this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2025
824 points (91.8% liked)

Occupy Democrats

65 readers
6 users here now

Occupy Democrats is a merger of the goals and interests of Occupy with those of the Democratic Party.

founded 1 week ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 49 points 6 days ago (3 children)

It kinda felt like Biden's entire presidency was waking up knowing that fascist hell was coming. One could tell after Jan 6th, the Russian invasion of Ukraine made it clear, the midterms confirmed it, and Oct 7th enshrined the impending reality.

We did have a couple weeks of optimism though after he dropped out and before the campaign intentionally shit the bed.

So he did give us that.

[–] dditty@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

How about the elation of the day they finally called the 2020 election for Biden and we knew Trump was dethroned for 4 years too? People were laughing and cheering in the streets near me. Best feeling I'd had in 4 years

[–] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, I can give him that.

Unfortunately shortlived.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Wasn't for me, I was actually really proud to be an american right up until the white house contradicted congress over congress wanting to decrease arms sales to Israel even more than they already had but the white house sending the shipments without approval.

Still way better than Trump, though.

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 days ago

"He's gone, and he's never coming back!"

[–] Credibly_Human@lemmy.world 10 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Its almost funny to think that them forcing Tim Walz to stop saying weird probably caused the US to do its nazi spiral.

[–] turdcollector69@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I think not running Walz when he was clearly way more popular than Kamala was when we lost.

The moment Kamala was announced I knew we were cooked.

Until we have a dem president who isn't just a corporate ghoul wrapped in a rainbow flag there won't be significant change. So I'm basically just waiting for AOC to run to get excited.

[–] Credibly_Human@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I gotta say man. Have you seen this country?

As much as I hate it, and would love to have a progressive POC woman in the white house, that is suuuuuuuch a nerf to her electability.

More than that, we aren't getting progressives any time soon. We can wish for it, but it just isnt a reality and we need to acknoledge that and have the hard discussion about the FACT that you're going to need to support exactly the boring neoliberal bullshit you hate.

Why am I so confident saying that?

Multiple reasons.

  1. The DNC, as we all know, is lead by and mostly houses boring neoliberals.

  2. The DNC heads all aggressively fight against progressive candidates.

  3. Even if you get a progressive candidate to win, they still have to run policies by the rest of the DNC in order to get the votes for them to pass. This is a reality of the systems.

  4. Many progressive changes we all want are impossible without a super majority in the senate, and thats unlikely with the DNC how it is.

  5. Just as Biden actually did in many areas, a progressive candidate can spam executive orders to make agencies run with more progressive goals and intents but ultimately this only lasts as long as there is a progressive in the highest seat.

  6. This hypothetical progressive would also have to constantly be on their tip toes due to a supreme court that once again cannot be tacked without immense levels of support that are completely implausible.

I hate to say it, but the reality is boring, unfun and will take far longer than a single term to achieve anything remotely close to what many of us want.

Democrats have to keep winning, and then people have to keep voting in progressives in primaries and local/state politics despite knowing that they ultimately won't have much power to change things until they hit a critical mass.

That is just the reality of how this political system works, and to change it, you need even more support than the house and super majority senate.

[–] Taldan@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

More than that, we aren’t getting progressives any time soon

Funny that you say that a week before Zohran is almost certainly going to be elected

I get what you're saying, and understand your reasoning. 10 years ago, I would have agreed with you. Now though, I disagree with you. For better or worse, Trump has shown us rapid political change can happen in America

When the pendulum swings back, progressives have a real shot. Democrats need a candidate they can actually get excited about, not another Biden or Hillary, and I think there will be enough political momentum after Trump to get it

...That is assuming we have another free and fair election. Trump certainly will fight tooth and nail to prevent it

[–] Credibly_Human@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

The thing is that the DNC does not support this. Zorhan is putting up a big fight.

The republicans, the second they saw trumps popularity jumped to support him and his corruption. More than that, they don't have morals and only have the goal of hurting people, specifically marginalized people, and so it's easier for them to all support a leader spouting crap.

