Yeah but it’s her turn.
I’ve always felt that he would have delivered against trump in 2016. A paragon of living up to expectations of what our leadership should do at every stage of his life.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2016/02/18/bernie-sanders-and-the-willis-wagon-protests-of-1963/
Pretty sure he’d have gotten the Kennedy treatment if his policies didn’t serve the owner class. But probably in a plausibly deniable way, like a heart attack or such.
Also, let’s face it: America didn’t do anything to Bernie, they did it to themselves…
If you think that’s bad, read in on Jeremy Corbyn.
The US/UK will never elect a socialist…. It’s not possible.
It’s not possible.
By design, of course.
For those who won’t look it up the takeaway is that when a massively popular, actually left leaning candidate makes it far enough in the race and poses a real threat to the establishment despite the hurdles it has already put in their way in the form of the media and state dictated education that sow hatred of anything remotely socialist, the media will then go in to overdrive to stop them from getting in to power by any means possible.
And it works. Again - because of a combination of no education for critical thinking against the establishment, and a media that serves it.
It’s one of the ways in which the system is rigged to always work in favour of the rich and powerful, and why elections are nothing but a charade (especially in a monarchy) - they will never let us have an equitable and just society that works for all of its members, they have too much to lose, and they would kill us all off in a blink if it protected their status (they already are). The time for fighting back in self defence is long overdue…
If that were the case, then the banks would all be publicly owned now.
Bailouts aren’t a little bit of socialism or “crony” capitalism - it’s just capitalism. The banks own the factors of production, bought most representatives, and effectively bailed themselves out.
The banks need to die, every single one of them yes all of them.
Sanders isn’t a socialist. His platform is right of where the centrist Justin Trudeau is.
Your comment getting downvoted is pretty dumb, he is absolutely not a socialist. He hasn’t expressed the desire to abolish capitalism and replace it with socialism. He just wants “humane” capitalism. Wanting public healthcare/social safety/a welfare state doesn’t make you a socialist. He’s fine private industry as long as they’re regulated enough/as long as the workers are treated well.
Australia elected someone pretty close to a socialist once. Not really a socialist, but far more left wing than anyone America or Britain has elected in living history, and far more left than anyone Australia has had since.
America organised a coup against his Government. And like, yes, we all know America loves doing coups in foreign countries. But usually it’s countries most Americans would perceive as “third world”. Either a political enemy or a neutral irrelevancy. (To be very clear, I’m not saying they are irrelevant, but that most Americans would think of them as not very significant.) But in 1975 they did it to one of their ostensible closest allies. Because he was too left wing for Ford, Kissinger, and William Colby. (Side note, in looking up who was the director of the CIA at the time, I discovered that Colby was succeeded in that role by…George Bush Sr. They elect literal spies for president??) And because he threatened to close down their spy base.
Bob Hawke. Allegedly called Thatcher a fucking bitch. While I’m sure he meant it, he was better than to say it out loud.
It sad to see how the right has captured Australia.
Made him a senator?
I’ll bite in case this isn’t trolling. They are likely referring to how people, even those who were fairly liberal, made it seem like Bernie was too far out there to be a valid choice for president.
And I personally agree with that with one caveat not to be a president, but to be electable. While he was popular on the left, I think he would not pull independence/centrist and would lose election.
He polled 7 points better against Trump than Hillary did in 2016. Although that being said, it seems pretty well accepted that the polling was pretty unreliable in 2016.
Maybe a little trolling. I was a Bernie supporter, donor, and volunteer, but I accept that he lost fair and square I am just pretty tired of people feeling the need to relitigate the 2016 primary every 4 years, even though none of the candidates or leadership are currently involved.
It was painful for all of us who poured our heart into his campaign, and I understand that people were frustrated, but at this point picking that scab serves no purpose than to depress voter engagement, which is why I am skeptical that it is being done in good faith. The DNC worked with Bernie after 2016 (I sat on one of the focus groups and filled out several survey) and made a bunch of reforms, but you never hear anything about that for some reason.
“We” didn’t do shit to Bernie…
The wealthy and politically connected fucked over Bernie and every other American like they consistently do. Because Bernie would have actually helped Americans and they’d have another FDR to deal with.
People need to stop thinking it’s D vs R. Both parties look out more for their donors than America, and they have a lot of the same donors. The only explanation for the DNCs actions back to 2016, is they’d rather have trump than a progressive.
trump let’s moderates lower standards, a progressive president means standards would be raised, and no more Republican or “moderate” Dem president.
