Tonight Democrats proved that old quip.

If a genie gave Democrats 3 wishes, they'd negotiate it down to 1, and then wish for something they think Republicans will like.

We need a true opposition party now more than ever. Because this aint it.

@QasimRashid Yes, they are cowards just like the literal centrists under the Nazis...

  • #Fascism rules when it isn't actubely.opposed, sabotaged and fought against!

#USpol

@kkarhan @QasimRashid
Don’t mistake corruption for cowardice.

@freediverx @QasimRashid Then they are indeed "#ControlledOpposition" if not outright #collaborators!

  • Even more reason that Post-#Trumpism will require more than banning the #GOP and jailing or at least barring it's members for life from public offices & public servant positions!

#USpol #fascism

@kkarhan @QasimRashid
Always have been, at least since the Clinton administration, but replace “coward” with corrupt.
@QasimRashid Democrats could win the lottery and still find a way to split it with the GOP out of “bipartisan goodwill.”

@QasimRashid

Apparently (just saw this as more details are coming out) the deal will reverse the mass firings of government employees , set up a mid-December vote on extending AFA subsidies, and will fund most federal agencies until late January.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2025/11/10/senate-votes-to-advance-deal-to-end-shutdown-as-8-democrats-break-rank/

Senate Vote Advances Deal To End Shutdown As 8 Democrats Break Rank

The deal, which does not include any guarantees on extending health care subsidies, came under sharp criticism from several Democratic leaders.

Forbes

@bzdev @QasimRashid
Wow, can’t tell if I’m more impressed by your fawning defense of corrupt corporate Democrats or your citation of a <checks notes> Bloomberg article to support your argument.

Correction: Forbes

@freediverx @QasimRashid I hate to introduce a sense of reality, but (a) I merely summarized an article, (b) stating what appears to be the facts is not a "fawning defense" of anything, and (c) the article was in Forbes, not Bloomberg, & was merely the first one I found with any details. Forbes is read by a lot of business types who want accurate information to help them read the tea leaves to see if their portfolios might go up or down, so it is a good news source. Just ignore the editorials.
@bzdev @QasimRashid
Typo on my part but Forbes isn’t any more credible than Bloomberg. They are propaganda rags for capital. Might as well throw in links to the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times (tagline: Defending Nazis since the 1930s’.)

@freediverx @QasimRashid While neither Forbes, Bloomberg, the NYT, or the WSJ are perfect, their news articles tend to be more accurate than many other outfits as far as reporting the facts go. That doesn't mean you should accept their opinion pieces, which can be highly slanted.

There is a famous case of the NYT getting things really, really wrong in an editorial, finally publishing a retraction decades after the mistake:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kionasmith/2018/07/19/the-correction-heard-round-the-world-when-the-new-york-times-apologized-to-robert-goddard/

The Correction Heard 'Round The World: When The New York Times Apologized to Robert Goddard

When the Apollo 11 mission launched on July 16, 1969, it drove the New York Times to issue one of the most famous newspaper corrections in history.

Forbes

@bzdev @QasimRashid
I’m not saying those publications regularly publish blatantly false information, as one might expect from Fox News ,for example. But they consistently frame stories in ways that favor capital and power, while relying on sources with the same biases.

Note, for example, how the NYT regularly acts as stenographers for Israel, posting corrections days or weeks later when it’s too late to make a difference.

Not to mention their horrible editorials and opinion pieces.

@freediverx @QasimRashid Let's just say that being able to distinguish between opinion and facts just might be a useful skill.

@bzdev @QasimRashid
The NYT features opinion pieces with a very specific conservative bias, and their reporting consistently frames stories with that same bias.

List of The New York Times controversies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_controversies

Pulitzer Prize Winning Journalist Chris Hedges Exposes How the New York Times Became Israel’s Favorite Mouthpiece
https://www.reddit.com/r/AlJazeera/comments/1llqlek/chris_hedges_exposes_how_the_new_york_times/

Is the New York Times trying to wreck Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral bid?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jul/07/is-the-new-york-times-trying-to-wreck-zohran-mamdanis-mayoral-bid

@bzdev @QasimRashid
When it comes to journalistic standards, their prime directives appear to be 1) don't fuck with the advertisers, and 2) never risk losing access to those in power.

How ‘access journalism’ is threatening investigative journalism
https://theconversation.com/how-access-journalism-is-threatening-investigative-journalism-108831

How ‘access journalism’ is threatening investigative journalism

A new form of journalism, dubbed “access journalism” is creeping into the media, and its reliance on allegations and lack of evidence poses a serious threat.

