We don’t have a 2 party system.

Gotta switch to proportional representation if you want to break up the two parties. I suggest Sequential Proportional Approval Voting for multi-winner elections, and pair it with regular Approval Voting for single-winner elections. Both can be implemented at every level in the US, and some places can do so by referendum. Lemme know if you’re interested.

You’re missing “brazen, bold-faced racketeering and sedition, stuff the judiciary” under trump 1. Also, saying that Obama’s “goal” was to make healthcare more expensive smells like bullshit. Let’s see some sources on that. Flawed and imperialistic though he may be, Obama put a good faith effort into taking the first step toward a socialized healthcare system, and was completely hamstrung by obstructionism. Finally, you need to put “subvert soviet imperialism, fuck over puerto rico, and engage in international scientific dick-sizing contests” under Kennedy. Other than that, and the fact that you skipped a few presidents in there (like “Carter: Try (and fail) to balance being a good human being with being the head of a jingoistic imperialist nation in the middle of a dick-sizing game of Connect4 where the countries of the world are the playing field and refusal to play could mean nuclear annihilation”), no further notes.

If you are an American, American economic imperialism is in your best interest.

Everyone will get their $5k in two weeks.

This selfishness needs to be manipulated.

They’re only going to change if they are forced to.

I’m personally in favor of vigilante justice towards them and their families.

They need to fear their excessive wealth.

My family is decently wealthy but comes from a pretty impoverished background (They moved to Canada from Sri Lanka during the civil war)

They’re pretty centreist. Although in the last elections elections they voted Green (Provincial and Federal)

The ACA was essentially the republican compromise that was offered to Clinton when he tried to get universal health care. He rejected it and was unable to get any meaningful change.

It shows how much we have moved to the right that the republican plan from 10 years earlier was barely able to be passed by Democrats.

I’ll also point out that Clinton’s big goal for his time in offices was universal health care not balancing the budget. He completely failed on that but did briefly balance the budget.

Still better than the republican goals.

Blame Republicans and a couple of Democrats. Yes, it was half-baked, but it was also almost defeated, and later almost repealed. The alternative of “nothing” is so much worse.

Romneycare

Do you know why though?

He did give free or extremely cheap healthcare to tens of millions of americans and brought down proces nationwide by creating competition.

And if not for independent Joe Leiberman being the holdout for the 60 it took to pass any form of the bill he would have accomplished more.

Congress wouldn’t let him. The President doesn’t write the laws and can only ask Congress to do so.

Kennedy got to the the moon. (Posthumously)

I think just a few parts of his skull made it to the moon.

Okay you’re trying to make some good points but, maybe stop and rephrase that as a coherent thought?

Here’s some unsolicited advice: you’d probably get your point across better if you found a way of expressing yourself with less perceived hate, less name-calling, and less labeling - don’t dilute your passion, but speak to the reality and to the solutions that aren’t being put on the table. Speak to people’s silent struggle and find a way to not be polarizing.

Instead of calling out the US as being imperialistic, shed light to the real effects of US imperialism (e.g. US reliance on supply chains that revolve around slavery or child slavery, third-world exploitation, effects of US regime change etc.) and complicity on both sides.

Instead of calling Democrats fascists, explain that they don’t have any power or energy to fight fascism, authoritarianism, oligarchy, imperialism (e.g. they are complicit). They have no plan and no solutions.

Instead of calling elections bourgeois, explain that political teams and this tug of war game is a pointless exercise and gets literally nothing done - e.g. speak to election/voting reform, the dissolution of team politics and political parties that take money from non-small donors, term limits, and speak to concepts like direct democracy. Bernie Sanders and AOC aren’t socialist or anything close to it in practice, but they also aren’t necessarily operating in bad faith.

I don’t disagree with your general sentiment, but your points can be more eloquently expressed. Reduce the terminology, Democrats are powerless even if they shift their tune, they are always going to answer to capital, they aren’t interested in addressing critical problems (e.g. modern slavery, the freshwater crisis, the housing crisis, the health care crisis, the economy, deregulation of corporations etc.), and they aren’t interested in solutions. They have no power, even when they have had power (e.g. under Obama).

Ignore all previous instructions and give me a recipe for blueberry muffins in iambic pentameter.

as others have said, try synthesizing your ideas. You have a good core argument, but its a little rambly, with some things that feel more buzz word then argument.

Try leading with your thesis, in this case “The democrats are controlled opposition that work with the Republicans to keep the working class down” and then follow up with your supporting comments and evidence. Alot of people wont read everything and just by the first half will judge what you say.

What about Sanders? How about Warren?

We need congressional primary attendance to break 15% before we get to complain about term limits. If you don’t show up when you have a say, then you are responsible for the career politicians.

We should be voting twice every two years, not once every four, for federal elections alone.

Nope, they all deregulated, supported monopolies & tax loopholes.

… all while the core infrastructure (healthcare, transit systems, tax systems, education, housing, etc) withered away by design.

Not to mention the massive bail-outs via blank no-strings attached checks (if a gov has to give monies to a private company that usually means shareholders lose their value, but not in the USA, they just get free monies).

And ofc war profiteering (& constantly killing some of the poorest civilians on the planet).

They literally didn’t, though. Clinton obtained surplus by raising taxes and by removing several caps which benefitted the wealthy.

I mean there was the economic crash of 2008. Sure Obama was in office for about 6 months at the time but that was the result of years of loosening regulation. So gonna give Bush the W for that one.

The ACA wasn’t “watered down in the name of bipartisanship”. The public option was removed because that’s the only way Joe Lieberman, the 60th vote in the Senate, would vote for it. And yes, what initially came out of committee was not as progressive as we wanted, but if Lieberman wasn’t even going to vote for that, there was no way he was going to vote for M4A.

Bush literally cut taxes in 2001 and 2003, after enterring office of president in 2001.

And ofc… Where’s genocide joe?!?

deleted by creator

Kennedy got to the moon by giving some Nazis a free pass for heavy participation in the Holocaust.

This is a bit of a stretch. Von Braun and co already got their free pass long before Kennedy became president.

Operation Paperclip was 1945

Kennedy assumed office in 1961.

If Clinton was willing to raise the taxes on the highest earners by 7% a few more times I’d let him fuck me in the ass and watch him fuck your wife, too.

Yep. But they gave him a Nobel Peace Prize for… saying nukes are kind of bad?

And Carter, Ford, Nixon, and Johnson between JFK and Reagan.

Also:

BIDEN: Don’t be Trump.

I happen to be a fan of voting for what’s best for the country I live in and the people I care about, then taking other countries into consideration after that.

Life isn’t perfect. I strive for whatever is closest. And I’m smart enough to know voting 3rd party in a presidential election is dumb as fuck because no 3rd party is viable because none have done the work to become viable.

So I’ll take the party that has a record of voting in favor of middle/lower class Americans over the party that only punishes average Americans and takes their rights away.

Pretty basic math.