962
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2025
962 points (99.1% liked)
politics
31035 readers
23 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I think regardless of whether you are Republican or a Democrat, AOC is probably the closest to what a representative should be. Now whether you agree with her or not is a different discussion entirely, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. She's just the only one that actually seems to give a shit about who she represents. Whereas both for Republicans and Democrats the vast majority of our "representation" are crotchety and corrupt old people that don't give a shit anymore.
While I agree with almost everything you said, there's really no good reason to make a statement like that and leave Bernie in with the "vast majority" group. 🙂
The man has walked the walk for a very long time. (Yes he's too old to run for office now, but he deserves his due!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders#Political_activism
I saw a recent interview Bernie did with AOC and I learned that she got into politics specifically because she was inspired by Bernie during his presidential run in 2016. Thats something I didn't realize and it explains a lot why we feel a lot of the same energy from them.
That's a pretty interesting thing to know, thanks for mentioning it!
My bad. Wasn't trying to throw Bernie aside. He's fantastic as well.
All good, I wasn't throwing shade on you just wanting to put in a word for the Bern. 🙂
I say run him anyways - he can be the token 'old white dude', with AOC as his vice. If he kicks the bucket or finds that he is breaking down, he can pass the baton. Otherwise, we get an extra four years of progress for each term he runs. If dementia is a concern, just write a public contract under what terms he is out of the running.
Something like "We know I am getting old. AOC has my right of attorney for determining my mental state."
No argument from me, but I have a suspicion that being old is going to be a third rail politically during the next general election, assuming we get one and that it resembles being a free and valid election in any way.
Most Americans want progressive policies, they're just convinced from Cold War propaganda that progressivism/socialism is always the opposite of good.
Bernie stopped running for president after the DNC told him to. He's proven he doesn't have what it takes to stand for his principles in a presidential run.
I loved Bernie, even donated to him twice, but he's a coward and only does lip service these days.
Everybody should read Chaucer to improve their everyday vocabulary.
Him running as a real leftest canidate after they tried to suppress him would have been the right thing, and him not choosing that path set us down the path we're on today.
There were a lot of Bernie voters who refused to vote for Hillary after that. The DNC lost the progressive vote for their actions in 2016.
The busker hoped that the people passing by would throw money, but they threw tomatoes instead, so he exchanged his hat for a juicer.
Yeah you're right, he made the right choice bending the knee to the Neoliberals because then the Neoliberals wouldn't have been able to beat Trump.
Because Hillary beat Trump after the Neoliberals suppressed the Progressives in 2016, right? I forgot, can you remind me who won?
It was the scarcity that fueled his creativity.
Bernie had more individual donations from real people than any canidate in US history.
It was the 2nd biggest grassroots campaign in my life after obama
Sorry you didn't pay attention
I'm well aware of how Bernie turned individual donations into a funding juggernaut. But if you think a third party candidate would win in a first past the post system, then you're the one who's not paying attention
Yeah no. He had all eyes on him and he chose to step aside.
He made a calculated decision, but the wrong one.
What do you mean by this?
I suppose they are referring to 2016.
I mean that's objective, observable reality. It's history.
The DNC pressured him to drop out for Hillary in 2015 after they didn't like the attention he was getting. The emails came out and the head of the DNC resigned.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/dnc-emails-sanders-clinton.html
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/24/debbie-wasserman-schultz-resigns-dnc-chair-emails-sanders
Everyone could clearly see the DNC rigged the primary against him, and then forced him to drop out when he started beating their neolib canidate despite running 7 other progressives against him in the primary. (This is how Elizabeth Warren became well known, the DNC pulled her into the primary to siphon votes from Bernie, the first progressive they ever let primary with them.)
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/14/16640082/donna-brazile-warren-bernie-sanders-democratic-primary-rigged
www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/sanders-supporters-walk-off-convention-floor-blame-rigged-system-for-his-loss
His time has unfortunately passed to be president
Right, I'm aware of the general history and not debating any of it. What I meant was the democrat establishment back-stabbed his campaign both times, but it sounded like you were blaming him for it.
If it were me I would have posted the DNC's emails on twitter (back when it was twitter) and used the momentum to take over the DNC and fuck up the oligarch controlled duopoly.
A progressive with balls would have done that. Instead they called him old and screamed about him getting Trump elected (he was elected anyway) and then Bernie said ok and dropped out.
I hear you, but Bernie was in what, his mid-70s, and had pretty much always played by the book as far as I know. Even though I was somewhat disappointed in him after having not only given money but also canvassed for him, several times, I didn't really expect him to go scorched-earth.
It's not going scorched earth lol.
Neolibs don't improve anything, him ending the DNC would have been a mercy killing.
But he didn't have the balls to step on his coworkers despite them stepping on his voters.
He refused power despite being the most responsible person in the room.
And that's why he's not president material.
From a politician's standpoint, it would be scorched earth. Think about it from his perspective: what would that have accomplished? It certainly wouldn't have ended the DNC as previous DNC email scandals hadn't. It would have made his fans even more loyal, but would have pissed the rest of the democratic party apparatus. He would have said goodbye to any and all opportunities for being in committees and any cooperation from establishment democrats from then on, possibly have had an intense primary challenge afterward. A lot of libs still blame him for Hillary losing to Trump, even though he didn't do anything questionable. It was all lose no gain from his perspective.
I agree he's not president material, but because he's too old to win now (even though he's still sharper than either Biden or Trump when they won their elections).
What he accomplished would have been starting an actual leftist movement instead of continuing to step rank and file with a party that isn't interested in supporting any of his policies.
He's literally an independent because he didn't fit into the role the DNC made for him. I was extremely disappointed someone who recognized the existence of the Duopoly would allow himself to be intimidated into supporting it.
I can understand the sentiment. The problem as I see it is that the political duopoly in the US has a complete death grip on the electoral system. One of the very few ways that that can be loosened is via alternative voting methods like ranked-choice, approval, star voting, etc. That's why if I spend any energy in politics in the future it will be to push these alternatives.
So why do you think either of the two parties who support the rich would uproot the system they exist to enforce?
I never thought they would. They would have to be forced to do it by voter initiatives/referenda, like has happened in various cities and states so far, usually with resistance by one or both parties.
I wish I beleived this system could still be fixed from within.
So do I. I see voting/electoral reform as the only hope of change short of a literal revolution.