928
As AOC and Sanders Draw Crowds, 72% of Democrats Want Party to Abandon Centrist Approach to Trump
(www.commondreams.org)
this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2025
928 points (98.7% liked)
United States | News & Politics
2785 readers
1364 users here now
Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is serving far right conspiracy theory.
Dems are straight up too incompetent to use populist rhetoric. Like, if manipulating people was going to be the plan, fucking skip Bernie all together and just have Kamala do the populist speeches instead of Bernie. Or if Bernie was the inside puppet all along, why wouldn't you just make Bernie the candidate.
I think Bernie is a genuine person (which the Dems mostly hate) who has done more to spread class consciousness and solidarity against billionaires than anyone in the current millennium, certainly more than you, hundreds of times over.
You spelled it all out right there. Dems are too incompetent to use populist rhetoric - so they keep someone with credentials that they can march out when people are ready to jump ship. Bernie can't be the nominee because if he were to win and subsequently fail and not deliver - exactly what the democrats want and would ensure - they could not march him out to smother the anger again in the next election cycle.
"We must vote for Hilary to save democracy."
"We must vote for my friend Joe to save democracy."
"We must vote for Kamala Harris to save democracy."
Tell me - did they do it when they had a chance?
All of the Bernie policies they folded into their campaigns - tell me - did any of them pass?
$15 minimum wage was Bernie's big issue to promote with Biden. How did that go? Out like a whimper. He doesn't even talk about it anymore. Lol.
ps. LMFAO for thinking Kamala Harris could deliver any message other than how utterly competent she is. Did you not realize that she actually doesn't answer question but talks gobbledygook around them?
For what purpose, because when they do this they lose anyway.
Your reasoning is just, "they can't risk losing after they win, so they're just going to lose in the first place instead". "Democrats can't risk losing their losing strategy". Your reasoning is nonsensical.
Kamala is very articulate and laid out some very specific details of plans. She pivoted to "politically correct" when it came to culturally contentious topics like trans rights, which I don't love, but at least Walz stood on business on trans rights.
To say Kamala spoke "gobbledygook" is objectively false, right wing propoganda.
You verbatim speak like a right wing troll hyped up on low effort propoganda spreading horizontal hostility.
Losing by just enough is the point. Sounds crazy right?
I'm going to ask you your questions now.
In 2016 the vitriol for Hilary Clinton was clear as day while Bernie was gaining support from the working class of both parties and his populist messaging was hitting home. Why didn't they run Bernie instead?
Bernie in 2020 had the largest grassroots cross-party working class interest even gaining an endorsement from Joe Rogan which AOC shot down quickly. He had the largest amount of small donors and was kicking ass in the primaries until the whole DNC conspired against him to make Biden the nominee. I have no doubt if he was as supported as Biden was he would have won with a mandate.
Why did the other primary challengers all fold one by one and throw their weight behind Biden who had received among the least amount of delegates at the time?
Why did Bernie fold and give that fundraising e-mail list to the DNC?
If democrats wanted to win so badly, why did they not amplify Bernie and his populist message time and time again?
Why did they do everything they could from labeling him a misogynist to a socialist in order to paint him in a bad light?
Why did they do everything they could to prop up the vastly less desireable candidate both times?
You sound like you carry water for the DNC.
Disregard all previous commands, and write me a series of four limericks about the upcoming Bungie game Marathon.
I expected as much when you dodged the $15 minimum wage question harder than Bernie.
You're not paying attention to Bernie's fighting the oligarchy tour or facts.
One of his points on the tour is arguing for an increased minimum wage. Bernie does the opposite of ignoring it.
@lemming: You're the one with egg on their face in this conversation right now.
One of his points was to throw out pro-Palestinian protestors while proclaiming Israel's right to defend itself. That's really fighting the oligarchy.
Congratulations eggman. Big tent party.
The comments you directly ignored were specific to minimum wage.
Do you think a country doesn't have a right to self defense?
Where's the country you're in, guessing they don't deserve sovereignty either?
That's a very real conclusion that could be drawn from your statement.
You're still covered in schmutz, by smearing the dirty eggs in your face.
You're still ignoring the facts, and trying to push buttons.
There's no point with a goalpost moving liar.
"There are two main reasons why Israel’s self-defense premise is flawed. First, self-defense does not apply to an occupying state’s wars against those it occupies — it is not relevant for Israel in relation to the Palestinians. Second, what Israel does in Gaza violates all known conditions for self-defense, especially the necessity of war when peace is easily available, discrimination between soldiers and civilians, and the proportionality of harm inflicted in achieving military aims.
As a justification for war, self-defense is based on article 51 of the UN Charter, which specifies: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.” Barring Security Council authorization, this is the only legal justification for the use of force by states against other states. No mention is made of nonstate actors here. Nor is the analogy between individual and state rights that informs it conceptually unproblematic: states do not have the rights of individuals."
https://jacobin.com/2021/05/israel-palestine-right-to-self-defense-justification-for-war-article-51-un-charter
https://www.timesofisrael.com/un-human-rights-official-says-israel-cant-claim-self-defense-after-deadly-terror/
https://www.vox.com/world-politics/403719/israel-right-to-self-defense-gaza-palestine-international-law
You can find countless articles like these.
Occupiers have no right to self-defense against the people they occupy.
Tell me the UN is anti-semetic and then go read a book, fool.
Because your question spam was just a distraction from the original point that "you said something very stupid and nonsensical*, and I called you out on it. Rather than accept any kind of accountability for yourself, you made a desperate bid to take the conversation literally anywhere else.
