2d ago

Thousands in Midwestern GOP Districts Attend Sanders' First Stops on Tour to Fight Oligarchy | "It's like there's only one person who is actually able to sidestep the demoralization and frustration"

www.commondreams.org Thousands in Midwestern GOP Districts Attend Sanders' First Stops on Tour to Fight Oligarchy | Common Dreams

Senator Bernie Sanders is on a mission to fight oligarchy and empower the people. With a powerful message against Trumpism and billionaire influence, he's rallying Americans to stand up for democracy. #FightOligarchy

United States | News & Politics @midwest.social

BrikoX @lemmy.zip

1d ago

Thousands in Midwestern GOP Districts Attend Sanders' First Stops on Tour to Fight Oligarchy

www.commondreams.org /news/bernie-sanders-donald-trump

172 9

You're viewing a single thread.

104 comments

a singular politician. he's going to die on the job, in the middle of an impassioned speech on behalf of the working class. indefatigable. not even Lincoln or Kennedy had a fraction of the perseverance and consistency this man has demonstrated. a true public servant.
- Three words:
  A
  O
  C
  Signed, a very hopeful Canadian.
  
  Also signed a slightly hopeful American
  
  In an ideal world, but haven't we learned that she's too female and probably not white enough for America? *I don't agree, but I'm being pragmatic
  
  In case you weren't aware, Biden, a straight white man (and about the same age as Trump), was running first. His numbers were really bad. Is it because he was a straight white man? No, we only blame women and minorities for the failures of circumstances. We don't actually talk about the fact she wasn't an appealing candidate regardless of race or color.
  She ran on "you should thank us for how good you have it" instead of addressing real problems people have. You don't win an election like that. It had very little, if anything, to do with her race or gender.
  
  If Kamala Harris was white with a cock, he'd be be President right now
  
  Wasn’t she picked to replace a white guy with a cock because it was obvious to everyone that he wasn’t gonna be president?
  
  Thank you. It's so obvious to me, I'm wondering if this other guy is even in good faith. And the down voting is weird too. Actually I said something anti Zionist recently so those loonies are probably trolling me.
  
  In an ideal world, but haven’t we learned that she’s too female and probably not white enough for America?
  The entire point behind "Kamala lost because she's a woman of color, not because she wouldn't differ from her unpopular predecessor except to move to his right" is to shut out AOC in particular. The party is willing to hold back all women in order to stifle one person, and it's gross.
  
  The fact is that many Americans wouldn't vote for a woman, and combining that with the ones who wouldn't vote for a person of colour is a bad idea, especially when the alternative for president is so dire.
  I do think that the fact she wouldn't support Palestine/condemn Israel was a factor too, but if she had, that would have set Israel against her and lost more votes, especially due to all the media Zionists control and their lobbying power.
  
  The Democratic president with the largest margin of victory in recent times was a black man and you're still out here saying we need to court voters that won't vote for a person of color in order to win. Maybe your read on the inherent unelectability of women is similarly flawed.
  
  You again. There have been 2 women on the ballot and both failed, this latest with drastic consequences. So I'd say my read was 100% correct, unfortunately. I wish I was wrong.
  
  More men have been on the ticket and failed than woman. The fact that both women failed is because of what they were running with, not because they were women. They were incredibly milquetoast candidates who ran basically on maintaining the status quo.
  Obama won so handily because he ran on changing the status quo. Whether he actually did or not is a matter for historians, but that's what he ran on.
  Voters want someone who will fight for them. That's what Trump, Obama, and Bernie are. They don't want someone who sits back and talks about how grateful they should be.
  
  See my reply to your friend. Won't be wasting my time on you people any longer byeee
  
  Oh, well then let's run a black man. They not only have 100% success rate, but massively outperformed all the white men. That must mean black skin (as long as it's not on a woman) is an electoral benefit! Why take a risk with a white person? That's the heart of your argument, right?
  
  That's faulty logic as you well know, based on a sample of 1.
  
  With a sample size of 2 you claim it's because they were women. I agree with you it was faulty logic, which was their fucking point and the fact you missed that is incredible. Slow down and think.
  
  The fact is that many Americans wouldn’t vote for a woman, and combining that with the ones who wouldn’t vote for a person of colour is a bad idea
  So long as a progressive is a possibility and not one femtosecond longer.
  I do think that the fact she wouldn’t support Palestine/condemn Israel was a factor too, but if she had, that would have set Israel against her and lost more votes
  So we have to (and you get to) support genocide forever too!
  
  Not sure why I'm being down voted - I would have noted for kamala and I wish she was president. I'm saying that if there's an option to take a risk now when failure means death then it's best to not take the risk and wait for a time when the alternative is only pain. Trump was death, we all knew. Not a good time to take a risk. It would have been better to wait to take a risk in trying to elect a woman for the first time in a country of people who think its okay for a person held to the highest standards in the land to say 'grab em by the pussy', pay women for sex and be a rapist of women. Even aside from the racism. If you don't see that then I'm shocked.
  
