This woman also said, “You violated the law, you are not entitled to due process," because she apparently doesn’t know what due process is.

Listeria.

Or how they delayed announcing a winner in Iowa, rigged at least one delegate coin flip, and eventually anointed Buttigieg the winner even though Bernie received more votes.

What a weird coincidence that, just as AOC and Bernie begin a wildly successful tour of the country, we start hearing about the Biden’s wanting to help lead the party or Kamala being the the top choice for 2028.

Hey champ, here’s a tip; instead of writing, “lemme rephrase,” halfway through your comment, you can just delete the portion that’s poorly phrased! That way, instead of having to read (what I’ll generously call) a paragraph of word salad, people can start at the part that’s (again, generously) coherent! Also, you might want to look up, “what does a hyphen do,” or, “when to use commas vs. periods,” because you write like an AI that was trained exclusively by ESL students and stroke victims.

Yeah, this is common on all issues. Political hacks are adept at turning things into partisan issues with branding when we all agree on them. Ask a conservative if they like Socialism and they’ll say hell no, but ask them if they support labor unions, minimum wages, social security, UBI, etc., you’ll find lots of support.

It’s the same with guns; gun control is a scary plot by the left to take away your guns, but sure, they support reasonable measures universal background checks, permits, and restrictions in certain large-capacity weapons. Just so long as it’s not gun control!

Do me a favor and search, “FDR New Deal.”

Most of the kids I know who have this attitude would also call IT if they accidentally opened the Command Prompt or BIOS.

…OK, that still would have a far-left opinion in American politics. It’s not like the country was divided between socialists and communists back then. Hell, it took the Great Depression just to get the moderate socialist reforms of the New Deal passed, and even then, its opponents thought it was communism.

Like, I don’t know what to tell you. I understand your point; you think anything that doesn’t involve the abolition of private property isn’t left-wing. But even pre-Cold War, even pre-McCarthyism, even during the Coal Wars, that position would be the far-left of American politics. I’m not trying to be a dick here, but when I, or the author of the article, or most Americans, are talking about, “the left,” we’re definitely not working from your definition.

I mean, fair enough, but there’s no point in America history where abolishing private ownership wouldn’t be considered far-left. I understand that compared to international standards or across the broader spectrum of political theory, the American left has never been particularly left-wing. When I say the Democrats are slightly center-left or center-right, I’m comparing them to themselves 30 to 40 years ago. Since 1980, they’ve slowly compromised their principles to the point where they can’t be considered, “left,” by any modern political metric.

To be fair, the roadrunner it was following somehow successfully ran into the painting.

Well, there’s a reason I said, “generously,” slightly left-of-center. It also depends on the Democrat. There’s enough of them that care about labor to get the PRO Act through the house, but not the Senate. I don’t think it would be unfair to call someone like Gary Peters center-left, given his strong pro-union track record, but someone like Schumer or Pelosi, who are squarely on the side of Wall Street and big tech respectively, are just conservatives masquerading as left-leaning centrists.

Even if what you’re saying about Schumer is true, it would still be gross incompetence to achieve this goal in the manner that he did. Even if you believe his whole, “Musk wants a shutdown,” argument, he allowed every single House Democrat, even those in vulnerable seats, to put themselves in a vulnerable position by refusing to fund the government, then threw them all under the bus by saying, “actually, funding the government is just too important.” Why would he damage his own party like that?

Let’s be real here; the stock market has been tanking all week because of the tariffs, it would have gotten even worse with a shutdown, and Schumer takes a shitload of money from Wall Street. The day before the vote, his donors started telling him how important they think funding the government is, he caves, and the stock market makes a decent comeback the next day. He sold out his party to the donors, and gave Trump a huge win in the process.

Why do you assume all Democrats are trying to put out the fire? Schumer and 10 Senate Democrats just sold out the rest of the party and handed Trump a huge victory. We need to look at every single Democrat and make sure their buckets are full of water instead of gasoline before we decide to work with them.

I agree with a lot of this article, but it doesn’t really acknowledge the reality of the Democratic leadership’s obstruction. The party is, generously, a slightly left-of-center organization that prioritizes stifling their own left wing over defeating their far-right opponents. They’ve successfully held off two of Bernie’s presidential runs, redistricted Bowman out of his seat, and Pelosi has spent so much time and effort undermining the squad (and AOC personally) that it borders on pathological.

I agree with a lot of the criticisms of Bernie in this article, and beyond that, he’s just too old to be in the Senate, much less the standard bearer for the entire left, but the Democrats have spent decades making sure there’s no viable alternative. We need to move past Bernie, but we need to build an actual progressive movement that can get past Democratic obstruction to do that, and for now, Bernie is still the de facto leader of that movement.

TL;DR: the filibuster. The thing the Democrats say they can’t abolish because they need it to block the Republican agenda. Even though they just refused to use it to block a Republican agenda.

The only silver lining here is that it is very visible, undeniable proof of what leftists have been saying for years; the Democratic party is not, in any way, a progressive institution.

But it won’t. Hakeem Jefferies will have his members wear, “How will this lower the cost of eggs?” t-shirts as they’re obediently led in front of firing squads.

Bernie is too old and he knows it. He’s not gonna run. AOC has a pretty bad favorable to unfavorable ratio nationally. That’s not automatically disqualifying; numbers aren’t set in stone, and a lot could change between now and 2028, but she’s not starting from the same place of broad appeal that Sanders did. As much as I love both of them, we need to look beyond the same two people for progressive candidates.

Yeah, I think that’s about it. I think Russia has been encouraging oligarchs and mobsters to make contact with prominent Americans they thought they could influence, and a lot of those connections went nowhere. When Trump started winning the primary, Putin probably realized he could use him, so he had some oligarchs cut a deal. But this KGB agent’s Facebook post about making direct contact with Trump, recruiting him as a spy, and giving him a codename, as well as his claim that he may be assassinated for sharing this? It seems like it’s either some sort of disinformation campaign or just some old man embellishing a story for attention.