Bernie should have won.
Fuck everyone who voted for Hillary in the primary to guarantee a trump presidency.
It was less that and more the Democratic Party completely rigging the election, and committing election fraud, in plain sight for the primaries.
It’s also the way baseless smears (he owns more than one home! He once wrote something that, if taken completely out of context, is misogynist!) were amplified by neoliberals. The same neoliberals that would throw a hissy fit if someone mentioned how much Hillary “earned” from speaking to banks and hedge funds.
Or that she said marriage is between a man and a woman. Just ignored that one didn’t they(
My understanding is that the US primaries are private affairs and the organisations can pick their candidates however they want. The democrats certainly did some unethical shit to snub Bernie in favor of Hillary, but I don’t know if Primary shenanigans can qualify as the crime of election fraud (unless some of the states protect their primary elections in the same way they do for real elections).
No, they can’t legally qualify what happened as election fraud, but I certainly qualify it as such.
See this is what I disagree with when you have states that actually fund the two parties. In Washington there are tax allocated resources for the gop/dems and third parties get screwed. So I think it’s messed up when the party head just gets to pick.
Well, those 2 parties have had a stranglehold on our entire lawmaking infrastructure since anybody currently alive was born. They’ve had a loooooong time to implement election rules and campaign finance laws that only benefit themselves at the expense of those smaller parties.
the Democratic Party completely rigging the election
Its very hard to do the “Vote Blue No Matter Who” rah-rah election dance in The Most Important Race of Our Lives, when you’ve got “elections are horribly run and routinely compromised by party insiders” rolling around in the back of your head.
I’ve been a Texas resident for my entire voting life, and the GOP nakedly fucking with the elections process is just something I can’t talk about to anyone.
I didn’t see any election fraud. Can you explain how the fraud worked?
I don’t have any specific memories or sources on hand since it was like 8 years ago. So by all means take this with a fairly large grain of salt.
But I’m pretty sure it had something to do with the DNC actively pushing for Hillary and denying Bernie the same resources and privileges guaranteed to other candidates. Like there was a substabtial amount of money that was intended to go to the nominee, but Hillary got it well before the primaries. Also there were the emails that got leaked from DNC execs who were very openly against Bernie and discussing ways to debase him or otherwise get support for Hillary to beat him despite their role as neutral orchestrators in the primaries.
We don’t know everything. Really just the email leaks and a few reports here or there. But judging by what we do have it paints a pretty damning picture for what we don’t have.
It was a lot of stuff. I’m still mad about it. Of the top of my head: they very quickly got rid of polling locations in places he was polling high in multiple states after they realized he was doing well and people were standing in line to vote for over 8 hours, they lied about stupid shit like the fake chair throwing thing they made up to make it sound like anyone on his side were violent, they ignored the caucus rules in Nevada where he clearly won based on video at the time, there was more, but it’s been a long time and this are just a few examples that cross my mind on occasion
There have been a handful of times where I wish I had just written it down because I see the “I never saw/ heard about this” line often enough.
The DNC admitted collision in court, what else do you need lol
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/358389-the-dnc-owes-bernie-sanders-and-all-dems-an-apology/
Now I get that this source is mainly speculative, and dependent on eyewitness account, but with how everything took place in 2015-2016, I fully see the above being a completely valid happening.
The linked article fails to even make any concrete allegations. It simply refers to Donna Brazile’s book.
They destroyed the Iowa caucus.
That was 2020 though.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Bernie should have won.
Its funny, because one of the worst things about him has been his decades-long staunch support for the Israeli state.
The big difference between Sanders and Biden is that he’s cognizant. The ship is turning on US support for Israel and Bernie sees it. But Biden’s got his head entirely lodged inside the Beltway news circuit. He’s more worried about how Claudine Gay’s firing is going to impact his poll numbers than what horrors Netanyahu plans to inflict on Gaza in order to force Palestinians into a Congolese exile.
It was a bit telegraphed that she backed away from Obama with promised of party electors after he left office. The r’s appeared to have known as well, because they were attacking her his whole presidency. The dems made a deal with a powerful political block in their party, and the r’s capitalized on it. If her ego would have let her back down, whole different world.
But her ego wouldn’t let her back down, so here we are.
The DNC fucked him over man. No one wants a real progressive who cares about people as president.
i am once again thanking you bernie sanders for saying the things
But without Isreal as an intermediary, how are politicians supposed to funnel billions of dollars to their friends in the defense industry?
And without letting Israel demolish and “resettle” Gaza, how are they supposed to get their hands on all of that sweet offshore gas that the Palestinians aren’t letting them have anymore?