  I’m saying that if there’s an option to take a risk now when failure means death then it’s best to not take the risk and wait for a time when the alternative is only pain.
  It's neat how quickly timidity develops when the party wants to shut out a progressive. That's the only thing this has ever been about.
  
  Well, I guess you learned nothing from this and would enable trump again.
  
  I guess you know the party is going to shut out progressives forever and love it.
  And I get that every centrist interprets all criticism of their party as trump support, but I voted for Harris.
  
  I'm not american and I'm not a centrist. I'm a libertarian socialist. Have a great day now :)
  
  Let's do racism and sexism, not because we're racist and sexist, but because other people probably are. It may look like us and the bigots of unclear numbers are both having the same effect, but we're not bad people just because our actions proactively support bad things. We're just being pragmatic.
  
  Let's not live in the real world and run a black woman as candidate, which has never been done before... Why not?
  Oh, that's just coincidence.
  As is the fact that even without racism, a woman lost to trump last time.
  Nothing to do with the fact that racism and sexism exist and are actually very important to some people. /s
  Come on. Run a black woman at a time when the consequences of racism and sexism being expressed in the voting booth aren't AS bad. Not when a dictator from day 1 is going to get elected in possibly the last ever election for the US. Then you run your most boring, conservative candidate who as few people have a problem with as possible until whatever passes for normality in the US returns.
  What do you think that trump getting elected has done for women's rights, or POC? Yeah, better to be pragmatic because getting a woman on the ballot paper was not worth it and probably set us women back by decades, at a minimum.
  
  You're making the entirely unfounded assumption that sexism was the cause for those women's loss rather than them individually both being terrible candidates. And despite the Obama example showing you "racism exists, so only run white people" point is just completely bullshit. People literally made the same argument against Obama.
  There were blaring warning signs that had absolutely nothing to do with sexism with both candidacies. Easy bad campaign choices and cultural movements that very easily explain the losses without diving into the dark heart of man, but somehow you just ignore those to focus on banning women and POC from running for pragmatism.
  Whatever you believe about your non-racist internal beliefs, your actions are indistinguishable from racism. And I'm not sure you'll ever think there's an election so low stakes that we can select the best candidate if she's a woman, because you don't seem to have learned anything by the event that proved the whole philosophy as suspect.
  
  My cousin told me yesterday that AOC isn’t left enough for her. That tells me that either we need a 3rd party, because clearly democrats are not even wanted by their own party. Or that women are extremely easy to make toxic. At the end of the day it’s a popularity contest and most people are not doing research. You will get put through the media spin cycle and people will choose to not like you because of your voice, or because you use too much head movement when you speak, or because their favorite comedian parroted a 10 sec tiktok clip about something you said on a social issue, or because of that one vote you made that one time. Women 100% get less leeway. Believing anything else is idealistic.
  
  Run this exercise again like it's 2008 and you're taking about Barrack Obama's blackness. People don't want AOC to run because she's just the next woman on the conveyer belt, they want her to run because she's one of the best politicians in the Democratic party.
  
  Sexism was a factor. Racism was a factor. As you know, surely? You do know that some people in america would say outright that they would never vote for anyone who wasn't a cis man and would never vote for anyone who wasn't white?
  You're saying that the proportion of those people who might have voted democrat is too small to matter. I disagree. I can't remember exactly the proportions of the demographic which voted or didn't vote for kamala but it was clear that more traditional voters (Hispanics were one subset maybe) weren't voting for her exactly because she's a woman.
  Answer this - if the dems would have wanted to run a trans candidate, would you have said this was a viable candidate to win the presidency? I'm not asking if you would have personally supported them (assuming they were a decent person/tested politically etc, but could they have won?
  No, not in america today. And that's why taking the risk that a woman could win for the first time was a bad idea when the alternative was Donald trump and project 25, which is going to be a huge set back for anyone not a white cisman.
  
  Or Dems could run a serious candidate this time. That would be a refreshing change.
  
  No... Voters need to vote left. Voting left in primaries will yield better candidates.
  
  If only Democrats would run fair primaries. Or primaries at all.
- Eh, I don't know. Lincoln was well aware that he was walking into a massively complex situation with nothing short of the future of the country 100% on the line. He knew he was doing it at great personal risk, and I am sure on some level he knew it could (and ultimately, would) cost him his life.
  Lincoln's life was cut short so ultimately we never got to see what the next phase of his life would look like, but he persevered in the face of the greatest struggle this nation has ever faced.
  Trump and friends may well create as dangerous of a scenario as the civil war, especially if Thiel, Vance, and the other tech authoritarians achieve their goal of radically overhauling if not outright destroying the country.

104 comments