M1ch431

joined 7 months ago
[–] M1ch431@slrpnk.net 2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

I am arguing that the DNC and its candidates are still at the behest of billionaires and corporations even with Ken's proposed primary finance reforms.

The Democrats can make themselves seem squeaky clean, but they aren't and it is obvious.

[–] M1ch431@slrpnk.net 2 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

There will continue to be strong pushes towards preferred candidates. The Super PACs will do most of the heavy lifting.

The DNC can brand themselves as neutral, but they aren't.

[–] M1ch431@slrpnk.net 2 points 9 hours ago

The whole system is broken. If spoiling has been an issue for decades, perhaps we needed election reform a long time ago.

No, instead we only pass blame to people who want progress. Enough.

[–] M1ch431@slrpnk.net 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Related watch for those interested in learning more: https://youtu.be/7f_V9zZNzTY

[–] M1ch431@slrpnk.net 10 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

From the article you linked:

Mr. Martin’s proposal notably does not attempt to address the role of super PACs or direct-but-limited contributions from corporations like those the D.N.C. accepts.

Big caveat.

[–] M1ch431@slrpnk.net 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

They have raised nothing truly significant by their own merit and the billionaires/etc. will be back - they will need their money to win. There is no visible shift left or to socialist policies. Support your assertions, Ken Martin and the DNC have already been arguably very hostile to a leading progressive in the DNC, no matter how you spin it. I provided receipts - the time for the DNC to enforce neutrality would've been during the court case where they were called out for rigging the primary against Bernie, not after Hogg got elected as Vice Chair with publicly visible positive intentions and goals. If literally everything has changed in 2 months, enlighten me.

Just because the DNC and Ken Martin are seen as hopeless by large donors now doesn't represent a significant shift. Americans also don't see the DNC/Democratic Party very favorably, according to recent polls. If small donors are flocking to the DNC more than they have in the past, it's because of Trump and what is left of democracy at stake.

Even on Ken's Wikipedia regarding his position as DNC chair put it this way:

Martin's first months as DNC chair have been described as chaotic and plagued by infighting. Under his leadership, the party has seen a significant drop in donations.

Infighting against progressives is clearly what they are referring to.

You're asserting he's garnering more small donations because there is a shift left. I am arguing that it's because people are more politically active.

[–] M1ch431@slrpnk.net 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (2 children)

If the DNC's fundraising situation has changed, it's not due to any policy forbidding billionaires and large donors. The DNC has lost the confidence of their major donors, according to Politico two days ago. They have raised very, very little in comparison to the GOP.

Talking down to me is not evidence that the DNC has changed significantly. When it comes down to it, they need their large donors because they refuse to shift left to compel small donors to fund them.

Even if the DNC is branding itself as friendly to progressives, those progressives will be absolutely crushed when a primary or election occurs. We need campaign finance reform to move forward as a society and to have a semblance of representation and democracy.

Again, I could give less than a fuck about the DNC's complexity as an organization. It is not nurturing progressives. Evidence is needed to support that assertion. The DNC will be back to taking primarily large donations before long, and so will the candidates that win the primaries (if there is any challenge posed by progressives at all).

[–] M1ch431@slrpnk.net 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (4 children)

Just saw your edit. Voiding the results of an election on grounds of "gender diversity" after several months was the current leadership's decision. They voted on it in June, unless I am misunderstanding something. The election wasn't "fraudulent", it violated their rules and was called into question a month after Hogg started making waves. David Hogg was one of the key people attempting to reform the Democratic Party/DNC and he would've been well positioned to do that as Vice Chair.

I want progress. Hogg was crushed because he wanted progress, you can't rewrite history. It's undeniable that it all unfolded the way it did because leadership wasn't pleased with him.

[–] M1ch431@slrpnk.net 1 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (6 children)

The DNC is not a totally different organization. Citation needed. Billionaires and corporations really didn't want Bernie back then, and they won't want progressives getting in office in the future.

Until the DNC only accepts money from small donors, and there is campaign finance reform (looking at Citizens United being overturned), it's naive to believe progressives will ever have a shot.

Their cash flow depends on pleasing their masters, they won't jeopardize that.

[–] M1ch431@slrpnk.net 3 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (13 children)

The DNC/Democratic Party is funded by billionaires and corporations. They do the bidding of billionaires and corporations. They want to please billionaires and corporations. They engage in systematic lawfare to restrict parties and individuals to the left of them from having ballot access, way harder and with more cohesion than they ever have fought Trump or conservatives. The influential think tank Third Way wants Democrats to move away from progressive policies and small donors.

The DNC even elevated Trump and other far-right individuals in 2015 as part of Hillary's presidential campaign. This is the same party that colluded against Bernie, with Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigning as a result of the scandal and courts finding that it's legal to rig primaries.

The DNC and the Democratic leadership are both center-right. Why can't we have a left party instead of making the Democratic party something it isn't?

Ken Martin is hostile to progressives and individuals who want to change the party like David Hogg, by the way. Here is some leaked audio that sheds light on the situation.

And an excerpt from Wikipedia:

Later on May 12, 2025, the DNC's Credentials Committee recommended voiding the results of Hogg's and Malcolm Kenyatta's elections as vice-chairs, citing a violation of DNC rules requiring gender diversity for party officers. An election to decide whether or not to redo the DNC's previous election was held from June 9 to June 11, 2025. On June 11, 2025, DNC members voted to vacate the previous election of DNC vice chair. Hogg stated he would not run again for vice chair after the party removed him and Kenyatta from office.

They just crushed a person pushing progressive primary challengers on grounds of gender diversity and tangentially on Hogg's impacted neutrality in future primaries, from my understanding. Under Ken Martin's leadership. This is the same party that favored Hillary in 2016, but now suddenly when there are progressives challenging the status quo, Ken Martin proposed this rule:

DNC Chair Ken Martin announced he would propose changes to the DNC rules that would mandate its officers to remain neutral in all Democratic primaries, not just the presidential primary overseen by the committee.

[–] M1ch431@slrpnk.net 3 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) (2 children)

You can be assured that it's not just Russia and China feeding it garbage. There is a vast amount of propaganda in all forms of media that AI is trained on, and a lot likely originates from the west.

view more: next ›