That's because they're both a coalition, and their voters expect improvement. Often unrealistically from them. To the point that they let unobtainable perfection get in the way of whats achievable.

Whereas Republicans/conservatives are fickle. Driven by their fears. They don't expect or care about improvement. Just that "others" are hurt worse than them. The GOP itself found out the hard way that it isn't really power. Someone always eventually comes along with equally empty promises and rhetoric but simply a more extreme tone. To steal their sheep away. All that borrowed and abused power evaporating completely. Because it was never theirs.

100%

Marxism doesn't call on the state to do that. That's leninism. Marxism is highly unobjectionable. The problem is how we get there. Marx himself spoke of an evolution over a long period of time in Society to arrive there. However humans desire immediate gratification. And thus that was unsatisfactory for most people. Which is where Engles, Lenin and others enter the picture. Who thought they could jump start communism/marxism using the very thing that kept communism/Marxism from being possible. The state.

In my experience the kind of communists who want to shoot all the anarchists ....

You're confusing Communists with communists. They're very different. Anarchists tend to be communist. Therefore if communists were shooting anarchists they'd be shooting themselves. Anarchists want a classless stateless society based on Mutual Aid. Which is exactly what actual communist want. Communists on the other hand are a heavily class based society. With an overarching crushing state that commands everything. Destroying and slaughtering any dissent against the Vanguard party and it's oppression of the proletariat.

Communists are in no way communist. They are a completely different ideology. Often referred to as ml or Marxist leninist. And Lemmy is rife with them. They would get away imprison or Slaughter any communist or anarchist who spoke out against them or their perceived Revolution

Aaaah the Herman Cain method. Be the best, like no one ever was!

Please elaborate. How much is AIPAC giving in total. Who are the groups who could give more, but aren't. And why aren't they.

Not all Israelis are zionists. Not all zionists are israelis. You are still refusing to understand the full scope of things.

When Reagan broke the unions, single-handedly neutering the largest base of support for Democrats at the time. Groups like The aipac moved into fill that void. If Democrats could easily abandon aipac money by now they would have. As much as it would be morally correct to do it. It would be a bit of a political death sentence as long as money is considered speech.

Democrats are not a monolith. There are highly right wing wealthy democrats. And then there are Centrist to socialist Democrats Like Bernie Sanders etc. The Democrats are a coalition party. And unfortunately the only realistic party the left has at the national level due to the way the system works. So whether or not you like it you need to get used to acknowledging it. Not doing so is What's led to a lot of the division we're dealing with now.

Especially right now. A large chunk of Democratic Leadership is aging out or close to. A significant focused push could see a much more left-leaning Democratic Party. Maybe even someday a possible speaker Ocassio-Cortez. Parties, their make up, and their policy changes generationally. All we have to do is engaged with the system. Stop fighting for scraps on the side.

Yes, that's the whole reason wealthy fascists, foreign governments, and Republican establishment fund and assist nominally left 3rd party challengers. Especially in national elections where they have no chance. Specifically to disadvantage Democrats and the left in general, helping fascists win. They've been doing it nearly a half century or more now.

Keeping the left divided is the best way to keep it out of power.

Republicans have en mass sought to defund or end democratic rights and institutions constantly. Both within the United States and without. For the last 50 to 100 years and you are skeptical? Trump held a coup in 2020 and should not have been allowed back on the ballot and you're skeptical? Our Supreme Court has gone out of its way to give him total immunity and you're skeptical? He said he'd be a dictator on day one and you're skeptical? The people who were in his administration and that he still surrounds himself with are the ones responsible for the fascist project 2025 whose goal is to overthrow the United States and you're skeptical? You're having problems with definitions. That's not skeptical. That's willfully naive or ignorant. Not skeptical. Listen to what they're telling you.

Yes! The institutions have been heavily rotted over the last 25 years at minimum. If not 50 to 100. Yes trump could deliver the finishing blow. He's only said he would. Many many times. And thank you for that straw man argument. Because absolutely voting is one of the least things. One of the easiest things anyone could do. And yet so many are seeming to fail so hard by not understanding the basics of how it works. Or what's actually at stake.

Any distro can do this. However the "user friendly" ones would tend to be the worst about it. Wanting to beep boop to get your attention for updates etc. I won't say which distro I use "by the way". But with Linux you are the admin. You own the system. You can disable noisy update notifiers or things that would wake the system. I had an HP elite book with garuda on it. I accidentally left it on and "charging" for several days. Thought it was unplugged and off. Didn't show any signs of life till I dropped something on the KB.

I 100% agree. They've literally said that they would end democracy. Saleh calling literal democracy, a convenience? Is very irrational and suspect.

Democrats absolutely need to be better. But they're not going to get better if we keep splitting the vote and failing. The only way to make Democrats better would be to make them us. And the only way to do that. Would be to stop splitting the vote. Instead running Democratic candidates for all levels of the party as both Democrats and green party, or Democrats and any other left leaning party. Long-term either consuming the party from the inside or somehow magically replacing it from the outside are the only two options. Eating them alive is far more doable and possible to happen. And if we lose democracy even that becomes less likely to even impossible to happen. Because then we will only have one party and it will be the worst party.

Democracy as a convenience I think is a pretty bad/shit take.

I think we absolutely should stop enabling and covering for those occupying Palestine. Especially for the DECADES long genocide. But if you think ending democracy will accomplish that. I hate to break it to you. But it won't. And if you think a Republican win doesn't mean at least significant erosion of democracy if not an end. You haven't been paying attention.

It does. Depending upon how you use the term. If you use it in modern slang vernacular. Then no. There is no liberal media. But if you use the term as it's historically been used. Nearly all media including conservative media are liberal media. Where liberal means economic liberalism / capitalism. Their problem with the liberal media is. The liberal media does whatever sells. It will happily sell the truth or a lie. But only whichever one sells most. And thus authoritarians cannot count on it to constantly push their lies and rhetoric.

Why would you think it was negative? My only guess would be the way Leninists like to cosplay as Communists. And the way the west likes to smear communists by associating them with leninists.

Then they are Zionist institutions. Not Jewish ones.

While not voting is in no way similar to a vote for. It is saying that they are comfortable with that outcome. And don't care enough to vote to make sure that it doesn't happen.

As the other poster pointed out. They're using the term with reference to economic liberalism. What the US was founded upon. What we today generally refer to as capitalism. Economic liberalism is a mouthful. It was generally shortened to liberalism and it's adherence called liberals. The modern use of the term is a warping of that. Realistically wealthy Democrats and Wealthy Republicans are both liberals. Just not the Liberals you would be referring to with the term liberal. You're using it as slang they're using it as a proper noun/term.

Realistically they don't exist. But it messes with their narrative. They need to feel Superior. So they need to feel that the people who disagree with them must worship her or Trump. Because it certainly couldn't be that they have bad takes. Or thay people have reasonable things to disagree with them on. They know in their own minds that they are absolutely 100% correct. And if you disagree with them. It doesn't mean that you have anything about to say or a point. It just means to them that you are wrong.

Aye that was the next part of the bit you quoted that I mentioned that. And I am definitely subscribed to it.

It just makes far more sense for open Source projects. Than associating themselves so closely with toxic political ideologies like capitalism or leninism.