They’ve figured out that all they really need to do to appease Orban is to make Hungary’s name really big on maps.

and Jr will be trumps vp for this election! Wheeeee!

Why do Trump’s possible VP’s keep having weird scandals about dead dogs.

Candidates have to get a certain amount of signatures before getting ballot access on the primary in a state.

Williamson and Phillips weren’t able to do that everywhere, and Biden was, that’s on them not having as many campaign resources as a literal incumbent U.S. President, not the DNC somehow keeping them off the ballot.

Biden and Dem leadership were saying it up to a few months ago, so it shouldn’t be hard to admit.

It was longer than a few months ago and they clearly said why they stopped even considering packing the Supreme Court.

Not only did they not have a congress to pass it, because they’ve never held anywhere close to enough of a super majority to get past fillibuster. But it’s also effectively handing a loaded gun to a second Trump presidency or any Republican presidency to do the same.

During a Fox & Friends interview on March 6, 2024, Gabbard was directly asked about serving as Trump’s vice-president. She responded, “I would be honored to serve our country in that way and be in a position to help President Trump…” In March 2024, Gabbard was cited by Trump as one of his potential choices for his vice presidential running mate.

Seems like you’re the one who isn’t paying attention

Not only did she not even apply for the Democratic Nomination, she seems more inclined to being Trump’s VP than a possible democratic nominee.

That’s simply not true, Tulsi Gabbard had the opportunity to submit her name to the primary election after getting enough signatures just like Dean Phillips and Marriane Williamson did.

She didn’t even do that, the most basic step of trying to become president, I wouldn’t blame the DNC for her not bothering with the basics.

That’s why I said kind of.

Establishment/center right Dem influence on the primary happens through endorsements and media connections. While the actual primary is actually rather free, it’s not very fair as the establishment gets the first say over the narrative, though this is weakening incredibly over time with more social media and independent media influence.

About 25 to 50 percent, depending on which Polling Aggregate source you’re using for Biden currently. Which would presumably improve with another candidate.

25% From the economist

40% From The Hill

50% From 538

Meanwhile, RFK Jr., the highest polling of the third party candidates, has less than 1% chance of winning enough electoral votes.

However, my original point wasn’t that a Biden replacement would do better than RFK or a third party in the general (though they certainly would), but that if you dislike Biden, him being replaced is more likely than a third party candidate ever winning.

I’ve never met a single person who thinks any of them could actually get the popular or electoral vote, at this point replacing Biden with another Democrat would be far more likely.

The dnc really ought to let voters nominate their own candidates, instead of force feeding us their choice.

They actually do (Kind Of) candidates have to come forward and nominate themselves to the Democratic Party of the individual states after getting a certain amount of signatures from registered Democratic voters from those states.

The biggest hurdle for potential candidates is name recognition and funding for getting those signatures. Even after getting the signatures, it’s very hard to challenge an incumbent, like was proven by Dean Phillips and Marriane Williamson.

I’m hardly responsible if the majority of or the leadership of The Party don’t align with my views. It is they who have failed us, not the other way around.

Like I said, you’re not responsible for their current policies, that would be the Democratic voter base of 30 years ago, but you’re responsible for not trying to vote them out and writing off the entire fucking party as the same.

Have fun feeling politically nihilistic and irrelevant though, it sure worked for the CPUSA, the SPA, the SWP and every other third partyist of the past 100 years.

absolutely no say in the matter

You can keep shoving your head in the sand or research and confirm what I’ve been saying is the truth, that candidates are nominated by candidate choice, signatures, and then a primary vote. Up to you.

Your continued support of the familiar means they’ll never change.

Lmfao, yeah? Can I ask how long you’ve been involved in politics? Or how much you know about American domestic political history?

The Democratic Party and Klu Klux Klan Venn Diagram a century ago would’ve been essentially a circle, with some weird progressives like Roosevelt on the sidelines. The past century of American political conflict has been one of the Democrats slowly solidifying around socially left issues and the Republicans doing the opposite, solidifying around the right. Both Parties found an economically left wing New Deal consensus after the squabbling of great depression recovery, which lasted basically until Reagan and the creation of a Neoliberal consensus.

