The Schism, Revisited...OR "The Left Argues Over Nina Turner's Loss"

 First things first: while everyone and their grandpa has a theory/explanation for Nina Turner's loss, I would say that Irami's and Niko's have elements that make the most sense. Of course, these guys being who they are, one must wade through many streams of consciousness to get to point. 

What I've noticed is that this event has either reopened wounds or further exposed the schism on the Left, in particular those who remain faithful to the "We must infiltrate the Democratic Party and use them/take it over" strategy and those who are more aligned with, "The Democratic Party is too corrupt to co-opt, either pressure them from the outside through activism or use a new political party" crowd (I think an "all of the above" approach is more appealing because if for anything, it would keep the Establishment on their toes).

Anyway...it seems the schism involves different perspectives on three issues, which I'll pose as questions:

1. Is capitalism a good thing for America? If so, why? If not, what should be done?
2. Does America have imperialistic tendencies, and if so should something be done?
3. Should we accept the two-party duopoly system in America?

In other words, the schism appears to be based on socio-economics, militarism, and the acceptance of the current political system. More simplistically: "If the game is rigged, should we continue to play by the rules made by those who rigged it?" 

Those who lean "yes" tend to have or want access to power, or appear to to be benefitting financially from being part of the conversation. Those leaning "no" either have little access to power, are independently well-off, or not in this for the money (or even a combination).  

I can only say that any tactic that involves "vote for/donate to" either the Democrats or GOP should be met with the Raised Eyebrow of Suspicion.