Democrats are picky because there are so many actually valid political opinions outside of just hate and corruption, and of course the elephant in the room is the billionaire donors the Ig wigs at the DNC listen to more than you and I. that's why I'm saying it's not any time soon, becuase a progressive won't be able to do significant change and every progressive will be fighting uphill both ways.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world -3 points 6 days ago (4 children)

If we had just voted Harris into office then Fascism would not be here.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Fascism has been riddling the country since its inception. It's been endemic since Reagan.

The difference between Harris and Trump is that, under Trump, liberals lost all the insulation between Red and Blue states. Now you can't just say "Haha, fuck Texas, you get what you voted for" at everyone in Houston and Dallas, then go back to brunch. The Greg Abbott Gestapo can walk right across the border and snatch people in California and Chicago, too.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world -1 points 6 days ago (2 children)

The USA was a huge fucking upgrade from the colonial america, and it only improved ever since with various expansions to voting access and civil rights.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (2 children)

you can make lots of things look good by comparing it to genocide and chattel slavery. still, fascism has been a part of USA forever. this includes genocide, settler colonialism, chattel slavery, apartheid, constant wars, systemic racism... the US has played all the hits. has actually inspired hitler himself. that's an achievement.

[–] IronBird@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago (2 children)

i like the part where, in response to some states rigging their elections...apparently the the only possible measure to fix that under our government is to...rig elections even further?

shit guys...maybe this constitution of ours just kinda sucks, and we should wipe our asses with it and make a new one instead.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

How tf are you going to destroy the USA and make a newer fairer constitution when the other two top military world powers have a vested interest in fucking you over at every step of the process?

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

i don't know if your founding fathers were idealistic or dumb but as a group who supposedly trying to free the people (not slaves but don't worry about it) from tyranny, they certainly left too much to the honor system.

"the president shall be bound by law, you know, unless he doesn't want to" is indeed a naive attempt to limit presidential power.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world -2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

From its very inception the USA has been progressive and free.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

unless you're a native, or black, or LGBT+, or Latino, or Muslim, or...

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world -1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Me and my gay black muslim friend were at the NoKings protest the other day waving a flag and listening to the tribal council guest speaker, really great time all around.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

and Mahmoud Khalil was kidnapped and imprisoned for saying brown people are human beings. that sounds like a great time too.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You've successfully illustrated my point: fascism is coming here now when it wasn't here before.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I assume you weren't born or conscious in the early 2000s

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I'm probably quite a bit older than you.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

would explain the memory loss

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The USA was a huge fucking upgrade from the colonial america

Tell that to the Cherokee and the Apache. Hell, tell it to the Pennsylvania and New York Dutch or the newly arrived Irish, who were constantly rioting against oppressive regimes run out of Dixie.

it only improved

I can point to a fair number of sharp downturns and ugly social upheavals, both before and after the Lincoln Era. To say the US "only improved", you need some really big blinders on all through the 19th century.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

If you think the Cherokee and Apache or the hundreds of other sovereign tribes only started seeing hostility in 1776 then I don't think you're a rational person worth arguing with.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Jefferson explicitly states that English military denying American settlers right to advance west into the Ohio River Valley was a reason for independence.

He was referring to the Proclamation Line of 1763.

This was also the reason for former English Loyalist and F&IW veteran, George Washington, to join the American rebellion.

The restrictions accompanying the Royal Proclamation of 1763 prevented investors from gaining the necessary titles to secure their land claims. The Royal Proclamation was more successful in its ability to restrict the aims of private, Virginia-based land companies and their investors who sought to capitalize on the sale of lands in the Ohio Valley. As a member of the Virginia gentry, a patron of numerous land companies, and an established surveyor, the boundary line profoundly affected George Washington. Washington deemed the Royal Proclamation’s controls on trade and migration discriminatory against colonials seeking to alleviate personal debts through profitable landholdings, particularly veterans of the Seven Years’ War. As many of Washington’s counterparts shared these views, the Proclamation Line of 1763 was significant in that it marked the beginning of a clear ideological break with the mother country. These opinions prompted Washington to petition the Virginia government to release tracts of land that had been promised to veterans, while joining with other Virginia speculators in lobbying the Crown to push the border further west. Washington’s ventures proved successful with the 1768 Treaties of Fort Stanwix and Hard Labour, and again in 1770 with the Treaty of Lochaber.