That’s all to say that the Parties have changed massively over the past 100 years, the Democrats completely switched their position on social and economic issues.

I have been pushing for my part of the Democratic party to be more economically and socially liberal for a decade now, and even in that short time I’ve noticed immense changes in what the party is willing to accept. A decade ago, rent control advocacy would’ve had city level Democratic officials criticizing me, and now Biden, a moderate, is advocating for it in debates and in speeches.

The Overton window of the Democratic Party has never been stagnant. It has trended solidly left on almost everything for a century, and you’d have to be ignorant or bad faith to not recognize that.

regardless of who puts forth the candidate

That’s the thing, though, no one “puts forth” a candidate except the candidate themselves, parties will sometimes reach out to activists or local party officials for local or state office nominations, but Federal office candidates are almost always decided by candidates themselves getting signatures and putting their name forward.

You’re no more responsible for the failures of the party than party establishment officials at the DNC, and likely quite less responsible, but you are responsible for writing off the party as a whole, and thereby abandoning the about 50% of the party that wants to take it in a progressive/anti-capitalist direction.

You know registered Democratic voters pick the nominee, not the DNC, correct?

If you want someone like Bernie to win, you have to fight with the establishment over the Democratic voterbase, and the Bernie campaign never succeeded in winning over the majority of the Democratic voterbase. You can argue this is because the majority of the endorsements and media were on Hillary’s side, but that was inevitable, you can’t just expect your internal Party opponent to roll over, you have to build up an opposing powerbase within the party and media.

Seems like a lot of socialists and progressives got too disenchanted from Bernie losing to ever accept that, though.

The right wing of any political system is regressive

Yes, I completely agree. That’s what I’m saying. I don’t see how you can fix that other than universally disallowing the right wing of politics any influence over decision making, in which case the left will likely fracture in between its most left wing elements and it’s most centre-left elements and the process starts again.

So unless you want endless purging of whatever happens to be on the right wing of your political spectrum, I don’t see what the cure to Conservatism or the right wing is.

7/10 Nazis killed in WWII were at the hands of the Soviets

And 10/10 of the Polish officers and civilians killed at Katyn were at the hands of the Soviets too. There’s no point in defending a regime that did horrific things, just because they happened to kill a lot of people who also did horrific things.

There’s also no point in arguing that “one nation won the war” against anyone in World War 2, the war would’ve been significantly worse and more brutal had almost any of the allied nations not participated.

Without the US lend lease and factories, the Soviets wouldn’t have had a chance, and it would’ve been a much much more brutal battle even if they succeeded. Not to mention the massive amount of work the U.S. put into fighting Japan in the Pacific almost alone.

Without the Soviets the other allies would have had no continental power to distract the Germans, and North Africa would likely have fallen along with the UK.

Without the UK, the Axis would’ve had a much much easier time navigating waterways and trading with the world, not always having the possibility of being harassed from one of the UK’s colonial ports or airports. Not to mention the constant threat of invasion from the sea and the opening of a second front that the UK provided.

There’s others I won’t even mention because it would take too long like the invaluable support of India and China without which Japan would’ve dominated Asia, and the people of Africa and South America who also contributed.

There’s literally no way a non-propagandizing historian could put the victory solely on any of the Allied nations, each and every one was completely indispensable

There can’t really be a cure though, what’s “conservative” is just whatever is on the right wing of a country’s politics at any point in time.

Dude has been a joke for a very long time. Like his illegal campaign for the Dem nomination that was only ever meant to be attention seeking, that subsequently got zero attention for the most recent example.

Russia’s built ~16 of these Karakurt-class ships since 2018 lol.

It’s taken Russia over 10 years to just build a little over 10 stealth fighters. (And Ukraine has destroyed one)

Meanwhile the Netherlands alone has 24, and the U.S. has over 600.

Russia’s high tech side of their military industrial complex is incredibly weak compared to the old USSR days, and even their low tech side is struggling.

You think Bernie Sanders doesn’t want all of that, too? You should read his latest book.

He was just being pragmatic when he mostly only talked about the most easily achievable and popular of his possible reforms.