You’re why I’m voting green for my first time and probably for the rest of my life. I always wondered if I was ever going to stop throwing my vote away to a party that fucking hates me and it has finally arrived. I wasn’t going to vote at all but you’ve talked me into actively doing so on one of your recent podcasts about how it’s better to do so than to withhold as that can be misconstrued. Good first Debrief! Was a little confusing on how it was supposed to be read at first with each segments but I got it as it went on pretty easily.
I have a suggestion, the intent of which is to break through the neurolinguistic programming governing most voters' political belief there is an actual "duopoly". There isn't, and hasn't been for the last 32 years. There is a Corporate Uniparty with two PR teams assigned different scripts designed to control the two main undereducated, politically naive demographics. The voters in those demographics have been so thoroughly trained to provide the "correct" answer to the election year true/false campaign they are psychologically incapable of NOT supporting one of the two teams. The only way to get past that conditioning is to stop employing the pretense two opposing sides actually exist.
Typically when I think of the duopoly I think of a two headed monster, one monster, two heads. The duopoly and the uniparty are one and the same. Sometimes they bite at each other, but you are getting the same monster regardless of what head you vote for. I think both words are suitable.
But it is a duopoly. It is two distinct entities, but they often cooperate and have shared interests. Hence a two headed monster. A two headed monster has two wills but shares a single body. It is both a duopoly and a uniparty, kind of like a wave and particle. Personally I like both terms, and I won’t stop using either. But you are welcome to only use Uniparty if you are capable of only seeing that side of it.
No,it is not. I was a Democrat for 55 years, and in 1992 the party became fully GOP Lite. The façade there is any real difference between the two "parties" is glaringly obvious to anyone not addicted to the romantic idea there are still two opposing entities currently colluding. There is one party with two teams.
There are obvious differences between the two parties even if their similarities are more important. I don’t think there is sufficient evidence to make the argument that there is a centralized unified actor or actors that are completely coordinating the two parties. A two headed monster is way more apt metaphor than a one headed monster that just swaps masks. It matters to lots of powerful people whether the Democratic Party or Republican Party wins, but it is also the case that all those powerful people who split on Democratic and Republican also agree that one or the other is better than a third party like the Green Party or Libertarian Party. Shrug, but I don’t think the metaphor matters as much as people just stop voting for the monster. If you need it to be a one headed monster to not vote for it, so be it.
The only differences are cosmetic, and the propaganda designed to ensure the people educated to think like fan club cheerleaders instead of critical-thinking adults continue to march obediently to the litany designed to trigger their cognitive bias. And keep them repeating their particular litany when the fact there's no basic difference rouses their cognitive dissonance. Don't waste any more of your time arguing with me. You'll find out the truth soon enough.
Funny crazy notion: I am not a Moslem, not even a monotheist, and I am not voting Harris. Because of the genocide. Perhaps I am alone but I doubt it. The “other” candidates are not running as racist supremacists, that’s all. My opposition to Trump pales in the shade of my weariness with Islamophobia, racism and Supremacy that the Democrats reveal themselves to be. What America reveals itself to be.
The best way to push the Democrats away from genocidal policies is by not voting for them and they will learn that if they don’t want to lose they will stop their genocidal policies. Thats how Zionists get their way, they threaten to withhold their votes unless politicians do what Zionists want. And the number 1 thing they want, and only thing, is doing whatever they think is best for Israel. They have been doing this since they have been lobbying in the U.S. most politicians are sociopathic mercenaries and will do what will think will get them victory and wealth. If Democrats don’t learn, the public will learn that a different party will be necessary to win. If people vote for genocidal candidates, they are responsible for voting them in. It’s about time the Party of Slavery goes away anyway; should have after the civil war. I’ll be voting for Stein.
