With the 2024 presidential race beginning to unfold, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont said he believes that President Joe Biden will again earn the Democratic nomination — and the president likely win reelection if he runs on a strong progressive campaign.

“I think at this moment … we have got to bring the progressive community together to say, you know what, we’re going to fight for a progressive agenda but we cannot have four more years of Donald Trump in the White House,” Sanders said Sunday on “Face the Nation.”

Sanders endorsed Mr. Biden in April. Sanders referenced several of those issues in underscoring what he believes is the importance of building “a strong progressive agenda” to win the presidency in 2024.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    88
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    But he’s not all that progressive. He never has been. In a sane country, he’d be a middle-of-the-road Republican. There is no progressive left in this country. Not with any real power.

    • HWK_290@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      89
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I keep seeing this but I’m not sure what you all want …

      • biggest investment in climate infrastructure ever
      • biggest investment in infrastructure since the new deal
      • codified gay marriage into law
      • attempted to forgive $10k in student loan (blocked by republican scotus, still attempting a workaround on interest at least)
      • attempted ban on assault weapons (let’s face it, this will never happen without an act of congress)
      • negotiated drug prices for Medicare (10 drugs so far, a blueprint for more)

      Dude is ticking a ton of boxes. Sure we’re not living in a socialist utopia with universal basic income, etc but it’s been 3 years

      Edit: with a republican congress no less

      • admiralteal@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        47
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        They don’t like Joe Biden because he doesn’t pick losing fights on principle, in general, and because they don’t want to admit that the primary process on the left actually does select for the strongest candidates.

        I get it. I feel the same way at least emotionally. But $1.3 trillion dollars towards climate change and what is almost certainly the most important climate bill ever passed in the world so far is really hard to argue with.

        I would like him to stand up and advocate for court reform. We need to strike while the iron is hot and people are seeing the Supreme Court for the corrupt political institution it always has been. He’s backed down with very little fight on a couple of the things they’ve pulled lately when the Trump Administration would have just kept hammering on passing the exact same laws with tiny changes until they accept it. For example, the opinion on that student loan relief case made this incredibly idiotic argument about how the HEROES Act doesn’t give permission for partial waivers because it only allows a modification or a full waiver and the partial waiver apparently doesn’t count as either of those. I think you should have just come back and said well all right then, full waiver and total jubilee. That probably would also have been struck down but it would have really shown how vapid and hypocritical the court was.

        The word neoliberal has basically lost most meaning. But everything they accuse Joe Biden of being are things that describe Joe Manchin. The guy who singularly keeps killing Progressive legislation put forward by the Biden administration.

        • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          the primary process on the left actually does select for the strongest candidates.

          Does it tho?

          The 2016 general election was a contest between candidates with historically low favorables It took just 27.2% of eligible voters (in the right places) to put Trump in the White House Clinton underperformed Obama, while Trump over-performed Romney

          If ‘Did not vote’ had been a candidate in the 2016 general, it would have won in a landslide https://brilliantmaps.com/did-not-vote/

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          primary process on the left actually does select for the strongest candidates.

          this seems to imply that the democrat party is left, but it is not.

        • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          21
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          primary process on the left actually does select for the strongest candidates.

          The smugness. Imma vote for Cornel West just to piss you off.

      • Bonskreeskreeskree@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        He’s also yet to declassify weed even though he carrot on a sticked it leading into the general and then again before primaries. He could do it any time and has not.

        • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          If Biden were to make any such change to Marijuana scheduling by executive order, the next president would just undo it the same way. Worse still, the GOP would use such a move as a talking point that Biden is soft on crime and trying to get their kids on drugs, which the GOP base would eat up.

          In fact, though, the Biden administration actually is making progress on this front. Some time ago, they requested that U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study whether or not Marijuana should be rescheduled. Just a few days ago, HHS sent their recommendation to the DEA to reschedule marijuana from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule III drug. The DEA has sole authority on drug scheduling.

          “While HHS’s scientific and medical evaluation is binding on DEA, the scheduling recommendation is not,” the HHS spokesperson said. “DEA has the final authority to schedule a drug under the CSA (or transfer a controlled substance between schedules or remove such a drug from scheduling altogether) after considering the relevant statutory and regulatory criteria and HHS’ scientific and medical evaluation. DEA goes through a rulemaking process to schedule, reschedule or deschedule the drug, which includes a period for public comment before DEA finalizes the scheduling action with a final rulemaking.”

