>

She has been and remains a hero of mine, because she was the lone vote against the use of force authorization that would be and has been used to justify war fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Horn of Africa, sub-Sahara Africa, and infinite covert operations.  
Here is a good article that talks about her vote that day.  
It seems fairly obvious to any casual observer that the death merchants run this country.
This is what AOC meant when talking about how in other countries she wouldn't be in the 'same party' as many other Democrats. They'd have their smaller 'progressive party' and then they'd form a coalition with the "Moderate/Center Dem Party' and that would be a power structure.
Which kinda happened behind the scenes to help Pelosi secure the leadership previously when there were enough Progressive votes to block her.
Same as the GOP you wouldn't have everyone under the same umbrella... but America is and will likely continue to remain for a long time a two-party system because it's become far too established and financially secure in that model. >


continue to remain for a long time a two-party system because it's become far too established and financially secure in that model.

While the money is a big part of it, the two party system is caused by our electoral system. "First past the post" style voting (like the US has, where you win 50.1% of the vote you win everything) discourages the creation of smaller, niche parties in favor of having just two opposing parties (think about it, if you have a party that is supported by 20% of all voters you will likely never be able win by yourself, but join forces with another party that has 30% support and you kinda agree on things and boom, you've got a chance).
In order to get rid of the two-party system we need to completely overhaul our electoral system. And there's basically no chance of that because the current electoral system is REALLY good at catering to the established powers and their money >

I don't think this is true, at least not fully. Canada is First Past the Post and we have many parties as well. There's some other part of the electoral system that seems to break the US into a two party system, but it's not just First Past the Post. >

Oh, there's definitely more minutia to it, but it's more true than I think you realize. 
A quick glance through some information on your House of Commons reveals that over 80% of the seats belong to just two parties (Lib and CPC). There are 3 other parties (plus a couple independents), true, however one of those parties doesn't have enough representation to be recognized for legislative purposes (just quoting what I read, idk if that's functionally meaningful), and one of the other parties (NDP) is just Lib but further left (again, I'm basing this on pretty quick searches, so please feel free to correct me if I'm totally off base). So, from the outsider's perspective it seems like you only really have a choice between left, Left, right, and Quebec. I'm not sure I would call it many parties, but it's definitely more than are in the US government.
It's worth mentioning that the US does actually have more than two parties that appear on our ballots. Democrat and Republican are the only two that generally matter, being so significantly bigger than the others, but very occasionally a Libertarian or Green Party candidate will manage to get elected
Edit: to add context, I wanted to show the number of parties in some countries that don't do first past the post (for 10 or more seats, I'm only counting House of Commons/Representatives equivalent):

Spain: 17 parties (6 with 10 or more seats)
UK: 11 parties (4 with 10 or more seats)
Netherlands: 21 parties (4 with 10 or more seats)
Italy: 31 parties (6 with 10 or more seats) >

All the downvotes I got for saying he was a terrible choice... and here we go. >

I'd never heard of him before. Now it sounds like I'll always wish I hadnt. >

It's the epitome of everything that's wrong with the democratic party. All identity and no substance. >

Or depending on who you ask, the most progressive person to ever lead the party and the culmination of the highest virtues of liberal democracy up unto this moment. >

FDR would like a word with those people. >

Hell, even Teddy Roosevelt would like a word. >

People are surprised by this?  LaSalle is a pro-corporate judged and Jeffries is as pro-corporate as it gets >

Yeah, legitimately surprised.  There are plenty of "pro-corporate" Dems who are against LaSalle for all of his other horrible positions.
IMO, Jeffries is legitimately endangering his House leadership position with this endorsement. >

He absolutely isn’t. It sucks but his position is secured >

If the status quo holds, sure.  But if LaSalle ends up getting confirmed, Jeffries is now a co-owner all of his decisions -- which could absolutely trigger a challenge in the 2024 leadership election. >

Just a reminder that Hakeem Jeffries is a neoliberal shill out of the swamp of failure that is New York corporate politics (take a look at the last election, where conservadems in NY alone cost the Dems the House of Representatives).  He was shoved into place in a move that progressives know well in order to keep Barbara Lee from getting into the leadership.
Think how much better off we'd be if Barbara Lee was in Hakeem Jeffries' place.