Fans of the TV show 'Survivor" know the power a group of players willing to "go to rocks" has. They become immune to manipulative and coercive appeals to fear, and therefore must be negotiated with. This is just a different way of communicating Frederick Douglass' point that "power concedes nothing without a demand." Just a few lines later in that same speech, Douglass illustrates his point more specifically: "Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
Excellent analysis, glad to hear Briefly. The day of the pragmatic politician was incinerated by incubator WMDs during the bombing of Baghdad. A resurrected Cheney is cream on a turd pie. As someone said many months ago, fuck that shit, free Palestine, vote Stein no matter who, the prize is 2028.
I think you're absolutely spot on Briahna. AOC Pelosi had an interview with Mehdi Hasan a few months ago where she spoke about being able to pressure the party from within. But given that loyalties lie with special interests (which also includes Israel lobby constituents such AIPAC, in addition to what you've pointed out in your article) rather than public interest (or will) I think it's deeply disingenuous to suggest that the Dems can be shifted.
What Mehdi also fails to grasp is that if Harris loses, for the first time, being so resolutely pro-Israel is going to cause someone to lose the Oval Office. Are the Dems going to publicly admit that in the aftermath? Of course not! But it does set a new precedent nonetheless. And if it comes with a third party that is vocally anti-genocide participating on the main stage (i.e. the Greens cross the five percent threshold), you can be rest assured that behind closed doors, they'll certainly be talking about how unconditionally supporting Israel is becoming increasingly costly politically. Who knows, as this festers for a few more years, that could result in AIPAC et al losing its grip over the duopoly and overwhelmingly becoming a GOP aligned hard right interest group.
What is today the Democratic base is so far removed from the party establishment. If the party isn't willing to move with the base, then the base has to abandon the party through the only means it has to send a strong and unequivocal message - the ballot box.
While Mehdi fails to fully grasp this aspect of 'how politics works' - I'll give him credit for at least saying in a subsequent clip that if Harris ultimately loses, that's on her.
Voted Green in PA today and felt good about it. Thanks for your analysis, Brie!
Voted Green since 2016 in Pa
You’re why I’m voting green for my first time and probably for the rest of my life. I always wondered if I was ever going to stop throwing my vote away to a party that fucking hates me and it has finally arrived. I wasn’t going to vote at all but you’ve talked me into actively doing so on one of your recent podcasts about how it’s better to do so than to withhold as that can be misconstrued. Good first Debrief! Was a little confusing on how it was supposed to be read at first with each segments but I got it as it went on pretty easily.
This is a fantastic analysis!! 🙏🏾
So many people I know are actually voting green for the first time
PREACH 🙌
Briahna, you are amazing! 💚 I could listen to you all day!
So glad radars are BACK!
I love these! Thank you for your dedication Brie
I have a suggestion, the intent of which is to break through the neurolinguistic programming governing most voters' political belief there is an actual "duopoly". There isn't, and hasn't been for the last 32 years. There is a Corporate Uniparty with two PR teams assigned different scripts designed to control the two main undereducated, politically naive demographics. The voters in those demographics have been so thoroughly trained to provide the "correct" answer to the election year true/false campaign they are psychologically incapable of NOT supporting one of the two teams. The only way to get past that conditioning is to stop employing the pretense two opposing sides actually exist.
Typically when I think of the duopoly I think of a two headed monster, one monster, two heads. The duopoly and the uniparty are one and the same. Sometimes they bite at each other, but you are getting the same monster regardless of what head you vote for. I think both words are suitable.
https://minorityreport.substack.com/p/the-children-of-amalek
Then stop saying it's a duopoly. The term implicitly affirms two distinct entities, not two parts of a single one.
But it is a duopoly. It is two distinct entities, but they often cooperate and have shared interests. Hence a two headed monster. A two headed monster has two wills but shares a single body. It is both a duopoly and a uniparty, kind of like a wave and particle. Personally I like both terms, and I won’t stop using either. But you are welcome to only use Uniparty if you are capable of only seeing that side of it.
No,it is not. I was a Democrat for 55 years, and in 1992 the party became fully GOP Lite. The façade there is any real difference between the two "parties" is glaringly obvious to anyone not addicted to the romantic idea there are still two opposing entities currently colluding. There is one party with two teams.
