TempermentalAnomaly

After 2022, the majority of the funding comes from never Trumpers.

In 2022, the Forward Party merged with the Renew America Movement and the Serve America Movement.

Renew America Movement was a political group founded by former members of the Trump, George W. Bush, George H..W. Bush, and Reagan administrations. The Serve America Movement was a broad coalition party formed by former President George W. Bush staffers, including National Security Council director Sarah Lenti. Both groups pursued centrist political platforms similar to Forward.

In the 2022 election cycle, most of the Forward Party’s donations have come from its two merger partners, the Renew America Movement and Serve America Movement, which contributed almost $1 million combined.

(source)

This isn't a recent phenomena. Bernie's statement calls out the Democrats behavior over the last 30 years which puts you right in the middle of the first term of Clinton. However, Clinton was the first Democratic executive that had a chance to really enact a strategic change in the Democratic party that was first formulated after the chaos and losses of 1968.

Before 1968, the democrat party was tightly knit with union interest and the selection of a presidential candidate was done behind closed doors by party bosses. This is how it was done in 1968 resulting in Hubert Humphrey. Hubert Humphrey was an establishment candidate and VP to a very unpopular president who decided not to run for a second term. Robert Kennedy was very popular, but assisted before the convention. There were other candidates, but Hubert Humphrey enters the race after the 12 primaries had closed, but before the convention. There were a lot of reasons for chaos at the Democratic Convention in 1968, but this was one. Humphrey was chosen in an undemocratic fashion by party bosses despite lacking wide support by the base. I'm not saying history repeated itself, but it sure rhymes.

So Humphrey loses. The next four years results in reflection buly the party, an internal document called the McGovern-Frasier report is created, the selection process becomes more democratic causing candidates to make a wider tent for an intra-party coalition resulting in the nomination of McGovern eho whose major focus was to get the US out of Vietnam. Major unions decide not to back him and, well, he gets his ass kicked.

More reflection and the Trilateral Commission conclude that "excessive democracy" had resulted in the erosion of economic and political stability. So unions are still important in America at this point, but there's a growing shift from an industrial society to a professional services society starting to happen. The members of the Trilateral Commission see this and start to court this group. Meanwhile, colleges increase enrollment accepting non-traditional students to matriculate.

Jimmy Carter, a member of the Trilateral Commission, is elected and enacts several neo liberal policies such as deregulating the airlines and creating natural gas markets. He fails a bid for a second term, but the tenor of what is yet to come has been sounded. Atari-democrats, young ambitious tech savvy, step to the fore and represented by someone like Gary Hart. He fails to get the nomination mainly because he had an affair and Mondale gets the nod. Mondale was an old school dem who supported labor and Carter's VP. He loses worse than McGovern in 1972.

In 1988, Dukakis runs trying to bridge the old Dems and the new Dems. Like riding two horses, he fails. That's four out five election losses. 1992, a young whipper snapper from Arkansas steps to the plate and wins with an outstanding 43% of the popular vote. Wait! How could be, you ask? You see, Nader isn't the only spoiler candidate. One free wheeling Texas business man named Ross Perot got about 20% of the popular vote. I still remember is slide presentation on network television.

But I digress. This administration, knowing they just barely won, does what anyone who hasn't won in a whole and makes radical changes. Good bye old guard and welcome the new way of ruling. One notable survivor of the purge was Joe Biden. They deregulate more industries and open more trade with NAFTA, CAFTA, China and help rebuilding a newly democratized Russia. Not all of this happened in the first term, but these were all important events. W campaigned on an isolationist strategy in response to much of this. From 1993 to 2013, we lived in the Clinton era. Biden isn't really aligned with it deeply. He's been the middle ground man and probably is more closely aligned to Mondale or Dukakis.

The stock market takes off during the first tech boom, but the vast majority of the spoils go to the professional class and the rich. The working class is doing better because everyone is doing better, but not keeping up. Meanwhile factories are closing and we aren't investing in infrastrcuture. Also, if you want your kids to have a future, send them to college. Can't afford it? No worries, here are some loans. It's for your children. Good luck!

It's during this time that you see them not resisting neocon war mongering. War mongering guts the working class. You see Obama not helping out the working class after the 2008 financial crisis. But who cares? The stock market is soaring! What do mean you don't have any extra cash to invest. Good luck!

2016 had primaries, but everyone knew they'd regret it if they got in the way of Hillary. It was her turn and we deserved a woman president. Biden regrets sitting this out. I don't know if he would have had a chance, but being VP, it would have been a fight of two different visions. Throw in Bernie and there's a real decision to be made.

Well damn... This was far too long. Hopefully it was an interesting read. Yeah, there's five examples in here, but the damage is far more subtle over the course of several decades. The working class, when unionized, were powerful. And politics were fucked up. Then we gutted them and an industrial base and shit's fucked up in a new way. No easy answers. Just grinding.

You could still mark one candidate in Portland's RCV.

I don't know what works for you, but I do the following.