Ol’ “both sides are the same” givesomefucks commenting on a “Biden is the devil” return2ozma post. A screenshot of a tweet from early 2020 at that
You’re going to win a lot of hearts and minds with that rhetoric lol. More importantly, where did you derive any of that about my political beliefs based on what I said
Bernie could have still won if enough people showed up to vote.
We need to take some responsibility for that
No he couldn’t.
At least according to what a DNC lawyer told a judge when people tried to sue the DNC for rigging the 2016 primary.
Their official defense was essentially “so what if we did? We can do that because primaries are nonbinding and more of a survey”
The same lawyer also argued that there is “no contractual obligation” to prevent advantage or disadvantage between candidates, and that the evenhandedness and impartiality language in the DNC charter is not “self-defining.”
And
We could have—and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That’s not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right.
Important to point out that the DNC’s lawyers just flat out admitted there that it’s a thing that has happened before.
Lots of people don’t get that for some reason.
What you’ve cited here is a legal argument the DNC used in court as a defendant in a lawsuit. That doesn’t change the fact that Hillary Clinton got more votes than Sanders in 2016, which literally happened. I voted for Sanders and thought he had a better shot at beating Trump, and thought Clinton was a terrible candidate. That doesn’t change the fact that a ton of Democratic voters preferred Clinton. Women in particular were very excited about the possibility of a woman president. I knew a ton of people who voted for her over Sanders and who were excited to do so.
Either way, the superdelegate system that locked in Clinton’s nomination was changed after 2016, yet even after Biden beat Sanders fair and square in 2020 you’d still rather think there’s some grand DNC conspiracy instead of the reality that there just aren’t enough voters supporting your preferred candidate.
I caucased for Bernie in Washington for the primary, what a miserable experience. It took all day, the entire event was run by old white ladies in Hillary shirts, they lost the vote count and had to recount several times, etc. I have no confidence that my vote for Bernie was even counted (they eventually announced Hillary was the victor to a room full of Bernie “bros” ie. working class families), and that’s just one location.
I also caucused for Bernie in Washington. He won the district level elections, but lost at the county level elections. Basically my district and the surrounding districts were pretty strongly in favor of him, but the surrounding areas were not.
Bernie would have actually helped Americans and they’d have another FDR to deal with.
The President isn’t a dictator. Bernie wouldn’t have been able to do anything because of the Republican controlled Congress.
He would have been the leader of the Democratic party… And as such he could have made some serious changes to that party and who is allowed to be in it… Possibly even giving us an actual people’s party
Because throwing out half the party to fit The Leader’s vision is working out so well for the RNC
He wouldn’t have been able to do anything because of Congress, period. Neither party wants the things that Bernie wants. He’s a socialist, and both major parties are very much pro-corporate capitalists.
Ever heard of a National Referendum ? If Bernie as POTUS saw that Senate and Congress can’t act in the Peoples best interests, he could hold National Referendum votes to determine the popular vote from the people. It would bypass Congress and Senate and even SCOTUS will be impotent to go against the POTUS or the popular vote.
It takes Courage and Conviction of a strong leader to hold the vote to the people to pass legislation through a plebiscite.
The only explanation for the DNCs actions back to 2016, is they’d rather have trump than a progressive.
The DNC has spent over 44 million dollars helping pro-trump Republicans win their primaries over moderate Republicans, so that they can point at the Republican party and say “look, there are no moderate Republicans left”. The DNC is just as guilty as the trump Republicans for radicalizing the Republican party.
That’s a preeeeeeetty big stretch. I presume this is what you’re talking about?
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2022/07/democrats-spend-millions-on-republican-primaries/
Yes, that’s what I’m talking about. What about my statement is a stretch? They’re trying to promote radicalized candidates because they believe they’ll be easier to defeat. It’s underhanded, and erodes voter confidence. It’s also limiting voter choices, attempting to solidify the Democratic party as the only viable choice for candidates, which further erodes our democracy. Citizens deserve choices. Locking elections to a choice between a radical Trumper and the DNC doesn’t benefit the country as a whole, it only benefits the DNC. They’ve received considerable criticism from members of both parties over these actions, criticisms which I believe are valid.
Edit: I re-read my original comment and I concede it’s “a stretch”, or rather just outright inaccurate that the Democrats are just as guilty as trump Republicans for radicalizing the party. But their actions make them complicit.