:-/

I don’t think you’re a rational person worth arguing with.

I guess the Know-Nothing Party never really died.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

The English only momentarily stopping, in order to restrict the growing power and authority of companies in the new world, a brutal campaign of open warfare and enslavement of the mainland natives does not excuse the 170 years prior.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The English only momentarily stopping

Historically inaccurate.

does not excuse the 170 years prior

Who is holding this up as an excuse? You're arguing the settlers who would shoot a British Officer purely for the privilege of shooting the American Native standing behind him are somehow providing these native peoples a social benefit.

I don’t think you’re a rational person worth arguing with.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

The native standing behind the british officer, you're demented for believing such garbage. Manifest Destiny would have prevailed regardless of the Colonies subservience to the crown.

Autboritarian regimes are a much crueler and worse form of government.

[–] Taldan@lemmy.world 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

And if the DNC had an actual primary, fascism would not be here

If Biden hadn't tried to run again, fascism would not be here

If the Justice Department had done their job, fascism would not be here

I blame the DNC and Democratic party elite far more than I blame the Democratic voters

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

The DNC had a 2024 primary and Biden won just like every incumbent in USA history. If you didn't want Biden or Harris in 2024 then the time to act was the 2020 primary that Biden won in a landslide, more than doubling the number of votes Bernie Sanders received.

[–] turdcollector69@lemmy.world -1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

If only we didn't have dogshit candidates like Harris forced on us.

Until they stop trying to run corpo ghouls draped in rainbow flags and start running actual progressives we're not going to win.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Any candidate that isn't a Republican is more than good enough, the fact that progressives like Biden and Harris win the primary is a boon.

[–] turdcollector69@lemmy.world 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

"Any candidate that isn't a Republican is more than good enough"

Yeah then why did we lose? Maybe "vote blue no matter who" is a dogshit slogan for an even more dogshit approach to campaigning.

Do you really expect anyone who is not a diehard liberal to hear that shit and get excited? Fuck, do you really expect diehard liberals to hear that shit and get excited?

Honestly do you think people go "oh boy I can't wait to hold my nose and vote for someone I don't like"? Furthermore do you expect that half-assed attitude to beat Nazis who actually are excited to vote for their candidate?

That whole argument is just weak ass plea for neoliberal mediocrity and nobody is buying it anymore. 2024 is clear cut evidence of this being a losing strategy.

Maybe, just maybe, if we had an actually progressive candidate and not just some neoliberal Republican-lite to make people excited to vote we wouldn't be feeding wins to the die-hard Republicans.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

We lost because a massive campaign by foreign interests including Russia, China, and Israel favored Trump in addition to a half century long misinformation campaign by the wealthiest in US to promote low taxes for themselves at the expense of welfare.

The fact of the matter is the DNC are highly progressive with massively successful and approved of policies, but nobody believes that because of easily taken advantage of flaws in human psychology.

[–] turdcollector69@lemmy.world 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Nah dog that's cope. I'm sure foreign agents were involved but picking Kamala Harris was single-handedly the worst fucking decision that could have been made. The moment she was announced I knew it was going to be 2016 all over again and whadda know, it was even worse

It's not really foreign interference if you're actively sabotaging yourself.

The fact that Walz was way more popular than her and yet they were muzzling him is insane. If your VP is orders of magnitude more popular than your Prez you can rest assured that the rest of your campaign is absolutely cooked.

That foreign propaganda/interference wouldn't even be a factor if our Representatives actually got anyone except for hedge brokers excited.

I'm just saying maybe desperately gaslighting people into believing shitty candidates are good isn't a winning formula. Maybe we should have candidates that people actually like or at the least has at least won a single primary.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

Tim Walz was VP, and to be honest I didn't agree with his policies on Israel during the debates.