• FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    214
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’ve been saying since 2016 that Sanders’ executive orders alone would have moved the US further in the right direction than any president since LBJ.

    The last six months of Donald Trump have proven that. The presidency has all the power any party needs if they actually want to do real good.

    • Turret3857@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      147
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think its hilarious how before Trumps 2nd term, the libshits would argue "but if they use executive orders to push through {legalization of abortion, marijuana, socialized healthcare, public transit, any number of good left leaning policies} the R’s will do it back when theyre back in office!!

      Now look where we are.

      fucking libshits and MAGAts.

      • Match!!@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        3 months ago

        we had better damn well put in a president who’s gonna EO everything to the far left

      • Godric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah, elder statesmen like Biden still believed in things like exercising power responsibly within the balance of power like many presidents before them.

        That wasn’t good enough, too many people took the “lesser evil” quote to heart. So now we have a dipshit writing EOs faster than the court system moves, and I hope there’s a god to help the country get out of this.

      • fox2263@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Let’s not forget they’ve spent the past 4-8 years putting their people into the right places to allow them to start doing whatever they want.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        None of these things can be performed by executive order. A big reason that bill just had to be passed was his deportations and detainings couldn’t be performed without money from Congress

    • cogitase@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      3 months ago

      Sanders’ EOs with a conservative Supreme Court would have been unilaterally nullified. The conservative supermajority is what has allowed Trump to get away with the vast majority of this.

      • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        63
        ·
        3 months ago

        Sanders’ EOs with a conservative Supreme Court would have been unilaterally nullified.

        If they’d run Sanders, they’ve had ended up with a Democratic supermajority. SCOTUS would have been largely irrelevant.

        But it doesn’t change facts. The powers of the presidency in the hands of an actual reformer, not a performative one like Biden or Obama, would have entailed true, fundamental change.

        • RedFrank24@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Sanders couldn’t even win the Democratic primary. What makes you think he stood a chance at winning the election?

            • RedFrank24@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              Rigged how, exactly? Were all the voters that didn’t vote for Bernie in on the conspiracy?

              Bernie lost, he wasn’t popular enough. Get over it.

              • BrinkBreaker@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                3 months ago

                The DNC didn’t ‘rig’ the primary in the sense of changing vote totals, but they did actively tilt the scales through media collusion (leaked emails showed DNC officials mocking Sanders and strategizing against him), debate scheduling (minimizing exposure), and voter suppression tactics (e.g., purging independents in closed primaries). The lawsuit revealed the DNC’s lawyers openly argued in court that they had no obligation to run a fair process.

                That said, yes, Clinton won more votes, but the system was structurally biased from the start. The real question is whether a truly neutral primary would have had a different outcome, given Sanders’ momentum and Clinton’s weaknesses (which absolutely contributed to Trump’s win).

                Bernie lost, he wasn’t popular enough. Get over it.

                Telling people to ‘get over it’ ignores why this still matters. The DNC’s actions in 2016 (and again in 2020, with the sudden coalescence around Biden after South Carolina) reinforced the perception that the party prioritizes control over democracy. That disillusionment cost them key voters in swing states. Which is how we got Trump.

              • EldritchFemininity
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                Bernie polled better during the primaries than both Clinton AND Trump. In fact, there were polls showing that he polled better than Trump among Republicans (so long as you only talked about his policies without mentioning his name. As soon as you said his name they’d call him a dirty communist and 180 their opinion - quite literally going from saying they’d vote for somebody with those positions to vowing to never vote for him). Clinton polled worse than Trump, and Bernie had a decent lead over Trump - enough that he was considered the better candidate to run against Trump right up until he dropped out of the race.

                So, what happened? Well, major news networks airing 30 minutes of Trump’s empty podium instead of Bernie’s speech happened. He was the target of a major campaign by the leaders of the party who poured tons of money into making sure Hillary’s face was everywhere and his voice was snuffed out. They quite literally said that they were under no obligation to run a fair primary.

                • RedFrank24@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  So if he was already so popular he was outshining Clinton and Trump, why didn’t people vote for him? Could it maybe be because he’s only popular in highly populous cities that have relatively few electoral votes when compared to the rural areas where he’s not as popular, and so nationwide polling isn’t indicative of actual electoral success?

                  Also, as we all know now, presence on major TV news networks doesn’t align with electoral success either. Trump basically cornered the podcast market and he won the election. People don’t watch TV news anymore.

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      3 months ago

      That’s wholly incorrect. The only reason Trump’s executive orders have any power is due to the full majority support of the Republican-controlled Congress and the conservative SCOTUS.

      Democrats forced a 15-day vote on the constitutionality of Trump’s initial purse-control power grab. The Republican majority redefined the entire congressional calendar as a single day, just to a valid holding the vote.

