’t see she’s saying the same thing I am is too much bub

If you really think me and her are disagreeing, then me repeatedly explaining this won’t help anyone

My advice would be asking someone else for assistance, maybe how I’m explaining it is the problem. But I don’t think it is.

Edit:

So no one else has to click on a twitter link:

I’m afraid that you’re organizing people into a burning house. The Democratic Party has demonstrated that it would rather have Republicans win than to disappoint its donor class & actually embrace the policies that would make the material improvements to those people’s lives that you’re talking about. There’s a reason why Kamala Harris would not support an arms embargo. She took more money from Raytheon than even Donald Trump did. She’s a part of an administration where the secretary of Defense was a Raytheon board member. These are material realities that are constraining the politics of the Democratic Party, & no nice lady coming along or nice man coming along who loves his grandkids & eats an ice cream cone, & put sunshades on and hangs out with Barack Obama can change that reality."

When election day rolled around, she still did the same as me:

Advocating for mitigating damage when that was the only other option.

When talking about next election, she says we need a better candidate. Same thing I’ve been saying.

Like, I understand that we agree, but trying to get you to understand that has been insanely frustrating

…

How are you using exit polls to find out about why non-voters didn’t vote?

Did everyone say they were politically engaged as they were leaving a polling location?

Or are you using logic to determine everyone that just voted was politically engaged, and those who didn’t are politically disengaged?

Cuz like, yeah, obviously that’s true…

But what matters is why they’re politically disengaged and how we can get the to engage again.

A very very easy way, would be to make sure the next candidate agrees with Dem voters more than Republican voters.

Right.

But one thing we should also know is that running a bad candidate who is better than the only other option isn’t enough to decisively beat even the worst possible Republican.

Voters should have all voted for Kamala even though they didn’t want her to be president due to her policies. That would have mitigated the damage.

They didn’t do it in 2016 either, and Biden only squeaked thru because Trump was actively in office and Bernie stayed till the end to pull Biden left. If either of those didn’t happen, the strategy would be 0 out of 3.

It’s clearly not an effective strategy compared to running a candidate who already agrees with Dem voters

So rather than stomp our feet and being mad at the people we need in 2028, maybe spend the next four years bringing them back into the fold and running a candidate that people actually want to win the election?

Like, we’ve tried stomping our feet for 8 years now since Hillary, do you think any of that has helped?

Because to me, it looks like all it accomplishes is increasing donations from people who want Dems to lose, and turning dlteliable Dem voters into non-votets.

Stop worrying about if you’re right.

Start worrying about what can win 2028, and if that will actually translate to fixing shit

For some reason all the headlines about this seem to be about what the DNC or the Harris campaign should have done.

Wait…

You’re surprised people are blaming the candidate that lost and her campaign team that was paid millions of dollars and spent over a billion and still couldn’t beat trump?

Why?

What is the logic where the people whose literal job was to win the election, aren’t at fault for losing the election?

And I’m scared to even ask, but:

Since you think they’re blameless, does that mean you really want us to do the same shit in four years again and hope this time screaming at people will be effective?

Cuz buddy, it’s never been effective at anything besides letting some shitty republican into the Oval

Every time I see these posts “dunking” on Elon on Twitter…

I just can’t help but think if everyone who disagreed with him just left, him and his supporters would just turn on each other.

The only reason they’re there is to argue, no matter who else is there, they’re gonna argue.

Reasonable people being there just give them someone to unite against.

Don’t give them the common enemy, and they’ll fight each other, and be less unified for the next election.

Anyone still spending time on twitter (regardless of their personal politics) is just helping trump.

No, neoliberals and Republicans working together to destroy campaign fundraising regulations is what led us down this path.

The wealthy just buy both parties now in the primary so they don’t have to even worry about the general.

Not holding our noses and voting for the least worse option just means the Republican wins the general. That won’t make the DNC change the type of candidate they run, they’d rather lose to a Republican and keep their positions at the DNC.

