• BillCheddar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Jesus Christ, we don’t need Hillary 3.0.

    We need someone who can say something and it’s like…actual fucking words that normal people can relate to. Not something that was written in committee by some consultants working off polling.

    “Don’t rape kids. Don’t violate the Constitution. Everyone gets to vote.”

    None of this is complicated.

  • Xenny@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Yeah I knew Democrats were in on this shit but if they run Kamala in 2028 then they’re 100% complicit. There’s 0% chance she wins

  • Lukas Murch@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’ll vote blue, no matter who, but I will vote for everyone else before Harris in the primaries.

  • chaotic_ugly@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    3 days ago

    If she’s nominated, it’s a fix. Classic authoritarian playbook: maintain the illusion of democracy by propping up an opponent that you aren’t likely to lose to. Then, stuff the ballot boxes anyway.

    • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      Good for you, that is irrelevant because empty centrist, corporate politicians like her will never win against MAGA.

        • supersquirrel@sopuli.xyzOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Barely? It should have been a landslide and Biden was able to just barely scrape his way into office as an old white guy DEI hire because of how catastrophically Trump dropped the ball on Covid.

        • Zacherybob@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Biden won because of Trump’s mishandling of the pandemic. If another centrist Democrat with no vision is elected in 2028 than it’s just a matter of time before another fascist is elected.

        • kreskin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          And then he went on to destroy the democratic party base with his bribe-induced genocide support. Centrism was mistrusted before biden and now its reviled.

  • Mulligrubs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 days ago

    “Hmmm, how do you feel about a Clinton-Harris ticket”

    “BRILLIANT you guys are the smartest people on Earth” ~Super Secret DNC AI Advisor Deluxe Edition sponsored by Meta

  • mitch404@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 days ago

    Cute that US still think they will have elections after the orange buffoon. November will be very interesting, and maybe an eye opener for the remaining septics: I’ll say it here now, trump is a fascist, a pedophile, a narcissist, and a dictator. He will not leave. He will use putin’s playbook. The rest of the world needs to wake up now and consider the US as an antagonist, same as Russia and China. I would be delighted to be wrong, wait and see I guess.

    • 100_kg_90_de_belin@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 days ago

      Let’s say that he won’t run for a third term.

      JD Vance becomes POTUS.

      Trump wouldn’t accept being VP.

      What position can he take within a cabinet, assuming that no one prosecutes him and throws him in a cell where he belongs?

      • BillCheddar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        Trump cannot serve anywhere in the line of presidential succession, because he can’t be eligible to rise to a role he is Constitutionally incapable of accepting.

        • toddestan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          A former president who has served two terms is only barred from becoming the vice president. They could otherwise hold any other position in the line of presidential succession, and would be passed over if something happened to everyone in front of them. Same thing applies to the other conditions for being president such as a natural born citizen, 35 years of age, etc.

      • HermitBee@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        What position can he take within a cabinet, assuming that no one prosecutes him and throws him in a cell where he belongs?

        Why would he? He had zero interest in politics. He just likes being president because it’s the top job. Anything less than that is worthless to him.

    • tackleberry@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 days ago

      you are not wrong. What many people are missing here is that Trump is currently the most powerful human being on earth and everyone outside his power circle is wasting their time if they think they can influence his decisions. He has routinely demonstrated the law does not apply to his government and may even run for 3rd term or outright, cancel the elections because “we are at war”. He already replaced the president in Venezuela, and will do the same for Iran and Russia. China and India are actual paperweights with the illusion of a billion count human population each. That will not faze him.

    • rekabis@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      He’s already looking to disenfranchise many tens of millions of voters if he’s unable to cancel the midterm elections wholesale.

      I’m sure that if there ever will be elections again, they will be purely performative and with a foregone conclusion, just like how North Korea has “elections”.

  • Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    152
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    4 days ago

    So long as there’s a proper primary I don’t see the harm in this, not really. I can’t see her running a good enough campaign to make it through the primaries, at least not without also having a good enough campaign to beat the fascist party after Trump.

    • flandish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      142
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      the key here is “proper primary.” I can’t remember a time when they’ve had one that wasn’t fucked up in some way.

        • flandish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          30
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          neat. i have been voting for longer than that. there have been years where there was only one person on the primary, which efficiently means “primary votes are cancelled” - when the dnc say they want the incumbent.

          that is a de facto cancellation. telling the people who could vote that they are ignored.

          my point stands: the dem side needs to do a better job.

          • 13igTyme@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            4 days ago

            I’ve been voting since I was 18 and I’ve never seen that in the past 16 years. 2024 was skipping because Biden was the incumbent at the time. Incumbent are almost always given the primary. The GOP does the same and is entirely different.