        • HWK_290@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Good point, forgot that. At least the states (the good ones) have taken on that mantle

        • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Tell it to the Midwestern white women.

          The men, too, but let’s be real they’re a lost cause unless Hell freezes over and the Dems nominate someone with a gun collection.

        • hypnoton@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Spot on.

          I wasn’t a fan of how Biden quashed the railroad strike, and his response to the Maui wildfire was lackluster.

          I want someone who fights like hell for my interests, not a goddamn third way triangulator.

          No more hugs.

    • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are certain facets to consider here. The nuance I would add is that if he campaigns as a progressive, that will be a more winning platform but they will still just be campaign promises.

      • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Then he should do that. Then, if he doesn’t uphold his promises, we can hold his corpse accountable.

        • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I would like to live in a world where politicians treat campaign promises as a blood oath, but we do not and cannot live in that world.

    • HerbalGamer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Pretty sure he lines up well with the neoliberal side of most European parties, which is on the right.

      • cyd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        If neoliberalism means massive state intervention in investment activities, and putting up trade barriers, then the word has no meaning.

        • Norgur@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thing is: it really has none that’s if any use globally. A “liberal” in the US is something a liberal form Europe will not recognize as even remotely similar to their own stance and vice versa.

          • iain@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t think there is much difference in the use of the word liberal. If I compare the politics of the main liberal party in my home country (VVD in the Netherlands) there isn’t that much difference with the average Democrat in the US. The main difference is whether they are perceived as left or right wing by the population.

            And it very much is neoliberal. Both parties (VVD and Democrats) are in favor of a smaller government and laissez-fair capitalism. They might need to compromise on these principles from time to time to remain popular, and in Europe maybe a bit more.

            Funny thing: right wrong conspiracy nuts get their talking points from the us, so more and more people are starting to call liberals left-wing communists in Europe. So far it’s just by the people who get their talking points online.

            • HerbalGamer@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              You’re right. It’s the left/right part they seem to have shifted mostly.

              Although Republican tends to be a leftist thing in monarchies like the Netherlands.

              • iain@feddit.nl
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Republican means you are in favor of a republic, meaning no monarchy. Communism wants a classless society, so they are republicans as a logical consequence of the ideology. America is a democratic republic, so both Democrats and Republicans are just meaningless labels .

  • CMahaff@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Look, I’d love for that to be true, but it just isn’t. Biden will win by being a boring centrist, because that’s who he is and that’s who will win a general election (generally speaking).

    With the GOP going completely off the rails the easiest path to victory is to simply go middle of the road and pick up all those independents/centrists and conservatives with brains. Progressives will vote Biden regardless because Trump (or any Trump wannabe) is too terrifying of a reality.

    This country has never shown it has some giant progressive silent majority - Bernie would know, he bet and lost on that materializing in his own presidential runs.

    I don’t see Democrats running hard on progressive policies until either the GOP starts running moderates again (forcing Democrats to pickup votes elsewhere) or young people prove they can be a force at the ballot box.

    All this is not to shit on what Biden has achieved, because he has done things for progressives, but I don’t see him suddenly switching to anything resembling a “strong progressive agenda” because it will just give his GOP opponent ammo to claim “see he’s radical too”. Biden will be the most boring, normal politician he can, while highlighting how bad things will get if his extreme opponent gets into office, and that’s probably the smartest thing to do.

    • MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      This country has never shown it has some giant progressive silent majority - Bernie would know, he bet and lost on that materializing in his own presidential runs.

      nonsense. The dems pulled the dirtiest tricks to kneecap bernie - including ALL of them dropping out on super Tuesday. They battled bernie harder than they fucking did trump. Don’t spread garbage like this

      • spider@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        The dems pulled the dirtiest tricks to kneecap bernie

        This was, of course, documented in the Wikileaks e-mails, whose contents were largely ignored by the mainstream media.