So we try to fix things in the primary by getting a progressive.

If we cant then in the general, we still vote D to mitigate the amount of damage.

Like, that’s not just what I do, it’s what literally every progressive I know in real life has been doing for decades now.

What have you been doing if not that?

Maybe with the people you spend time with.

But lots of people are putting work in, all over the country.

Just don’t expect to hear about it from the party, or any of the big media organizations owned by billionaires for the express purpose of maintaining the status quo so they can keep their ill gotten wealth.

Quick edit:

Not sure why you’re talking about the 60s like everyone was hippies…

The majority of the population back then was fighting school busing like Biden was to preserve segregation, or the ones screaming insults and throwing rocks at children for going to the school they were told to attend.

Like, it’s important to understand the present, but you can’t do that when you’re obviously confused about the past…

We have that…

Like, you don’t need to convince voters that shit is broken, everyone is well aware shit is broken.

There’s just not an option that will honestly try to fix the root problem fucking everything up:

Wealth Inequality

When both parties are pro-corps and anti-worker…

The problem isn’t growing a movement of voters, it’s finding a way to get a candidate past the primary so they can win the general.

Every election there’s two fights:

1. Fight the DNC moderates in the primary

2. Fight the Republicans and the DNC moderates in the general

If we don’t win the first one, there’s a very strong chance the candidate who makes it to the general won’t be able to beat the Republican in the general. Because they’re not what the politically disengaged want.

The good news tho is that there is very very few voters who would even want to pull another PUMA and vote R in the general if a progressive makes it. Some will 100% try it. And the media will shit their pants trying to convince us it won’t work.

But it can still work just as well today as it did 16 years ago when they voted R instead of for a Black guy with a progressive campaign.

There’s very few neoliberal voters, it’s just the people running the party pretend that’s the base.

When push comes to shove every democrat falls in line for the center right candidate.

“Democrats” aren’t enough to win. We need the people who normally aren’t engaged, and the most common reason they give is "both parties only care about the rich’.

Dems continually moving to the right just depresses turnout and allows Republicans to win

Including the ‘progressives’.

Buddy, progressives hold their noses and show up to vote for the least worse option. Personally I’ve been doing it for decades.

Progressives aren’t the problem, they’re some of the most politically engaged people in America.

They just get blamed by the neo liberals everytime a neoliberal loses.

Because:

We need the people who normally aren’t engaged, and the most common reason they give is "both parties only care about the rich’.

Dems continually moving to the right just depresses turnout and allows Republicans to win

If the DNC wants wins elections, they need to start giving Dem voters what they want, not aiming for “slightly more than trump would do”.

Doesn’t matter that they should still vote D, the politically disengaged won’t vote unless they want the candidate to win or the incumbent out of office.

When a moderate Dem is in office, that means Republicans win the election

It’s very very important we finally learn this lesson. So I’m willing to put some time in to help you understand, even if it’s incredibly frustrating explaining this for the millionth time.

I’m willing to put the time in help.

…

That’s how progress works…

When someone is talking about a progressive from literally 80 fucking years ago, hopefully there’s some stuff they did almost a century ago that modern society finds distasteful

If there isn’t, that likely just means society hasn’t made any progress in the almost century that’s gone by.

I truly hope that makes sense, if not please let me know what’s still causing confusion. This is an important point that comes up regularly, so I’m willing to put some time in to clear this up for you

We don’t need a new party.

We need to get the neo liberals out of leadership positions at the DNC.

We’re the party of FDR, not billionaires and fossil fuel corporations.

Never forget the blame for trump ever becoming president in the first place was the DNC let Hillary take over while the primaries were still happening in 2015.

Her campaign literally had approval for anything the DNC said or did.

Shoving neo liberals down America’s throats is just letting Republicans win. But the people running the party care more about keeping wealthy donors happy than winning elections.

We can’t keep going down this path.

Good to see in the run up to what the Dems said would be the end of democracy in America, Biden’s priorities are…

Giving billions to a foreign corporation?