undergroundoverground

They get to blame everyone and pretend to be smarter than other people because their third choice candidate can't be wrong. This way they can blame the DNC for themselves not caring about all the groups trump will adversely effect and they can then also blame republicans when they eventually do it, all from the top of their high horse.

Thank you

I'm not saying the DNC shouldn't have better candidates. I'm saying it wouldn't matter, if they don't appease the ultra wealthy.

Unless you're a literal armed radical, you'd be considered just another kind of liberal too.

Did you vote for a misogynistic racist? I thought you'd voted third party and not trump? You seem to have a guilty conscience.

That makes no sense.

"Its everyone else's fault but my own that I chose the misogynistic racist."

It wouldn't have mattered what the dems did. Trump offered the most concessions to the ultra wealthy. Just like when the Democrats win, thats what decides it.

I wish you the very best of luck. The main issues you'll have will be, in order: funding, funding and funding.

Anyone being serious about this will have to spend most of their time thinking about that. Its why they always, eventually, end up being g captured by the powers that be. But they can do a lot of good before then, in the right circumstances.

One solution is through part of the party being a sort of union of trade unions. Unions have money, similar values and members who would potentially join. Membership subs would be another. They can do an awful lot of good but unions can also come with their own long list of problems you'll have to keep your eye on.

Whatever name you choose, check out the formation of political labour movements, as a kind of road map to building what you want. An example would be the labour party in the UK or NZ. It'll have to be done your way and for an American electorate of course but im sure you won't need any inspiration from me or any other country for that part.

Then this would be the first time in modern American history that this has happened. If so, then thats a huge thing and most likely, it'll be the social media owners now being more disproportionally ppowerful. That would be more in line with everything that's happened before.

Youre also relying on accurate self reporting from musk, the republicans and trump there.

I'm basing what I've said on whats happened before. Election spending won't be reliably verifiable this quickly.

Where did you get that screenshot from? I mean, traditionally, you would provide and link and not just a screenshot. You know, in case its wildly misleading or something.

Also, don't only count the amount spent after Harris joined the race or presume musk is going to self report accurately.

If this really is the first time in modern American history that the smallest spender won then thats huge. Although, it'll only be due to the increased power of social media owners which I mentioned above.

Your super-wealthy decided who won. Trump offered them the most tax breaks and government contracts. As such, he had the most money to spend on his campaign and all the social media bosses on-side. Republican or Democrat, the biggest spender always wins.

Thats literally all there is to it.

Sorry but, as annoying as it might be, we're not going to stop asking for people to be clothed, taken care of and fed. I'm not as tolerant of bad things happening to people as you seem to be.

On the contrary, they're more important now than they've ever been. There also hasn't been an election where the highest spender didn't win. Its THE determining factor.

The same people who fund presidential campaigns for Republicans also spend lots of money on influencing democratic nominee choices. The whole things been captured.

Its like you all can't see the woods for the trees, in the politest way possible. You see the state of trump and all the things that make him an aweful candidate and you say "how could the dems not beat that" instead of "what on earth could exert so much influence that even being that terrible couldn't stop him?"

There's no amount of "the dems not having a strong enough message" that overcomes the divide in the candidates, without huge influence. Their campaign wasn't great but no where close enough to lose to someone like trump, in a fair fight. It would've had to have been utterly shocking from start to finish and, as bad as it was, it wasn't that bad.

Classic satan