            • flandish@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              22
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              4 days ago

              yeah. see. i disagree that incumbents should be given anything. earn it. primary every time.

              i have been voting since 1997.

              • FudgyMcTubbs@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                4 days ago

                I agree with you, but as devil’s advocate, why would a political party vie against itself for a seat it already holds. At best, it would only slightly sully the incumbent’s name. Take Biden for example: either he’s doing a good job, or he needs to be replaced because he’s not doing a good enough job.

                • DaMummy@hilariouschaos.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  4 days ago

                  So primaries are only so politicians can choose their voters, and not the other way around? I was told only MAGAts are the cultist?

                • flandish@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 days ago

                  why? imho because its supposed to represent the current situation and overton window not be a reminder the parties are “clubs” that set their own rules.

              • Armok_the_bunny@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 days ago

                From what I’ve read the reason primaries aren’t done on incumbents is because every single time it’s been tried the incumbent lost the actual election and the seat went to the other party.

                • flandish@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 days ago

                  ? If incumbent wins the primary its the same as if they didn’t have one but at least the party members chose.

                  primaries are separate by party.

        • Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          4 days ago

          Sure, but a proper one? 2020 and 2016 were both ratfucked. 2012 was an incumbent year. So we’ll be at 2 decades since the last time we had a proper primary.

          • TacoSocks@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            What was ratfucked about 2020? 2020 didn’t feel that different from 2008 or 2004.

            • triptrapper@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              3 days ago

              In 2020 Bernie and Biden were the front-runners, and then all the other candidates dropped out and endorsed Biden. So it wasn’t ratfucked in an illegal way, but in a “torpedo a popular leftist in favor of a right-of-center establishment neolib” way.

              • Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                3 days ago

                Biden wasn’t even in the top 5 for the first like 4-5 races. He did ok in one, then the whole orchestrated dropout occured to manufacture consent

        • W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Nope. Bernie should have won the primary but the dems decided it was “Hillary’s turn” so they fucked Bernie.

        • butwhyishischinabook@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 days ago

          That’s absolutely not true. I’ve been voting since 2012 and the only presidential primary I’ve voted in that had more than one candidate was the Hillary-Bernie primary. That’s the only one.

          • 13igTyme@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            4 days ago

            It absolutely is true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

            In 2012 Obama was the incumbent, which again as I mentioned, incumbents typically aren’t primaried if they are doing a decent job and up for re-election.

            Since then there was 2016, 2020, where both years had a primary for the DNC. 2024 was just a fluke because Biden should have dropped out. Or even stuck with his original campaign promise of not running for re-election. You’re young and your sample size is 4. My sample size is 5, but it’s been consistent in years prior.

            • butwhyishischinabook@piefed.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 days ago

              Depending on your state. In mine, there was a single candidate. That’s a primary in the same way the USSR had elections. If you lived in one of the states that had two candidates in 2020 then good for you. I didn’t.

        • Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          45
          ·
          4 days ago

          2008. They were NOT expecting Obama to oust Hillary, and took steps to make sure something like that doesn’t happen again. Allegedly the new DNC head or whatever his title is wants fair primaries, so I guess we’ll see.

            • Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              4 days ago

              As far as I know/remember it was, at least as fair as any primary with superdelegates can be. Or rather, it was still using an unfair system and enough people turned out so that the system to keep nominations “in check” didn’t work.

              • Optional@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                4 days ago

                Cynthia McKinney was elected as a Democrat in Georgia around that time. iirc she was looking at a presidential run. You might have seen her on here yesterday for her latest tweet. (Spoiler: super bigot)

                Which is to say, if you open the field to everyone in the country you will spend a certain amount of time winnowing the contenders from the stunt candidates. Republicans don’t do that because they’re all the same candidate. So they spend almost zero time (since Perot) dealing with that.

                Superdelegates aren’t great, but an alternative to achieve that aim of not having to platform every trust fund kid with a boot on their head might be good.

                • Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  ·
                  4 days ago

                  She ran as a Green Party candidate, not a Democratic one. I’m not sure how she’s relevant?

                  She was pretty suspect even in 2008, so I’m not sure I buy that if we don’t have superdelegates and let voters decide who the candidates are, then the stupid masses will just pick whoever.

        • LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          4 days ago

          Even 2016 was pretty fair. The nomination went to the person with the most votes and the majority of the non-super delegates. Bernie lost because people didn’t want to vote for him because of a variety of reasons but not because the primary wasn’t “fair”. If more people voted for him he would have won.

          • crusa187@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            20
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 days ago

            No, Bernie had the nom stolen by Hillary and DWS via corrupt back room dealings and superdelegate shenanigans. Everyone was voting Bernie and for the corporate elite that was a problem. They solved it by ratfucking the primaries, a tried and true dem tactic.