The Conversation
@freediverx @QasimRashid Let's see. Some guy quotes an article appearing on The Conversation that appears to be discussing some situation in Australia, and also an article in The Guardian where it seems that a NY Times reporter did a less than stellar job in vetting sources, got some factual statements correct but not providing the whole story, only to have some independent political operative misuse it. Neither has anything to do with how accurate the NY Times is in general.
@bzdev @freediverx @QasimRashid As is being able to read into the message and motives of opinion pieces. You could do with refining that skill.
@el_on_libera @freediverx @QasimRashid Guys, I posted a factual statement, citing a mainstream news article, describing what was agreed to by a plurality of U.S. senators. One guy didn't like it and tried an ad hominem argument, complaining about opinion pieces when the discussion was about what transpired - simple facts. Both of you (not Qasim) seem more into childish arguments than a serious discussion, so I'm going to drop the discussion, and will try muting if necessary.
@QasimRashid Excuse me but the vast majority of Democrats did NOT go along with this. We need to stay focused and stop wishing another party will drop in from the heaven to save the day. What we need is the fucking voters to pay attention and get rid of the bad apples, starting with Schumer.

@KanaMauna
Voting won't help. Elected officials will always side with the government, power and money, even when it goes against everything they believe in (see Sarah McBride).

Either out of fear, out of greed, or out of a will to maintain power. The only way to fight fascism is to actually fight. Politicians won't do it for you.
@QasimRashid

@Mux @QasimRashid

Um, no. Under our current system, the elected officials are the government. If you don’t like them, work hard to get out the vote to get new reps. Acting as if voting doesn’t work guarantees nothing will change. Fighting by itself is useless since it won’t elect a new government (unless your goal is to kill everyone, which I don’t recommend).

@KanaMauna
Under your *old* system (aka democracy) that was (partially) true. That's not the system you're living in anymore. Welcome to fascism.
@QasimRashid
@Mux @QasimRashid Sorry you feel that way. Good luck with your revolution.
@KanaMauna
Oh, it's not my revolution. I don't even live in the US. Just telling you what everybody who have survived fascism already knows.
@QasimRashid

@KanaMauna @QasimRashid yeah the fast takes on this will not age well.

King is not even a Democrat.

@CartyBoston @QasimRashid It’s the same old “my side don’t do anything”. And then they wonder why they can’t get out the vote.

@QasimRashid Tbf, it was only 8 out of the Democrat Senates who who sold out and voted against the rest of the party, which had understandably caused an uproar within it. Outside of it too I suppose.

Still, the results don't make things any better.

@QasimRashid from the outside, basically in US you unfortunately have right wing nut jobs holding power most of the time while a right wing controlled opposition pretends they are somehow a little bit different. Most people are happy with that, if not something revolutionary would have happened by now.
@QasimRashid It's the same here in the UK: the two main parties are just two cheeks of the same arse! That might be about to change here!

@QasimRashid

A stupidity indeed…

@QasimRashid Starting with primarying all the turncoats are replacing the inept leadership that oversaw them.

@QasimRashid
There can only be two functional parties in a winner-take-all system. And we're stuck with that system until the parties feel like reforming it. Challenging the dems with a new party would merely split the non-fascist vote.

The Democratic Party must be forced to reform via primaries. Get the grifters out, and replace them with candidates dedicated to both party and national reform.

@QasimRashid

Waouh, c'est exactement le Parti Socialiste (en France)

@QasimRashid If you don’t negotiate with terrorists, why would Democrats negotiate with a “government” that has terrorized the nation and destroyed 60 years of social progress in the name of profit for the rich?
You Got to Know When to Hold 'Em, Know When to Fold 'Em

Click on the map for the article

@QasimRashid I agree. It needs to be centered around UBI. Otherwise, it's just another republican-light party, with vastly different rhetorics but pretty close policies.
@QasimRashid There should be BASICALLY more than two parties in a country.

@QasimRashid

1)
Refferring to the "Dirty Deal": https://mastodon.social/@Mons1serrata/115530805824998565
♦️Thread♦️

2)
a) As I said above: a reall democracy needs more than two parties.
b) It needs a different voting system! Too often, a president not actually voted by the people nevertheless won the poll.

@QasimRashid if a genie gave democrats 3 wishes, and democrats used their negotiated-down-to-one wish to wish for something the republicans would want, republicans would still blast democrats for associating with a "muslim-looking individual, presumed terrorist"

@QasimRashid

Legislation always meets in the middle you complete dumbfvck. That middle is partly determined by how big the right wing is. Holy shit berniebros are stupid

Personality cults make people stupid