There are obvious differences between the two parties even if their similarities are more important. I don’t think there is sufficient evidence to make the argument that there is a centralized unified actor or actors that are completely coordinating the two parties. A two headed monster is way more apt metaphor than a one headed monster that just swaps masks. It matters to lots of powerful people whether the Democratic Party or Republican Party wins, but it is also the case that all those powerful people who split on Democratic and Republican also agree that one or the other is better than a third party like the Green Party or Libertarian Party. Shrug, but I don’t think the metaphor matters as much as people just stop voting for the monster. If you need it to be a one headed monster to not vote for it, so be it.
The only differences are cosmetic, and the propaganda designed to ensure the people educated to think like fan club cheerleaders instead of critical-thinking adults continue to march obediently to the litany designed to trigger their cognitive bias. And keep them repeating their particular litany when the fact there's no basic difference rouses their cognitive dissonance. Don't waste any more of your time arguing with me. You'll find out the truth soon enough.
We luv you here in DET Bri.
I would vote for you if you ever decided to run for president.
Funny crazy notion: I am not a Moslem, not even a monotheist, and I am not voting Harris. Because of the genocide. Perhaps I am alone but I doubt it. The “other” candidates are not running as racist supremacists, that’s all. My opposition to Trump pales in the shade of my weariness with Islamophobia, racism and Supremacy that the Democrats reveal themselves to be. What America reveals itself to be.
The best way to push the Democrats away from genocidal policies is by not voting for them and they will learn that if they don’t want to lose they will stop their genocidal policies. Thats how Zionists get their way, they threaten to withhold their votes unless politicians do what Zionists want. And the number 1 thing they want, and only thing, is doing whatever they think is best for Israel. They have been doing this since they have been lobbying in the U.S. most politicians are sociopathic mercenaries and will do what will think will get them victory and wealth. If Democrats don’t learn, the public will learn that a different party will be necessary to win. If people vote for genocidal candidates, they are responsible for voting them in. It’s about time the Party of Slavery goes away anyway; should have after the civil war. I’ll be voting for Stein.
https://minorityreport.substack.com/p/the-children-of-amalek
Fans of the TV show 'Survivor" know the power a group of players willing to "go to rocks" has. They become immune to manipulative and coercive appeals to fear, and therefore must be negotiated with. This is just a different way of communicating Frederick Douglass' point that "power concedes nothing without a demand." Just a few lines later in that same speech, Douglass illustrates his point more specifically: "Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
Excellent analysis, glad to hear Briefly. The day of the pragmatic politician was incinerated by incubator WMDs during the bombing of Baghdad. A resurrected Cheney is cream on a turd pie. As someone said many months ago, fuck that shit, free Palestine, vote Stein no matter who, the prize is 2028.
I think you're absolutely spot on Briahna. AOC Pelosi had an interview with Mehdi Hasan a few months ago where she spoke about being able to pressure the party from within. But given that loyalties lie with special interests (which also includes Israel lobby constituents such AIPAC, in addition to what you've pointed out in your article) rather than public interest (or will) I think it's deeply disingenuous to suggest that the Dems can be shifted.
What Mehdi also fails to grasp is that if Harris loses, for the first time, being so resolutely pro-Israel is going to cause someone to lose the Oval Office. Are the Dems going to publicly admit that in the aftermath? Of course not! But it does set a new precedent nonetheless. And if it comes with a third party that is vocally anti-genocide participating on the main stage (i.e. the Greens cross the five percent threshold), you can be rest assured that behind closed doors, they'll certainly be talking about how unconditionally supporting Israel is becoming increasingly costly politically. Who knows, as this festers for a few more years, that could result in AIPAC et al losing its grip over the duopoly and overwhelmingly becoming a GOP aligned hard right interest group.
What is today the Democratic base is so far removed from the party establishment. If the party isn't willing to move with the base, then the base has to abandon the party through the only means it has to send a strong and unequivocal message - the ballot box.
While Mehdi fails to fully grasp this aspect of 'how politics works' - I'll give him credit for at least saying in a subsequent clip that if Harris ultimately loses, that's on her.
or more precisely... it's on DNC