            • W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              Agreed 100%.

              Source: I was there. Bernie got screwed because the dems through it was “Hillary’s turn”.

              Fuck that.

            • LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              4 days ago

              Ah yes, super delegate shenanigans like the majority going to the candidate who had over 3 million more votes than the other. The only way Bernie could have won with super delegates is if he got almost all of them. And if he did then the candidate who got 3 million less votes would have won the nomination and we would still be facing people saying the democratic primaries aren’t “fair”.

              Now don’t get me wrong, DWS was biased as fuck. But if the voters simply turned out and voted for Bernie then bias wouldn’t have mattered. The RNC was biased towards Jeb bush and Ted Cruz but you know how that turned out.

              • Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                4 days ago

                You can’t use the result of the ratfucking to explain that there wasn’t ratfucking…

                She couldn’t have cheated, she had more points

              • DaMummy@hilariouschaos.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                4 days ago

                In the 2016 WV Democrat Primary, Bernie won every single county, 40k more votes than Clinton, but Clinton won the state. Your math isn’t mathing.

                • LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  4 days ago

                  Nope Bernie won the state. He won and got 18 delegates and Clinton got 11. But then at the convention Clinton got the 8 super delegates from the state which put her at 19 delegates to Bernie’s 18 but Bernie still won the state. Here’s my source.

          • Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            4 days ago

            Clinton literally controlled the DNC treasury during that election. The party was low on funding due to mismanagement during the Obama years, she lent it money in return for control, next thing you know, media is flooded with articles talking up Clinton having all the superdelegate votes so being so far ahead before any real votes were cast…even when Bernie won states, it was all “doesn’t matter he still can’t make up for the SDs”

          • Optional@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            4 days ago

            Bernie lost because people didn’t want to vote for him because of a variety of reasons but not because the primary wasn’t “fair”. If more people voted for him he would have won.

            Uh oh

            (I agree, although DWS really screwed up everything including discussing this)

            • LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              4 days ago

              Yeah this is something that really bothers me about my fellow leftists and is pure revisionism about the 2016 primary. Bernie lost fair and square and all we had to do to make sure that didn’t happen was get more people to vote for him. But according to many people on here if the candidate fails to win then it’s their sole fault because they couldn’t convince voters to go with them. But I guess that doesn’t apply to Bernie.

              Also I hate how DWS screwed up talking about this all because she was biased as fuck towards Clinton. Her bias wouldn’t have mattered if more people had voted for Bernie but her having a bias at all must mean Bernie was cheated out of the nomination.

              • Soupbreaker@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                4 days ago

                I think where a lot of this comes from is that HRC had locked in the vast majority of the superdelegates right from the start. The media consistently represented Bernie as having no chance to win, due to all the superdelegates being in the bag for Clinton, regardless of how people voted. This depressed progressive turnout, as a Clinton victory was apparently a foregone conclusion. Absent the superdelegate system, and the lopsided media coverage it engendered, many would argue the result would have been different. Obviously, there’s no way of knowing at this point, but it’s not as if these claims have no basis in reality.

                • LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  4 days ago

                  See now that’s an actual conversation to have! Not saying that Clinton cheated and/or was always going to be the candidate but that how the media represented the race depressed turnout. That’s a thing that continues to happen from the media trying to suppress progressive turnout and it often works. But those things still don’t change that if those progressives hadn’t been so easily suppressed and had continued to go out and fight and vote regardless of what the media said, just like trump voters did, then Bernie would have won the primary and the super delegates wouldn’t have mattered. And then likely would have won versus Trump, in my opinion.

              • Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                4 days ago

                If you call wall to wall Propaganda about how it doesn’t matter how Bernie is winning all these states, all the superdelegates are going to Clinton and she wins basically by default?

                Like that wasn’t designed to dissuade voters?

              • DaMummy@hilariouschaos.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                4 days ago

                Does this mean if Trump enforces voting via Real ID, and millions of people get removed from their right to vote, and Trump wins in '28, that more people should have voted for Democrats or that Trump shouldn’t have purged the voter rolls of as many people as possible that wouldn’t vote for him?

    • billwashere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      4 days ago

      Three words: Hillary Rodham Clinton

      It sure looked like Bernie was gonna kick her butt until the DNC decided they didn’t like a Democratic Socialist possibly winning. Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned for a reason.

      I don’t trust the primaries to be fair. There is too much money and power at stake to let “the people” actually decide the candidates. To me it’s the major reason everyone says both parties are the same. It’s because both candidates are picked by the same people, at least at this level. Yes I know they aren’t the same, especially now. But have you ever noticed how feckless the Democratic leadership seems to be? It’s because the billionaires are really the ones in power.