You’d think this would make the oil industry actually push for an independent Palestine, but oh well.
Nah, they know that an independent Palestine wouldn’t play ball. The Israeli government would after stealing the territory, though.
And how can they justify a proxy genocide against Islam without Israel?
Still plenty of kit needed in Ukraine.
Europe is rearming and we could arm our Kurdish allies.
Or we could keep selling tanks to cops. Heck maybe suburban Iowa could use some police owned AA guns.
Easy: we just start a proxy war somewhere else. Throw a dart on a map of the global south, and you’ll probably be ok.
deleted by creator
Whoever is still claiming that Bernie doesn’t speak truth to power anymore hasn’t been paying attention for the last month or two. Better late than never to return to being the chief advocate for what the people wants but most of Washington doesn’t! ✊️
Whomever is still claiming that Bernie doesn’t speak truth to power anymore
Who ever claimed that? It’s essentially been the man’s entire career. If he wasn’t publicly speaking up early enough in this case, I’m sure it’s because he was bending ears behind the scenes.
Not arguing with you, just sort of aghast that anyone (magas excepted - but we expect their opinions to be trash) would try to claim he’s not a true servant of the people.
Who ever claimed that?
A SHITLOAD of people.
It’s essentially been the man’s entire career
True. I didn’t say they were right, just that they were saying it.
If he wasn’t publicly speaking up early enough in this case, I’m sure it’s because he was bending ears behind the scenes.
No doubt about it.
Not arguing with you, just sort of aghast that anyone (magas excepted - but we expect their opinions to be trash) would try to claim he’s not a true servant of the people.
Agreed, though I’d add Neoliberals and people who don’t have any ideals of their own but still like discussing politics for the tribalism and the mud slinging. Of course, there’s significant overlap between these groups…
He has been publicly speaking since the start basically.
Whomever is still claiming that Bernie doesn’t speak truth to power anymore hasn’t been paying attention for the last month or two.
Hasnt been paying attention for the last decade or 4…
You know how neoliberals and their propaganda machine be…
Whomever
Nice try, but it’s “whoever” this time 😉
Fair enough, gonna correct that real quick 😁
Meanwhile congress is slap fighting over who gets to kill the poor
Blame their constituencies.
80% of Democrats support a ceasefire.
Why don’t 80% of Democratic politicians?
Because they know they can get elected without opposing Israel.
Which goes back to their constituency.
Well when their choices on the ballot are to support Israel or support Israel, what is the constituency supposed to do?
Why are their choices only to support Israel?
AIPAC
What about it?
Edit: He just downvoted me without an answer, so we can safely assume he has no real argument.
It is the fault of the constituency. People can run for office while opposing Israel, but voters have been brainwashed into thinking otherwise.
I volunteered on his campaigns. Bernie is almost always right.
If I was American I would always vote for Bernie Sanders.
But if Biden can just ignore congressional oversight, what will this do? Can someone sue to enforce oversight?
He’s currently behind the mango Mussolini in the polls and, other than “at least I’m not the other guy” being a much less effective strategy for an incumbent than a challenger no matter how awful the challenger is, this is the main reason.
Biden may be a corrupt right wing reactionary, but he’s not enough of a fool that he’s not beginning to realize the fact that he probably has to change course on this or run a very high risk of losing the last fair and open US presidential election.
I’ve heard a lot of joke names for trump, but “Mango Mussolini” takes the cake lol
It fits IMO lol
Calling Biden “corrupt right wing reactionary” is untrue.
That isn’t to say I wouldn’t prefer Bernie Sanders, or that I agree with everything Biden’s done.
I just think that accusation is inflammatory and baseless. It would be more helpful to use accurate descriptors.
I’m not a fan of him ordering the rail union back to work but he’s also asked for the DEA to review a proposal to reschedule marijuana, acquitted existing inmates on marijuana charges and forgiven as much student loan debt as he is able without intervention from Congress.
To me this does not paint the picture of a “corrupt right with reactionary”
Calling Biden “corrupt right wing reactionary” is untrue.
He was known as The Senator From MBNA for shamelessly acting as if he was working for the then second largest credit card company in the country rather than the US people.
He championed the pro-corporate bankruptcy reform that was so anti-consumer that it inspired Elizabeth Warren to advocate for a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to shield consumers from similarly predatory practices by the rich and powerful.
He’s said that “of course” he’d be more likely to agree to talk to someone if they first donated a lot of money to his campaign.
He’s repeatedly championed cutting medicare and medicaid.
He initially opposed desegregation bussing, saying he didn’t want his kids to “grow up in a racial jungle”
He’s bragged about his close cooperation with such segregationists as racism end boss Strom Thurmond.
