piefood

I understand how it works perfectly. Parties that fight against war, genocide, and the rich don't get elected because the two parties keep them off the ballot.

It's always amazing to me that people blame the voters for the state of things, instead of blaming the people with the money, the power, and the platform, who explicitly went against what the voters said they wanted.

The Biden Admin was not a single state advocate.

That's fair. It was a genocidist admin though, which is what people are mad about.

Are you referring to some other bill? Or are you just disingenuous full of shit?

Where was the dems proposed bill to fix our educational system so that it doesn't put students into debt? Where was the proposed bill to give health-care for everyone? Where was the proosed bill to fix our housing crisis? Where was the proposed bill to make the rich pay their fair share of taxes?

The Dems had the chance to propose these bills under both Biden and Obama, but they didn't. You miss every shot that you don't take.

Additionally, they could have used a bunch of executive orders to fix a lot of these issues, even if it was just nibbling around the edges, but chose not to. They were too busy funding wars, torture programs, and dropping bombs on kids to focus on helping out americans.

Running shitty candidates and bad policy? yeah, that was indeed stupid

The single state solution that the current admin supports is Genocide.

Yeah, I never said otherwise. I'm not sure what you mean by this, can you explain?

Before that we had a confused old man withholding purchased weapons, building a pier to distribute aid, and swearing over the phone about the consequences of attacking Rafah.

You mean the child-killing, rapist and genocidist? Yeah, I saw him make a token effort with the bridge, that didn't really help. I saw him make a few red-lines that were crossed, and his response was to send a buch more weapons to help out with the genocide.

Anybody who advocates against the DNC because of Israel-Palestine conflict is beyond disingenuous, you should move that to the bottom of your list to at least have some semblance of credibility.

I don't see how this follows. I can be against the DNC supporting a genocide, while also being against Trump for supporting a genocide. In fact, it's pretty easy to just universally be against genocide, no matter who is backing it.

The DNC were surprised by the Trump candidacy and you say otherwise twice on your list.

I never said they weren't supprised by it, I said they supported it, which they did. Clinton pushed for Trump because she thought it would be an easy win.

Biden was good for the economy with workers rights, wages, and public investment all increasing dramatically.

No he wasn't. He was good with making his rich friends richer, but housing, wages, education, medical-care, got worse. His economy was only good if you focus on the rich and ignored the working class and poor. He also shot-down the rail-workers strike when an actual pro-union president would have supported it.

Everything else you mentioned they try constantly but can't do much without 60 in the senate.

The Dems always say that they can't do anything, even with a majority, because the Republicans will block them. But once the Republicans have a majority, the Dems sure can't seem to block them back. So which is it? Does having a majority allow you to do what you want? or can you still be blocked? It's almost like politicians are liars, who are willing to sucker people in for votes, then toss them aside whenever it's convenient

If that's the biggest complaint you hear, then I feel like you should broaden your reading list.

How about:

1. Backing a genocide
2. Backing a rapist who bombed children as a presidental candidate
3. Telling people the economy is actually really good, when it clearly isn't
4. Supporting campaigns like Trump's
5. Pretending to care about things like health care, student debt, foreign wars, the housing crisis, then getting into office (with a majority), and doing jack-shit about them. Sometimes even exacerbating them

Those are all just to start

No, they looked at what Harris was selling, and were justifiably disgusted. I voted against Trump, who is a monsterous PoS, but lets not pretend that Harris was a good candidate.

Trump being worse doesn't mean Biden didn't back a genocide. He deserves all the hate and more for being such a monster

And the Democrats being a shitty party, who keep running shitty candidates is why millions of DNC voters didn't turn in a ballot

This sounds more like the Democrats than it does the "moderate left"

Or maybe their candidates shouldn't support genocide. It'd be much easier to sell the Democrats as a valid party to vote for if they weren't in support of things like genocide.

No, what got us Trump 2.0 was the Democrats running a shitty candidate, on the coattails of another shitty candidate, on the coattails of a shitty presidential run. People were clamoring for a new candidate that actualy gave a shit, and the Democrats told them to sit down and shut up.

The Democrats chose money, war-mongers, and genocide over winning a slam-dunk election. It's not the voter's fault that we're here, as they loudly told the Democrats what they wanted. It's the Democrat's fault for ignoring those demands from their base.

Why should people vote for a party that fights against what they want, when they can vote for a third party that is fighting for what they want?

Link because I don't think I can upload images on here: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FjBAU1OWAAAJB8W?format=jpg&name=medium