      • frostedtrailblazer@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 days ago

        If there’s a form of Ranked Choice Voting in the primaries, such as STAR Voting or Ranked Robin, then the DNC will have a much more difficult time pulling shenanigans.

        First Past the Post voting in the primaries favors moderates and extremists, but an issue with moderates is that they don’t excite voters with big life changing policies. So no one, except people already bought into preventing the worst option, show up to vote in the general elections. Which makes it harder for everyone.

        More states need to get forms of Ranked Choice Voting implemented, specifically STAR or Ranked Robin voting if we want to see more progressive wins.

          • frostedtrailblazer@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 days ago

            Notably all red states as well. There’s other voting systems I’d suggest but I believe it’s worth waiting till they can’t ban them first.

        • Jaysyn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          If there’s a form of Ranked Choice Voting in the primaries, such as STAR Voting or Ranked Robin, then the DNC will have a much more difficult time pulling shenanigans.

          Shame the fascist GOP is making RCV illegal wherever they can.

    • Eldritch@piefed.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      Just to terrify you a little bit. In the 2020 election, Harris and Biden only had one candidate that regularly polled worse than they did, which was a culty Tulsi. And if you remember, out of that large field, Biden won.

      The DNC has a gigantically fat thumb on the scales.

    • ClassStruggle@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      4 days ago

      The only purpose of the staggered primary is for them to slowly manufacture your consent for who they want. The only way we’re going to get an honest primary is if the entire country did it on one day like we do the general

    • expatriado@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      4 days ago

      a regular primary with enough debates, and where superdelegates are shun till the end, should be bare minimum

      • NABDad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        4 days ago

        How about a primary where superdelegates get no more/better votes than anyone else?

        What am I thinking? That might result in someone who isn’t on the corporate teat!

        • billwashere@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          4 days ago

          All delegates need to go. The electoral college and all the historical reasoning behind it are no longer valid.

          If you want a more fair election, ranked choice, with weighted votes like a Borda system. Borda is good at finding broadly acceptable compromise candidates because it rewards strong second- and third-place support instead of only first-place votes. It’s good at finding better consensus candidates but even this can be gamed by deliberately ranking strong candidates last. No system is perfect, but there are lots better options than what we are currently using.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        4 days ago

        Why would the Democratic Party operate like that when it risks allowing a Bernie-style candidate to go all the way to the general?

        They’re going to crowd the field with slop candidates, like Tulsi Gabbard and Liz Warren and Beto were in '20, then consolidate the rest of the field around whatever neolib shithead demonstrates a significant popular appeal. The roadmap was laid out in '76 and repeated in every open primary since then.

        Keeping populists like Jesse Jackson and Paul Wellstone and Bernie Sanders out of the top ticket slot is absolutely a feature, not a bug.

    • HuntressHimbo@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      If there is a primary hopefully she will perform the public service of prompting the others to distance themselves from Bidens handling of Gaza

  • flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    The Democrats need to learn that they need someone that doesn’t come off like a “party person” if they want to attract voters. Kamala could have had that, but her refusal to burn Biden for his failures in office while on the campaign trail the last time did a lot of harm to her chances of ever escaping that image to the average swing voter. She is no more electable to the Presidency now than Hillary Clinton.

    • TwilitSky@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 days ago

      “It’s time for change!”

      “What are you going to do?!”

      “The SAME THING!”

      “Woooo!!!”

      Seriously, who strategized this thing?

    • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Democratic establishment is too far up their own asshole huffing their own farts to every listen to us lowly members of the American electorate. They see as ignorant whiny losers for daring to be upset about a horrible economy where the bottom 90% of the population is losing ground.

      And all their financial donors agree with them. Kamala is the DEI candidate of their social justice wet dreams. If only she was trans she’d be a Triple Hat diversity hire! They don’t care that American public doesn’t care about any of that and just wants a likable candidate that actually addresses their concerns about the economy.

      Trump lied but he told people he would fix shit, and they voted him in for it. It’s not hard, but Democrats simple refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the American electorates grievances that fuel who their vote for. But Kamala refused to acknowledge things were shit because it would be ‘disloyal’ to Joe Biden… and let’s not forget his dipshittery in saying he would not run again and then he wasted half the campaign year doing so…

  • Telorand@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    Are you fucking stupid? You lost to Donald Fucking Trump—you know, the racist, fascist pedophile rapist? You lost to that guy, and you’d be running against his specter and his legacy, the racist and xenophobic sentiments that still run deep in this country.

    What is uniting the American people, however, is a rising class consciousness, not establishment Dems like you. We already tried voting for “not-Trump,” and y’all squandered the opportunity to appease the wealthy, expand the police state, send more bombs to Israel, and treat all the people shouting “Danger!” like children, rather than securing our democracy and standing against genocide.

    Fuck. Right. Off.