        • phillaholic@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Wikileaks selectively leaks emails to push whatever narrative they want, including leaving off timestamps to make you think emails were sent before they were. The RNC was hacked too, but we didn’t see those emails. There’s one corrupt country that hasn’t ever seemed to be attacked by Wikileaks. I wonder what all this has in common?

          • Alex@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I wonder what all this has in common?

            A bunch of super wealthy turds seek to dictate what constitutes democracy around the world, all while enriching themselves and clubbing people for resisting them, to them borders are just lines on a map and money the solution to everything.

      • Asuka@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve yet to see any evidence that there was some orchestrated agenda against Bernie. Sure, all the moderates probably did drop out so that moderate Biden could win against Bernie. What’s wrong with that? Isn’t that sort of implicitly how it works and should work? They made a choice that sacrified their own candidacy for the sake of advancing their policy goals (through Biden).

        Nor have I seen any evidence that the DNC orchestrated some sting against Bernie in 2016 - the most that ever came out of that leaked trove of DNC emails were some DNC staff saying they wanted Hillary to win - not that they were going to take any action to make that happen.

        • aesthelete@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Sure, all the moderates probably did drop out so that moderate Biden could win against Bernie.

          I was a bit disappointed and wanted Bernie, but you’re right that there wasn’t really anything wrong with them doing that.

          Not only that, but it showed that they aren’t like the crabs in a bucket Republicans who failed to do the same because of their own egos and allowed Trump to ascend to the nomination through a series of plurality wins.

          In my opinion, it shows they aren’t dumb fascists and actually put the party and their country ahead of their own power and self-interest.

        • MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          We can go even further and assume the democrats were all purely working in good faith, with the end goal of helping people. Even if that were the case, the idea that americans don’t want progressive policy is still garbage and is completely trashed by polling. The polling alone disproves the commenter’s completely contrafactual claim. It’s demonstrably wrong on several levels.

          regardless, the DNC could just overrule the results of the primaries if they wanted to and it’d be above board. It’s completely legal. Biden could win 100% of the vote in every primary and they could put forward some random dude from Kentucky as their candidate and it would be “how it works”. I disagree that that’s how it should work.

      • doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Bernie had a surprising turnout, and the Dems had to pull all the stops to prevent him from being the front runner. Meaning something in the ballpark of a quarter of Americans who actually bother to vote were supporting him. Far from a majority, but to your point, it’s a big and growing political force.

        But I think the point stands that they aren’t likely to swing a general election. Progressives (those that actually vote at all) are almost certainly going to vote for Biden regardless how how much he panders to them. This election will be decided by a fairly small number of centrists and moderate Republicans that may have been alienated by Trump who happen to live in swing states.

        Unless, of course, Biden does something monumentally stupid and pisses off the progressives so bad that they are willing to risk another Trump term and vote 3rd party, which seems unlikely.

        • MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          The way people vote and the policies people actually want enacted are very different. If you’re talking specifically about how people vote, there’s a lot you can infer as to why they vote the way they do, but if we’re talking about actual policy - if people voted for policies instead of politicians, the vast majority of americans are very progressive. This is the point I was disagreeing with the commenter on.

          The polls bear it out time and time again - people want progressive policy, but are afraid to vote for progressive politicians, and hedge their bets on the “safe” candidate.

          • danielton@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, Trump’s cult and “Vote Blue No Matter Who” don’t help things either. The election system needs a major overhaul or we’re going to keep getting incompetent old guys.

            • phillaholic@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              “Vote Blue No Matter Who” don’t help things either

              It absolutely helps. Republicans make things worse. The worst Democrat keeps things the same. Same > Worse. Vote in the Primary to decide on what Democrat gets to run.

              • danielton@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Doesn’t help that Sanders dropped out and we ended up with Biden, who everybody thinks is a moderate but says racist shit all the time “by accident.”

                People think he’s this sweet grandpa, but he’s an old man with dementia and a questionable history, who needs to retire. But he gets away with it because he’s got a D after his name.

                • phillaholic@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I can’t give a shit about any negative traits that Biden has that every Republican also has worse. It comes off as apathy spreading bullshit and that’s how we got a criminal con man who attempted a coup.

      • Hankaaron@yall.theatl.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        If it was trump v Bernie we would still have president trump right now. I’m in GA and there is basically not a single Bernie voter here. And as we all know ours and other swing states were key.