      This amount of control comes from the abject loyalty of all three branches.

      • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        This amount of control comes from the abject loyalty of all three branches.

        How did that happen? Didn’t the dems do something? Wasn’t Biden fighting this super hard for 4 years? \s

  • sad_detective_man@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    74
    ·
    3 months ago

    sorry LEFTISTS, I will let fascists fuck us all dead before I steer progress away from anything that isn’t Obama-nostalgic capitalism. oh and I’m pretty sure I heard that commie say something about term limits so I’m going to make that all of yous’ problem just for even considering it.

  • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    3 months ago

    Imagine relentlessly defending attempts to appeal to red states and conservatives as a viable electoral strategy, and then refer to Sanders support on this map as ‘empty land’.

  • 𝕛𝕨𝕞-𝕕𝕖𝕧@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    3 months ago

    every comment in this thread along the lines of

    “wElL yOu sHoUldVE vOtEd tHeN!!!1!”

    fucking confounds me bc ig you guys either have a weird victim blaming kink or you have massively more faith in our electoral system’s veracity than i do.

      • 𝕛𝕨𝕞-𝕕𝕖𝕧@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        3 months ago

        i honestly am skeptical of western media’s narrative that everyone is complacent and doesn’t give a fuck. i’ve met a lot of people. every single one of them gives some sort of a shit about politics. it feels like homegrown astroturfing to keep anything from ever actually coming to a head. keep people feeling alone and isolated, hopeless. if 60-80% of americans are complacent, don’t participate civically, and are actively disengaged from the political process… then where are these people? i should be seeing them in droves right? but i’m not, and neither is anyone i know. my network isn’t really geographically limited either. anecdotal evidence regardless, sure, but still suss imo.

        i’ve seen the statistics and polls, the election results and non-participant ratio, you don’t need to share those sources with me.

        idk, maybe i’m fucking crazy and a conspiracy theorist. a wise man once said that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

        • papertowels@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          Perhaps those that care about politics are the ones with which politics gets discussed? Unless you’re sitting down and going “so that trump, huh?” With every person you meet.

          • i do admit the bias of my sampling, but also at the same time:

            Unless you’re sitting down and going “so that trump, huh?” With every person you meet.

            yeah… i mean i do end up doing this much of the time? my time and labor is valuable… i’d rather not waste it on working with fascists, but i recognize i have the privilege of making that choice due to the kind of work i do.

            if you lived during the reich would you not be like “so how ‘bout that hitler?” to every person you met??? i would???

        • _stranger_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          That doesn’t speak to my point at all. I’m saying you can’t tell how well a system works when it barely has half the participation it’s supposed to have, and is constantly fucked with. This is the direct result of Republican interference in Texas, no conspiracy theories required.

          • 𝕛𝕨𝕞-𝕕𝕖𝕧@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            i appreciate your input and discourse, but i think i disagree on a few key points. you can tell how well a system works in this scenario.

            if a system of governance collapse under the stress of the majority of the population becoming disinterested in civics, it isn’t a good system of governance. it is predictable that the status quo would have came about, our institutions are just not build for an inevitability; and that is a patent weakness. western thought has a weird fetish for democracy as some sort of penultimate form of governance but if democracy has historically always decayed into authoritarianism it’d be naive to insist on rabidly defending it bc not only can we do better, we have a responsibility to do better. we collectively have blood on our hands as a consequence of our inability to affect change.

            i don’t know what the answers are. but i know what we’re doing is misguided and leads to inevitable human suffering. there is no way to absolve ourselves of that sin, we can only move forwards.

            i am strongly of the belief that zero-knowledge and trustless systems will form the bedrock of future governance. trust cannot be a factor as it is a fickle maiden. you don’t question the character sheets or narrator in d&d implicitly, not because you trust everyone around you but because, with a good DM who enforces the rules, the system will work out in a way that is amicable to all parties. this isn’t the best example bc i’m kind of tipsy rn tbh, there’s still trust involved in that system, but it is the most colloquial example i can think of without using abstract shit straight out of my textbooks on math and logic.

            again, sorry if my reply is subpar. kind of drunk tonight lmao. appreciate the discourse and civility tho. i love that about lemmy. it’s why i stick around here. and just to clarify - my position is not advocating authoritarianism or anything crazy like that. i’m just kind of recognizing that western liberal democracy has flaws that are so egregious as to be responsible for tragedy. we are culpable for that and i feel strongly about our collective responsibility to do better. we have a way, but do we have a will?

            edit: you’re my 200th comment on lemmy, btw! congrats!!

      • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Be a lot easier to participate if anybody’s vote actually mattered. Literally worthless vote where I live.

        I “wasted” my vote on Cornell West in the presidential category. Doesn’t matter at all.