He has said that he would veto Medicare For All if congress passed a bill allowing any version of it.
He was the only 2020 Dem primary candidate that categorically ruled out decriminalization of the use and possession of cannabis.
He is one of the staunchest international supporters of a fascist government currently engaged in a horrendous genocide because “they’ve always been our allies, so we need to support them no matter what”
He used to brag that nobody in Washington went to more of the events of that fascist government’s lobbying arm, AIPAC.
If that doesn’t “paint the picture of” a corrupt right wing reactionary to you, that’s not because he isn’t one.
I just think that accusation is inflammatory and baseless
Well you’re half right. It IS inflammatory. Unpopular truths tend to be.
It would be more helpful to use accurate descriptors.
Those are 100% accurate descriptors. They don’t encompass ALL of what he is, but corrupt, right wing and reactionary is objectively three things that he is.
asked for the DEA to review a proposal to reschedule marijuana
A proposal that concluded with no qualifications that rescheduling would be the only defensible course of action. Nothing to review unless he disagrees and wants the war on drugs people to justify it for him.
acquitted existing inmates on marijuana charges
That’s prescribing an aspirin for a migraine while you have but refuse to use the cure for the underlying disease.
forgiven as much student loan debt as he is able without intervention from Congress.
Categorically untrue. It’s within the constitutional powers of his secretary of education to cancel literally all of it, which he would have done had Biden asked.
Biden knew that he’d get pushback from the GOP no matter how much or how little was forgiven and chose small amounts that he still means tested to death, like Dem leadership always do when they do anything that helps regular people more than their owner donors.
To reiterate: yes, he’s objectively corrupt. Yes he’s objectively right wing, and yes, he’s objectively reactionary.
I appreciate your thorough and non-confrontational response, I will respond once I’ve had time to read give your points the time and research they deserve.
He’s an American politician who is 80 years old. Yes, he needs to go. All of them from his generation do. But he’s not a goddamned Nazi, so crawl down off that cross before you hurt youself.
I never said he’s a nazi. I know he’s not. I said he’s corrupt, right wing and reactionary. Then I provided ample examples of him being a corrupt right wing reactionary. Nobody’s on a cross here.
I’m voting for Trump just to piss off biden supporters.
If they have a problem with me doing that, they can nominate someone who represents my interests.
I’m gonna wear a big shirt if Trump wins that says, “I voted for Trump because democrats nominated Biden.”
Removed by mod
If they have a problem with me doing that, they can nominate someone who represents my interests.
Or just insult me, that’ll work wonders.
Removed by mod
Eh, it’s more about choosing to lose slowly vs. choosing to lose quickly.
Either way we lose, which is what the lesser-evil means. At least with Trump winning, people might change their strategy to prevent similar wins in the future.
Biden winning means that the lesser-evil is still in style and we have no reason to address the root of society’s problems.
I’m sorry you need to resort to personal insults, but that just tells me you’re not confident about your point.
Wen you elect fascists they don’t always allow free and fair elections in the future so this “similar wins int he future” clause is ignorant. Especially when the fascist in question already attempted one coup to stay in power when he lost an election.
Accelerationism like that does not work. It makes things worse for everyone and nothing improves in the end.
If a third of registered Democrats stopped voting for DNC-backed candidates who do not represent them (by not voting or by voting for the Green Party candidate) and the Democrats lost in a landslide, the DNC would have two options:
- move left to regain the voters
- move right to keep the corporate bribes coming and try to sway Republican voters.
I am not at all confident that they would select option 1.
deleted by creator
Why? Do you often base your voting intentions on whether people are mean to you on the internet?
If they have a problem with me doing that, they can nominate someone who represents my interests.
You get two choices, mostly shit and complete shit. That’s how the system works in the US. Most people have figured this out by the time they reach voting age.
Somebody doesn’t understand basic game theory.
deleted by creator
You’re not about to change your mind anyway, so why not have some fun calling you out for what you are?
It’s rude and against the rules to resort to personal insults.
I can’t bring myself to vote for the guy that’s probably going to put me in a camp for being trans.
Instead I’m voting for Hillary Clinton. It’s still her turn!
Ever heard of the saying “don’t cut off your nose to spite your face”?
What you’re suggesting is like getting an NFL kicker to kick you in the balls as hard as he can to spite the yoga mom trying to slap you.
Cool analogy.
If they have a problem with me doing that, they can nominate someone who represents my interests.
Yes let me just unilaterally go do that, no problem. Oh wait I can’t. What now?