          • Estiar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’d like to see the polls you found. I usually go to Five Thirty Eight for their polls, because they have a lot there. They do tend to go down as center left, and I’d like to see other polling agencies, especially those that focus on the socialist side of things

            • MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              It was nearly unanimous amongst the polls. Nate Silver is an absolute moron lol. Not that him being an idiot directly means his polling is trash. This guy made one prediction correctly, got famous for it, and now think he’s fucking nastrodamus, spewing the dumbest assed takes. he’s the definition of the saying “scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds”

              • Estiar@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Biden also wins around the same against Trump according to RCP polling aggregation. Really nice site though I’ll definitely look at it. Not sure why you think Nate Silver is a fascist though. He isn’t a pundit, more so just a statistics nerd. If anything the Five thirty-eight team is against Trump, who is the fascist American’s pick.

                • MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Biden also wins around the same against Trump

                  Okay. What’s your point? Does it have anything to do with the discussion around the population of americans that want progressive policy?

                  When Bernie was a threat, Nate Silver and lots of liberals were saying shit like they’d vote for trump over bernie, or just simply not vote if bernie was the nominee. They’ll side with fascists against if they think progressive will threaten their power

                • Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  To those types, because liberals aren’t doing enough in their eyes to oppose the fascists, the quote of sitting at a table with fascists applies, therefore all liberals are fascists too

      • phillaholic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m trying to follow your logic. How does other candidates dropping out on Super Tuesday screw Bernie? Those voters didn’t vote for Bernie.

        • MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Are you trying to follow my logic, or have you already reached your conclusion? Looking at your comments on just this thread, it feels like it would be a waste of time to engage

          • phillaholic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t understand what your implying. If the field remained messy Bernie could have won like Trump did in 2016? Right now it reads like you assume those votes that went against Bernie would have just became his or something. Idk.

            • MonkCanatella@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I was really clear. But now it’s really clear instead of following the thread, you’re trying to shoehorn in your opinions, under the guise of “oh please help me understand”. That’s why I explained that it’s a waste of time to engage.

              • phillaholic@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I simply ask why everyone dropping out on Super Tuesday is a dirty trick. I can’t even tell you if I agree or disagree with your conclusion because I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. You took the time to reply again without explaining yourself, so clearly it’s not about wasting time.

    • minnow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      because it will just give his GOP opponent ammo to claim “see he’s radical too”.

      But they already do that, so why care?

      • 2piradians@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        If the independent litmus test were “do you find some of Trump’s policies acceptable?” then sure, I would agree with you. But that’s incorrect. Republicans embracing full-blown insanity has taken them out of the running for many independents, leaving them only with whomever the Dems decide to nominate.

        So in that sense I suppose you’re right–when one of the choices is always hate-fueled insanity, many independents become de facto Dems.

      • qwrty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Trump =/= Republican Party Independent =/= centrist (or whatever you mean by “someone that has a so-so opinion of trump” and most centrists I know dislike him. idk the statistics of independent support of Trump, but I would guess that it is very low)

        Independents exist, as independents are just voters with no allegiance to one particular party. (Sometimes third-parties are included) This includes centrists, libertarians, and any one else who doesn’t associate with a party. Just because you have been polarized doesn’t mean everyone has.

      • vagrantprodigy@lemmy.whynotdrs.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        You don’t know anyone who doesn’t vote for the same party in every single election? I know several, and my wife and I decide who to vote for each election based on their platform and track record rather than the letter next to their name.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      I voted for Biden in hopes that

      1. The clown show would be over

      2. We would get one nice progressive win.

      He gave me half of what I wanted. So I guess partial victory.

    • phillaholic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      This country has never shown it has some giant progressive silent majority - Bernie would know, he bet and lost on that materializing in his own presidential runs.

      Yea I laughed when I read this headline. Man who failed to win with strategy thinks candidate will win with same strategy.