1. Feel your feelings. Base feelings for me are sadness, joy, anger, etc. the feeling is connected to an event, but not the same as the event.And I am not my feelings, I am just having a feeling. Feeling this feeling puts me in touch with something either vital or reframes my perspective.
2. Reorient your goals. This can be either shifting your sense of worth to something more important to you than your work or a recommitment to attaining what was lost. This doesn't always happen on the first pass, but I'm able to lift my head up at this point and look around.
3. Make small tasks that build towards that goal. Or just connecting with the day and the people in my life.
4. Reconnect to your support structure. This is just as important to you as it is for them. They want to see you thrive and see the best in you re-emerge.
5. Rinse and repeat. Stumbling is normal. Successes happen. Feel those feelings again. And again.

I don't know if this will work for you, but this has been a process that works for me.

I only saw one other comment talking about your son, so I'll chime in.

Make sure to hear your son's voice. This is his way of trying to make a connection with you and maybe more. Hear him out and don't reflexively respond. Spend time making sure he feels heard and loved. And whatever you decide, he'll know that his connection with you is strong. I don't know what level of processing you've done with him, but I can imagine it getting a little back burnered as you work through the betrayal and grief.

Why not just ask this question in the OP?

Don't be. Being an asshole wins elections. They are deplorable and they are making you be this way. It's their fault. If they were just to follow the rules you wouldn't be an awful person. You're a hero.

And your whips teaches them nothing. Still not sure how this gets the deplorables to vote for you.

I'm surprised all the self righteous condescension failed to turn out the vote. Guess we're all out options.

This is how you win an election.

It can be interesting to have high moral standards. No one goes around thinking they have low moral standards. Rather, most people conceive of themselves as having high standards that still make them socially relatable. Some people use their high moral stands to isolate themselves. This can lead to either sadness or hubris. Either way, these standards can make it difficult to connect them. How to open up, how far to open, how long to open comes so naturally to most that it's like riding a bicycle or tying your shoelaces.

If the learning window is missed, having people explain what feels natural is difficult for them. If you've ever taught someone to ride a bicycle or tie their shoes, you know what I mean. Many people who missed this window are not predisposed to type of intelligence and we're busy enthralled with something else. So they are at the same time, often, advance in one area and deficient in another.

If they've situated their pride and identity in the area in which they previously focused and if they also have a pride that values results over process embarrassment and shame can creep in. Vulnerability is a liability and not an asset.

In the case of hubris, I think it's due to a feeling of fear of vunerersbility and shame causing one to harden their resolve so that they don't feel the shame again.

In the case of those with sadness, it due to a loneliness. No one else shares their high morals and therefore no one gets who they are.

I don't think you're either one of these and none of this is as linear as I've presented it or as clear cut. Just some tendencies. You may find one sentence resonates strong and another wholly off the mark. Of course if your pride is more flexible and you don't mind the process, that great! The above will only appear as shadows and not currents.

But it sounds like you have healthy relationships with friends and family, so I don't think you really have to worry about too much. In my view, vulnerability and empathy create a bond that is strong in a way that you can lose yourself. You can never really lose yourself of course and, I believe, that you never really have yourself as well. But in a space of love and connection we are freer to be a spontaneous expression of self with and through others and they with us.

This is rather cryptic as experience roots words. But this is a space or mode of living that can open when connections are created. And high morals can isolate one from those opportunities. That isolation can keep us separate from creative acts as well. And these are the types of things that I would say you might be missing out on. I don't think they are readily available to most, but they seem to appear occasionally.

Any case... I hope I didn't get too woo for you or make it sound like there's anything wrong with what you're doing. You sound like a high character individual and suspect when your friends and family reflect upon you, there is warmth in their hearts.

Cheers! It seems like your attitude is healthy and not self injurious. So that's good. In posting this, you're open enough to consider a possible blind spot. You're curious, but not vexxed.

I wanted to pursue the answer to the second question in a moment but wanted to ask a couple of follow up questions first.

• How do close friends and family regard you when you are trying to live this pure life?
• Are you able to be vulnerable with them?
• Do you hold them to these standards as well?
• Do you hold them to standards that they don't hold themselves to?

So as whole, I suspect you're well adjust especially if the above isn't negatively effecting anyone. The following is a deeper set of questions. Their resolution, as far as I know, doesn't necessarily bring about increased health and could, for certain types of psyches, be destabilizing. I don't think you are that type of person, but listen to your own heart of course.

Regarding the second answer, you wish to die knowing you lived life to fullest. What does this wish give you? If you do stumble and you do have a regret at the time of your death, why does it matter? Another way of asking this would be, if there is no after life and you are dead, what does it matter that you then died with a regret? What purpose does dying with no regret serve? In a similar vein, does not wanting to die with regrets keep you from pursuing parts of life that you might have pursued if you did not have that goal?

I want reiterate that that these questions aren't an indicator of mental health. I also want to say that the framing of the issue and the questions lend itself to seeming like there's a right answer. There isn't. Honestly, the right answer could be that it feels right. And not having that feels wrong.