Now blame everyone who is nominating the ‘lesser-evil’ instead of someone who is good.
Wow that’s pretty fucking stupid of you
If they have a problem with me doing that, they can nominate someone who represents my interests.
It’s pretty obvious that the person that represents your interests won’t represent my interests, so no, I don’t think I’ll be doing that.
Okay then.
Removed by mod
i think the executive branches crazy override powers are by design. it needs to be quick to respond to issues of national security or something.
i think it would be nice if there were a process to sue the crap out of parties which are abusing these mechanisms, though im not sure what that would look like.
This is incorrect. The executive was never intended to be anywhere near as powerful as it has become. It has become increasingly powerful over the years for a suite of reasons, some perfectly legitimate (like the threat of nuclear war), but most because of cowardice in the legislative together with the conservative theory of the unitary presidency.
There’s an entire body of literature in poly sci on the subject and how it can be addressed.
Impeachment?
It’s a bad solution for a number of reasons, but it’s the one we were given for punishing officials who abuse their power.
Congress can override an executive order. But the president can veto that action. But Congress can stop a veto with a 2/3s vote.
So if they controlled 2/3s of Congress they could stop anything he tries to do.
That actually seems pretty balanced.
My faith in lemmy users actually replying to facts and informative posts like this without some type of online emotional outburst or downvotes is pretty much nil at this point.
Removed by mod
The president can sanction states and companies that don’t follow them. So it’s a bit more than they can just be ignored.
As a whole Lemmy users are deeply stupid or deeply ignorant or both. I think it’s an age thing, but I could be wrong. Most of what gets tossed around here as Lemmy’s received orthodoxy is pure amateur hour bullshit that has very little to do with reality.
Another cause for this is that Lemmy’s userbase tends to be very ideologically driven as opposed to forming political views on the basis of evidence and solutions based rationality.
Obviously I’m not very popular around here. Fortunately I don’t care. I’m just killing time and if I can shake even one person’s ill-founded convictions, I am happy.
About time.
Hes been pushing for it for months if not decades.
He was last heard opposing a ceasefire.
Are you sure you’re remembering right?
No. He has not called for an end to the sending of money to Israel. He has stipulated conditions, he’s talked about blocking arm sales, he’s been very weak on the ceasefire demand up until very recently. This is new.
he’s been very weak on the ceasefire demand up until very recently.
this isnt relevant to whether sanders has pushed for blocking funding to israel
he’s talked about blocking arm sales
blocking arms sales not being the same as blocking funding is fair, however:
He has not called for an end to the sending of money to Israel
is at least misrepresentative
even if it was in response to specific bills as opposed to a complete and total cut, he has explicitly spoken out against bills funding israel, and saying ‘the United States should not be complicit in (the actions of Israel)’ in oplosition to a specific bill is still hard to read as anything but a call to cut funding of israel in general
Yeah you’re right, this is consistent with his previous position. Supporting calls for a ceasefire would be better and I’m still disappointed he doesn’t, but this is still good.
@oakey66@lemmy.world raised the fair point that opposing a weapons deal is not the same as opposing funding
Better late than never I guess.
If you followed the news, you would know that he has been critical of US support of Israel this entire time.
why no call for a ceasefire?
He did AFAIK.
He still isn’t, in fact. I’d still like to see him officially change his position on a ceasefire but I’ll take defunding Israel as a compromise.
Thanks for the link, and it shows precisely that his position is very considered, difficult, and nuanced, which is as it should be on a morass like the situation in the middle east.
Being nuanced on the issue of genocide is disappointing.
If you followed the news you would know he refused to endorse the calls for a ceasefire. Very disappointing.
Correct. The record shows he hasn’t ask for a cease fire and should have done more early on. You are right, and don’t let the fandom of a political figure get in the way of the facts of a situation. I respect Bernie and that’s why I along with others needed him to stand against what’s happening.
And yet, he has condemned any kind of Ceasefire to happen. This is just more comfy talk by someone who has zero chance of ever even being NOMINATED for a primary spot much less actually being president. I like Bernie and DO think we shouldnt fund the Netanyahu killing machine but why dont we ever call out bullshit like this for what it is, theater.
What’s insane to me is that he’s bowing down to the Zionists while he spoke out against them in the past. And they certainly haven’t been rewarding him politically since they did everything in their power to make him lose in 2016.
Being a senator is an important job. We shouldn’t judge every action by a senator as if it’s designed to get them elected as president.
This is a valid point. But it IS still theater when someone says “we should really not be letting these people kill all these other people” but also refuse to say they should leave and stop firing. Its theater.
About time, Bernie.