  • TrueStoryBob@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    61
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The infra bill was a huge shot in the arm and, based on the ads I’m seeing, he’s going to run on its passing… that bill is beyond amazing, but they should have gone harder. While the ~$1.6 trillion is an eye watering amount of money, ~$4-6 trillion is what was originally asked for and what is needed. Hopefully he’ll run on a Build Back Better: Part Deux. Also his appointees to the NLRB have been super progressive and aggressive, the return to Joy Silk will give the reinvigorated labor movement serious steam, but he also busted the RR workers ability to strike and he seriously shouldn’t have done that. Overall, I’m not mad at the Biden WH on domestic issues… but more is needed and he should have let the RR workers strike. Like, the economy be damned, call the hedge fund’s bet and end the Reagan era union busting.

    • phillaholic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      they should have gone harder

      “They” didn’t have control of Congress. Two Senators are Democrats but are much more centrist and won’t vote for certain things.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        As well as mandated increasing federal fossil fuel extraction leases many times over before beginning any expansion of renewable energy.

        It’s amazing how neoliberals will just blindly believe the propaganda of Politico, NYT and WaPo 🤦

        • Alex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Would you rather be dependent on foreign supply while waiting for renewable energy to be built? A lot of america still runs on oil and it’s gonna take a long time for that change even with the green transition finally happening.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fun fact: the US already produces much more oil than it uses and exports most of it.

            The “energy independency needs oil” argument is a false one made up by the fossil fuel industry and the corrupt politicians they own.

            Their efforts, not a lack of feasibility, are the main impediments to transitioning to a renewable energy grid, which can be done surprisingly fast (a 50MW wind farm can be operational in 6 months, a 10MW one in only 2, and a solar farm in 6-12) and the resulting decentralised grid would be much more resilient in avoiding catastrophic failure than one focused on a few large fossil fuel burning plants that stop working every time it gets too hot or too cold.

            In conclusion: your pro-fossil fuel argument is invalid and you’ve fallen for empty propaganda.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          As an actual climate lobbyist, the IRA is the single most effective piece of climate legislation ever passed.

        • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          They seem to be able to detect foreign propaganda and are immune to it, and deny US propaganda exists, despite living in the propagandized country on earth

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            And even then, they’re much better than Republicans who can’t detect and are extremely susceptible to foreign propaganda.

            Of course, “much better than Republicans at resisting propaganda” is like “much better at bowling than an armadillo”. 🤷

  • archchan@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    No more please can we just get normal human beings as presidential candidates and not whatever the fuck this has been?

    • SuiXi3D@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They don’t exist. Not in politics, at least. All we get are crooks and 80 year olds.

      • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They don’t exist. Not in politics, at least. All we get are crooks and 80 year olds.

        In a real way, both major parties are still fighting out the battles of the civil rights era, and are effectively led by people who came of age then. Unfortunately, that they (or their ideas) are still running the show in the way that they are means both parties are stuck in a particular past, forever trying to avoid the calamity they’re fighting to un-do

        The GOP’s leadership is fighting like a wounded animal to un-do desegregation and Roe, and to dismantle voting rights and industrial regulation

        The Dem’s leadership have spent decades fighting super-hard to prevent their voters from advancing progressives out of primaries and into general elections. McGovern’s loss in 1972, they think, is forever evidence that progressives can’t win and their subsequent curb-stomping of progressives (denying them party support, fighting hard to prevent them from winning primaries) serves as evidence to their way of thinking that ‘progressives can’t win’.

        That this last bit (progs can’t win, never mind we make sure they can’t, so you have to vote for what wins or else all is lost) begs the question it pretends to answer seems pretty obvious to me. It has the same energy as saying ‘socialism doesn’t work’ and then pointing to socialist governments that ‘didn’t work’ because CIA ran coups to depose them and replace them with right-wing dictatorships. Of course these things don’t work when you kill them off, the whole argument becomes self-fulfilling and circular.

    • phillaholic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Biden is a normal Politician. Someone with of a wealth of experience in different levels of government who was elected slightly late. People seem to forget that younger less experienced candidates seldom live up to their hype. Obama never lived up to his hype, despite imo being a very good President. When you aren’t experienced you can run on all these ideals and naivety. You get into the job and the reality hit you like a freight train. We all need to not get lost in “Not Progressive Enough”, awhile the other side is pushing Regressive policies; It’s far easier to tear something down than it is to build it.