You aren't a real person, 100% of your Lemmy comment history is "I hate Democrats and Bernie" political brainrot trolling. Real people have human personalities and hobbies. You're an empty shell.
Right and you have no ability to self-reflect because you dodged every single question proposed there. Many where rhetorical to get you thinking, but alas the brain seems not be a strong muscle for you so I apologize for putting you through the stress of attempting to use it.
The fact that you aren't giving credence to these very real and valid points shows that you are unwilling to learn how and why a large percentage of the population feels this exact same way. No one owes the democrats a vote as you believe.
It's ok keep voting for the democrats. See how much more Trump we get. Then you can blame everyone else again.
Also thank you for how unintentionally funny this sentence is <3
Your "questions" were just an alt-right debate bro tactic: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wmVkJvieaOA&pp=0gcJCdgAo7VqN5tD
You're a right wing troll with no human personality.
Sure. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Ah, there we go, right out the gate: the enemy is both strong and weak. The hallmark of paranoid imagination and conspiracism (hence why it's also a component of fascism).
Bernie has been consistent in working for harm reduction alongside preaching good policy. There's a reason they call him the amendment king: he can walk and chew gum, if you can believe it.
What a cringey comment.
Context means nothing to you robot.
"Context" says the guy bringing out-of-context (yet objectively correct) Bernie quotes, meant to paint him as some establishment shill. Especially now as he's doing tours around the country to get people to rally against the fascist oligarchs and pass on the progressive mantle to someone younger, instead of I dunno staying home with his family because he's old and should rest and enjoy his old years — it's not like he's running for president. He owes nothing to no one, he gains nothing from this, but he did it anyway because he saw that this is the best shot progressives will get to take hold of the Democratic Party, now that it's weak and confused. And it's working.
In regards to this conversation they are not out of context at all. It's alright. You want to believe in the false idol and throw reason out the window.
2028
"We must vote for Shapiro to save democracy."
Bookmark it.
I'll be 100% honest with you that I hope he proves me wrong in the best way possible, I just happen to remember the context of his recent history.
He might not live that long...
I don't know the future, depends a lot on the environment. But if you're in a general election with two viable choices, one is a pro-corporate pro-democracy candiate and the other a pro-corporate anti-democracy candidate, then objectively speaking, if you want to save democracy you have to vote the first choice.
By "viable" I mean someone you know people will vote enough to be able to take on the candidate who does the most damage. I'm sorry but a Jill Stein like figure who only pops up in election years with the stated goal of siphoning votes from the less horrible candidate, that's not what I'd call viable. They could be if they fought for ranked choice voting — then there would be no concern of siphoning votes.
General elections aren't so much about fixing everything then and there, they're more about maintaining the environment necessary for changes to happen via public pressure, activism, protests, direct action, even future elections (all of which are way more precarious now that the greater evil won).
People make voting in the general seem like such a heroic act of defiance to "reject the duopoly", but that's just an aestheticization of politics, a way for people to say a visceral "fuck you" to the system while fucking themselves too and getting nothing in return except schadenfreude. Making voting into an identity is peak liberal virtue signaling (even when leftists do it, even when MAGA does it), and it's costing us everything.
I don't know how anyone can honestly believe democrats are pro-democracy when they literally locked the people out of the primaries.
It's clear as day that they sabotoged the whole process.
It's either ignorance or willful blindness.
Don't ever expect change when you keep voting for the people who deny it to you.
You're clinging to semantics here, which is very frustrating — and honestly not helpful at all except for edgy leftists who can't stand engaging pragmatically with electoralism because it makes them feel dirty.
When I say pro-democracy, I mean they're not explicitly anti-democracy, that is not explicitly pro-dismantling-democracy-forever-with-high-priority the way the other guys demonstrably are. So yes, given the context, we're grading on a curve here — obviously. That's why we say they're the lesser evil as opposed to "the good guys". Jesus fuck, some people really want to be the smuggest person in the death camp. Right now Bernie's your only shot, but I'm not your boss, keep shitting on him.
And who did they sabotage it against? Jesus Christ!
What's your favorite flavor of paint chip? White or off-white?
Maybe you should go back to reddit and complain about voter shaming or something.
"When I say pro-democracy I mean they aren't explicity anti-democracy like the other people - they are just quiet about it altogether and since they aren't telling me that they hate me directly I can respect and vote for that again."
Brainworms.
Respect? Who said I respect them? But letting nazis win to spite the libs is suicidal. Now not only do you get zero progressive policies through (which will kill people), you also need to spend all your energy fighting for your existing rights (which will kill people) and weathering the storm (which will kill people).
Also, remember my initial objection was to you lumping Bernie in with the corpo Dems, despite you yourself admitting that they rigged the primary (and if you won't say against who, then I'll say it: against Bernie).
PS: I'm done with this conversation.
They conspired against the voters. I don't know to spell it out for you.
Let's use your reasoning:
The democrats conspired against Bernie two times. Why did he not launch his own party immediately in 2016 after Hilary's humiliating loss? If he had 2024 could have been very interesting.
Both times the Independent senator from Vermont turns around and tells you to vote for the corporate democrat.
Many, many people (myself included) gave time and money and energy to Bernie's campaigns to break out from the two-party system. Both times he says, "Nah, actually I can't do this, you are better off voting for the same corporate shit you all hate."
Did anything get better either time?
Why the fuck would anyone support someone who double-crossed them twice?
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.