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
482 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 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.