        • _stranger_@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Well, when you don’t vote you’re guaranteeing your opinion doesn’t matter. The math always works in favor of everyone voting.

  • Avicenna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    3 months ago

    why wouldn’t they? Bernie’s interests are aligned completely opposite to the interests of whatever groups that keep at least half of those democrats in their seats. That became much more clear when they happily voted no to Bernie’s “ban weapon sale to Israel” motions.

    • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      3 months ago

      Good question.

      If Democrats were reasonable, objective people (which they are not), they’d probably look at the fact that the state of Missouri passed a $15 minimum wage, required paid sick leave, AND legalized abortion in the same election where they elected Republicans.

      And then take that as a lesson of maybe what they should be doing in order to win back red states.

      But they won’t.

      They’re in the pocket of the rich and couldn’t care less about people who work for a living.

      • Dogyote@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        This is so confusing. Which party, if any, was supporting those measures? How’d they get on the ballot?

        • raglan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          We are one of the last states that can still do ballot initiatives. That’s how weed happened anyway.

          • raglan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            3 months ago

            It’s a bit silly sometimes though, the citizens put initiatives on the ballot that Rs hate and then vote in all the Rs expecting them to implement the stuff in good faith.

            • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              3 months ago

              If you consider the bigger picture it’s not silly at all.

              Democrats spent four years, two of them with the same amount of power that Donald Trump has, letting people get significantly poorer and aiding a genocide. Then, they fronted an openly demented candidate who had a meltdown on national TV. Then, they let the brain-dead candidate crown a candidate who couldn’t even beat Tulsi Gabbard in a primary. After that, they spent three months of campaign time offering no policy changes, but just telling people to ‘be joyful’. Then, after that, Harris publicly affirmed she wouldn’t do anything differently than Biden had.

              TLDR: Democrats made voters hate them just that much. You can’t tell tens of millions of people working 100 hours a week at three jobs just to afford a roach-infested studio that you’re not going to make their lives better. Sure, Dems say they support better things, but no one believes them anymore.

              • Krauerking@lemy.lol
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                Yeah, people decided to try something else or more of the same as people do. That intersection was new republicans shouting they could strong arm the world a better place but kissed that it was a better place only for the wealthy.

                People need change when the world is changing but their social contracts all stayed the same.
                I really don’t get how people don’t see all this as signs that the average American is drowning and desperately need compassion instead of apathy.

  • paranoia@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 months ago

    As a non American I don’t see why the democratic party should have chosen a guy who deliberately chose to spend his entire career outside the democratic party.

      • paranoia@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        Great, then mirror some of his policies. However were I a democratic politician, I simply would not reward a politician who has been outside the party structure for decades with endorsement for presidency. For me it would effectively be like skipping the queue.

        • AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          3 months ago

          For me it would effectively be like skipping the queue.

          It’s not about whose turn it is. Arguably, that’s how we got Hillary Clinton in 2016, which was the failure that gave Trump a political career.

          What it is about is representing your party members. And your party members supported Bernie Sanders.

          • paranoia@feddit.dk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            I didn’t say anything about “turns”.

            To become a high ranked member of the democratic party that is in consideration for the US Presidency, you have had to put in decades of political work and show loyalty to the party. You have had to work within the constraints of the party, even when you don’t 100% agree with them, and be considered as responsible by the public for bad decisions. Your career may have hit rocky patches because of choices the party made, despite them not being your personal beliefs.

            To be Bernie Sanders was actually quite an easy political position, for the most part. He got to vote how he liked, did not have to sit under the party whip, and was only responsible for his own decisions. He did not have to do anything that was politically difficult, as he was never in power.

            So my view on it is that there is just no reason why the democratic party should have gone along with him as their representative. If he wanted to have a chance at being the president, he needed to put in the political legwork, become a democrat, and have to go with the party whip sometimes, even if he didn’t personally believe in what he was voting for.

            To have selected him would have meant that there was one less reason to be a democrat, as you could just be an opportunistic, populist independent.

            • AHemlocksLie@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              3 months ago

              I didn’t say anything about “turns”.

              Yeah, you did. You likened it to skipping position in a queue. The whole point of a queue is to collectively manage turn order. It heavily implies that it’s someone’s turn next. Maybe you didn’t mean to, but that’s the obvious implication of the phrasing.

              On the rest, we’re just going to start going in circles, so I’ll leave it there.

    • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeah, they didn’t choose Bernie. They would rather lose than promote even the tiniest progress. Just look at biden’s 4 years ffs.

  • WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    There’s only two fascist parties. One is slightly less fascist, that’s it.

    No matter what you do, you will be pigeonholed into making the wrong choice.

    It is not your fault.

    • Fredthefishlord
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeah I’m gonna just let the actively 10x as fascist party win because the other is a bad capitalist instead of actually doing anything