Turns out bloomers trying to gaslit people about how "actually the economy is great!" wasn't an election winning strategy.

Should've just killed every human on Earth to ensure world peace.

Occasions like Thanksgiving are actually when I eat less healthily.

I interpreted what you said with the tea party as meaning to change the party from within by funding candidates to push the party in a specific direction and to run against candidates who stand in your way. That's why I talked about the presidential candidate, because that will be the highest concentration of funding from regular people. A movement like the tea party only works when you have one or a handful of very wealthy people able to direct money in well-coordinated and specific fashion. That cohesion is important to actually move things in the direction that you want.

When you require the cooperation of millions of individual donors, it's like herding cats. Not only do you have to have all those people agree enough with all your agenda to donate, they also need to actually be aware of where to make their donations for it to count (which takes even more money to advertise). Good luck convincing all those people to consistently donate where you want them to.

As for starting another party, that's a complete non-starter. It's been tried multiple times in the past and results in nothing but a few votes peeled off one of the two dominant parties and tons of screaming from which of the two big parties loses that election, so people feel discouraged from trying. While you're trying to build your alternate party, the part of the duopoly that most aligns with you (even if they still differ greatly in values) will be losing voters so you'll lose even more power as the other party packs courts and fills all positions of power with their own candidates.

Harris was handpicked by the party to be the presidential candidate, making her a conduit for such funds. That's not going to happen with a progressive candidate because, as we've seen multiple times in the past, the party will work hard to stop any progressive candidate from actually getting the presidential nomination. Additionally, funding continues in the form of lobbying. Money is funneled through lobbyists to influence legislation and to my knowledge, there isn't much in the way of small donors for lobbying efforts.

That pales in comparison to the vast wealth of billionaires which is needed to fund an entire movement and not just one person. It's easier to have one or a small handful of billionaires coordinate their wealth than to get millions of individuals to pool their money together to fund a cohesive movement.

Did Left wing Democrats launch their own party or “tea party movement” inside the Democratic party? No, they didn’t. Sanders keeps getting elected as an independent, why did he never launch an actual alternative with candidates all over the country?

Probably because the tea party was funded by billionaires and there are no billionaires funding any left-wing movements.

Who thought it would be? I see Musk's name come up repeatedly in the article, but I don't know why he'd think this or even why he'd be mad about this since he owes his vast fortunes to wall street. I could imagine cryptocurrency clowns thinking Trump would give them an anti-wall street cabinet, but they're too stupid to realize that bitcoin is valued as high as it is now because of wall street, even though these same clowns were cheering so hard about bitcoin ETFs being approved a short while ago.

It WILL raise prices and it will raise prices by more than whatever percentage the tariffs are set at because as we all saw from the recent greedflation, businesses will use any excuse to raise prices as much as possible, particularly in industries dominated by an oligopoly (which is most of them).

Jon Unbuckle

Billionaires use violence all the time to get what they want. Just because they hide behind layers of abstraction that they've set up, doesn't mean they aren't using violence.

and all the news stations will look back on his life in the most positive of lights. Anyone expressing joy for the passing of this terrible person will be chided for daring to disrespect someone who didn't respect any of us peasants when he was alive.

My choice to go with instant coffee is paying dividends!

It lines up with the message of the image. If you're willing to sacrifice one set of rights then all rights are up for negotiation as well. Feel free to explain to me how that's not the case.

I'm not even sure that's the case. I went to a restaurant where there was a required "tip" (regardless of party size) and then they gave the option for an additional tip. I assume they did that because a large enough percentage of patrons did not tip and I assume this is what businesses in the US would do in general, rather than just increase the prices on the menu which would give customers a more clear picture of what they'll be spending.

The right to not be genocided... apparently negotiable.

Indeed. Imagine the enormous stupidity it takes to think votes can be won by ignoring voters. Only a massive moron would think such a tactic would work. Good thing no one is that idiotic.

How about I shame you for supporting genocide

I'm not the one sending billions in weapons to support the genocide and then telling voters "other guy worse" to justify it. You obviously think the democratic party strategy which so severely lost them the election is a brilliant strategy, so this discussion will obviously go nowhere. Have fun posting your memes about burning houses while defending arsonists (instead of being open to the suggestion of perhaps not doing arson) and feeling morally superior because the other party has more destructive arsonists.

If pointing out similarities between the parties is a voter suppression tactic, then democrats should try being different from the republicans instead of kissing dick cheney's ass and screaming that they need to move even further to the right after every election defeat. You cannot shame me for criticizing support of genocide.

Something to keep in mind when people are suggesting AI be used to replace teachers.