this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2026
127 points (100.0% liked)
World News
39330 readers
435 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This logic will elect Republicans again and they will make the situation worse. There is no option where this stops unless we keep voting in progressives like we did in New York and New Jersey.
If it didn't matter AIPAC wouldn't be pouring money into candidates, an example like think of is the 9th district of Illinois where Kat Abughazaleh discovered that one of the PACS sponsoring their opponents was a shell for AIPAC
All I hear is 'most important election of our lifetime.'
Voting for the people that's helped enable our current situation is never the solution.
Voting for conservatives (and institution Democrats) caused the current situation.
Yeah no shit, that's why people don't want to vote for institutional Democrats.
Yeah.. That's what I said, vote for progressives
No, what you implied is that people should vote for Democrats no matter what and just hope they happen to be progressive. You said the logic of voting third party led to the current administration, completely ignoring everything the democrats did to sabotage themselves and intentionally avoid providing a progressive candidate.
Where exactly did I imply that? I brought up AIPAC sponsoring particular candidates and pitched a progressive.
Yeah it was the other part of that comment that you conveniently didn't quote.. the whole fucking first half....
This part where I say
On a side note, dude, why do you have to be so mean about it. I'm a human being.
I'm sorry I didn't mean to say anything mean? What was it in particular that you found mean because im pretty neurodivergent.
You didn't say anything mean, they're being deliberately disingenuous
They are all conservative right wing
Which is why the wing of the party that capitulates to republicans keeps doing it.
Democrats in safe seats capitulate and deserve all the criticism they get but not all Democrats want the stairs quo. Minnesota just passed a wealth tax that they have been using to find better public education and free school lunches. New York Mayor Mamdani has been doing amazing things and New Jersey just elected a progressive.
Positive change is possible we just need more progressives.
Sorry, in a conversation about mass incineration of civilians as part of a mass genocide, you're talking about school lunches? Could you, for one single second, just pretend you think Palestinians are human.
People like you focus on the 1-2 progressive people and put them on a pedestal then literally ignore the other several 100 democrats who are fine with genocide.
Which is why I referred specifically to a wing of the democratic party and not the whole thing.
the problem is that they're not in control of the democratic party; the capitulators are.
Agree entirely.
which means that they will not give progressives control of the party.
Also agree. If progressives are to have a party, centrists must be replaced with progressives.
so why advocate voting for progressive democrats when moderate democrats will not allow any progressive members to control the democrat party?
you're just going to end up w a bernie, aoc, omar, etc. situation where they're not given enough control to change anything the democratic party's priorities; but trotted out like show ponys to convince progressives to vote for the democrats anyways.
People like Bernie and AOC are not progressive. They're nothing more than sheep dogs for the party to keep people locked in the party with false promises of eventually having a seat at the table. Going back to 1984 Democrats have always had a sheepdog to keep voters herded up like sheep.
People need to get out of the mindset of reform. We plainly seen that reform over the last hundred years does not work. Eugene Debs talked about Democrats trying to reform their party 100 years ago. WEB DuBois talked about Democrats trying to reform their party 60 years ago. They believe that if they change enough cogs within the machine, the machine will operate differently. It's time to scrap the machine
thoroughly agreed and that's what i'm getting at; voting for "progressive" democrats won't get us anywhere.
Because the centrist wing has lost all credibility and we're seeing their power to block progressives waning.
do you have any evidence for this?
Mamdani's a good proof of concept. The party brought everything down it could to ratfuck him, before and after the primaries, and failed. We just had a progressive win in New Jersey. Another in Fort Worth.
Decisively in all cases.
That last one shows the centrist "we need to run centrists to win in conservative districts" line to be so much bullshit.
that is definitely a litmus test for where democratic voters heads are at, but that's also definitely not control of party.
see schumer's mission statement of protecting isreal at all costs to understand where the democratic party leadership's heads are at despite bernie actually having a say in it.
Not yet, no. But there haven't been a ton of races since trump won and it became undeniable that centrist democrats were both unprepared and unwilling to take on this challenge. The more progressives win, the more influence they can exert on the party.
this has been the entire reasoning behind voting for the "lesser evil" for a majority of the last century and it has ended up with those unprepared and unwilling democrats in charge.
why would it be different now?
Centrists are no longer able to effectively keep progressives from winning.
some progressives have always broken through; that's why we have bernie, aoc, omar, pressley, etc. and those numbers already outmatch the few recent victories that progressives have enjoyed.
to be fair: i hope that you're right, but i doubt it very much as i watch americans start to blame the epstein illuminati on russia.
Ah, I misunderstood. My apologies, it sounds like we agree then.