this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2024
18 points (80.0% liked)

New Political Party

60 readers
1 users here now

The community for creating a new US political party, so far our guiding principle is that billionaires are trash, United Health CEO had it coming, The Adjustor is our mascot and our main raison d'etre is to shit on the rich and take back whats rightfully ours.

founded 2 weeks ago
MODERATORS
problematicPanther@lemmy.world
18
New Dawn, New Political Party (lemmy.world)
submitted 2 weeks ago by problematicPanther@lemmy.world to c/newpoliticalparty@lemmy.world
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I'm taking all comers here. I'm setting this up, but I don't necessarily want to run the show. I have no idea how to run a political party, and I'm not even sure how to campaign, get on ballots, get coverage or anything like that.

But I'm tired of the rich shitting on us, and it's time we shat back.

First and Foremost, this is just our lemmy community. Soon, I'm going to want to set up a website, get registered with whatever body we need to register with, and start ballot initiatives and field candidates wherever we can.

Let's fucking go.

top 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sxan@midwest.social 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Have you looked at all 53 ballot-qualified political parties in the US and decided that none of them meet your needs? It'd be far easier to work with one that already has most of the basic work done that taking an NIH approach and building up a new one from scratch.

You jump almost immediately into fundraising after stating exactly one vaguely defined plank ("fuck the rich!"), which makes me a tad suspicious about your motives. No offense. Note Occupy Wall Street was essentially "fuck the rich," and they're more or less still around - again, working with people who've already started down this path is going to save a lot of work and probably be more successful than trying to start a party in Lemmy.

[–] meyotch@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

In our current US system, a Super PAC is probably the way to start something like this.

Super PACs cannot directly support candidates, that’s a regular PAC. (And don’t be mystified by the process of forming these, it’s just simple paperwork) SuperPAC can do issue centered media and information dissemination not focused on a specific candidate

One thing the Shit-backers bring to the table that doesn’t really exist is that they normalize the discussion of just exactly how the rich are shitting on us.

Look at how the corporate media tries to spin The Adjuster story away from the awkward topic of the fact the adjuster may actually be on the right ride of this trolley problem.

This party would start by normalizing one thing that seems to be anathema in polite society: it’s ok to shit on the idea of excess wealth and those who hoard it.

Before we get all leftist and start asking ‘BuT hoW RiCH’, stop! Who cares? Start with step one and spread general agreement that there is such a thing as too much wealth.

This is a movement and movements run on emotion first, policy comes much later.

[–] JAWNEHBOY@reddthat.com 3 points 2 weeks ago

This sounds great! I like the idea of sticking with "new party" as the name, or we could also do something like the "working class party"

[–] meyotch@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

After seeing some of the initial input, I really think we need to keep the exact vibe you started with in that first post in the other community.

Keep it so simple.

Shit back!

Nothing more complex than that.

Look at recent history that led to the MAGA takeover. Talk radio kept a constant drumbeat of emotion going and it seeped into the general awareness. They kept policy discussions inside their little think tanks (like Heritage Foundation and Project 2025).

Movements run on emotion first and foremost. Policy wonks are important but they are not put up front.

It’s all about the feels. Feels are the raw potential that powers the policy changes.

[–] problematicPanther@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

We are the shit-backers!

[–] AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What is the advantage over joining an existing organization like the Democratic Socialists of America?

[–] meyotch@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Is the DSA full of people who will sing the song of angry men?

Because the entire point of this party is to shit on rich people.

[–] AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

I don't know much about them, it seems like they're failing at publicity though, I feel like basically no one's heard of them even though they have almost 100k members, including 6 members in Congress (who are in the democratic party as well, but they're still members)

I think they let basically any leftist in tho from what I've read on their Wikipedia page.

[–] meyotch@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Well, since I hate myself, I have worked at local level Dem politics off and on over the years. It’s been a cycle of jumping to help because if not me then who? Then I get disgusted when reminded of how gamed the Dems are, the grassroots has no influence on the national party and step away. It’s a stupid stubbornness of mine to keep going back because I believe you have to understand these systems to make real change.

So, I suggest we get a sense of some consensus on

  • a platform of policy goals, like an exponential tax rate.
  • a clear statement of our goal to shit so hard on rich people that they have to listen in self defense

By the way, we have historical precedent. The phrase “I have to go hang a duke” as a euphemism for dropping a shit suddenly has new relevance.

[–] AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

personally I like the net income = s * sqrt(gross income / s + 1) curve as it provides a universal basic income, with an incentive to work, naturally guides incomes downwards, and all as a single easily configurable parameter you can use to fit to any arbitrary taxation amount, it might be better to get more granular control, but as far as 'janky patch solutions on top of capitalism' go I think it works well enough for how simple it is

[–] Pandantic@midwest.social 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

This would be more taxes on the lowest income earners if you don’t put in a tax-free threshold. Will there still be deductions for things like dependents?

[–] AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

It depends on the scaling threshold but where s=30k, it crosses over at around 50k

Its not of an income thing than a tax thing, if you earn no money you will still get an income of s$

[–] meyotch@slrpnk.net 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Personally, I fscking love it.

But I need help with the math. Where in the equation is the velocity of the shit I am expelling on rich people?

So, I know you know, but tell us how this equation shits on rich people.

[–] AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It’s not all that extreme but with an s of 30k someone who would be earning 20 million now earns 775k, you would also have to take into account benefits, stocks, etc I’m sure

I’m now leaning towards s*log2(x/s+2), it behaves a bit better towards the higher ends imo (280k at 20m and 381k at 200m)

If you want to decouple the starting income and income scale you could use s*logb(x/s+b)

here's a curve you can play around with, if you had a dataset with the number of people making each income you could balance it in whatever way would be ideal

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Well, damn good that you tried-- thats better than most of us already. And good that you push yourself and the dems for better than the sad corrupt effort the DNC serve up. And we dont even need to talk about the rethuglicans.

[–] meyotch@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Don't get me wrong. I am a freaking traitor to the dems. My first vote after 18 was for Ross Perot. He explained the game. He warned us about the giant sucking sound that meant our jobs were going to Mexico. But he didn't blame Mexicans. It was the god-damned NAFTA. The man was bat-shit crazy, but I take that as a qualification in the political arena.

[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

traitors to either party get massive free upvotes for as long as I can remember their username..

[–] P00ptart@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

New dawn sounds like a far cry dlc.

[–] problematicPanther@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

I don't know what else to call it, first thing to come to mind.

Suggestions?

[–] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Define rich. Because to someone making $10 an hour, the rich could be someone making $40 an hour.

[–] problematicPanther@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

Someone who doesn't have to work because they have so much money that their money makes money.

[–] enbyecho@lemmy.world -3 points 2 weeks ago

LOL.