  • nucleative@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    After the last guy the country just needed a guy who mostly plays but the rules, as unwritten as they are. Understands the system. Makes the country look like its head is connected to the neck. Generally speaks diplomatically. Doesn’t have too many ideas that are way outside center. Looks after the little guy sometimes. Hires advisors who have a clue.

    We got that guy. That’s a good thing.

    Now we need a newer, younger person with vision. Somebody who can help rebuild an American dream. Somebody who will be alive to see their dream come true. Somebody who can get everyone excited about figuring out what it means to be an American. Somebody who can set aggressive goals and make the case for why we should pursue them, and get the ball rolling. Somebody who shows the average American that their life specifically can be better tomorrow than it is today.

    Regrettably that person will still struggle to defeat the ancient skeleton incumbents.

    • Alex@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      skeleton incumbents

      quit packing congress with them then and demand age limits

      • phillaholic@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        You know what’s easier than buying old politicians with track records? Buying young outsiders with no record that can just say what you want to hear then pass bills written by lobbyists.

          • phillaholic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not convinced taking money out of politics isn’t going to just send it all underground. Just look at the implication that nefarious actors hacked the RNC and are blackmailing Republican politicians into pushing the Kremlin’s agenda. Money doesn’t even need to change hands. Power is all that’s necessary and we can’t do much about that.

  • varoth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah…no. Enough of the fucking 70+ year olds. I’m so fucking tired of people who should be fucking retired owning and running everything. Fuck the mother fucking hell off fossils. God damn it. Enough with the fucking retirement home bullshit. Holy fucking hell.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah, there’s the “decrepit and out of touch” Biden/Trump/Mcconnell/Feinstein old and then there’s the “elder statesman who’s still true to himself and his constituents and sharp as a tack if far too polite, even subservient, to people who he should consider the least disagreeable of two enemies rather than allies” Bernie old.

        Which one of these wildly disparate forms of old do they prefer, I wonder 🤔

      • 1847953620@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh fuck. He got us. Turns out there’s nothing wrong with any of them at least partially due to their age.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean sure, age and related health issues CAN be a part of the problem like with Mcconnell and Feinstein, but usually the out of touch policy positions are much worse than the age itself.

          For example, I’d much rather have Bernie than Madison Cawthorn making any decisions on behalf of the people and the vast majority of millenials and gen z agree 🤷

          • 1847953620@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            No no you’re right, I’m sure there’s not a strong correlation between being an octogenarian and being out of touch, those outliers prove it.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Didn’t anyone ever teach you that correlation ≠ causation?

              While the aforementioned health problems are a direct result of age, being out of touch isn’t. If you do your due diligence as a politician, you can keep your finger on the pulse no matter how old you are, health permitting. Of the two people in my example, the octogenarian has political views and general mentality much more in line with the vast majority of people under 45 than the Gen Z fascist does.

              • 1847953620@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Right. Because you cherry-picked the examples, then you’re using that to wave away proportions. I’m saying, expand the sample size and you’ll see that in general having ancient farts in high offices should be the exception, not the norm. If a correlation is strong enough, the connecting middle is kind of irrelevant for the purposes of the lower standard of justifying a bias.

                Even Bernie, who years ago inspired hope in so many with his rhetoric, has all but given up, hearing him talk now many see a fire that’s extinguishing. He doesn’t have the energy to fight against the status quo within his own party anymore. A younger Bernie did.

                As voting citizens, we don’t give enough chances to younger politicians, when honestly we should be demanding it of the political parties to allow new blood to breathe life and ideas into their party, and provide us with more options.

                • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  because you cherry picked the examples

                  Nope, I picked those two to illustrate that, while geriatric politicians are a bad thing in general, there are exceptions. I’ve never seen any of the people advocating term/age limits mention exceptions and was arguing against an absolute ban based on age and nothing else.

                  Maybe mandate some cognitive and policy knowledge tests every time someone, regardless of age, run for re-election. The senile out of touch ones from both parties would fail and so would younger idiots like Cawthorn, Boebert and Perjury Greene.

                  Even Bernie, who years ago inspired hope in so many with his rhetoric, has all but given up, hearing him talk now many see a fire that’s extinguishing.

                  Nah, that’s just his greatest flaw from even before 2016 continuing: being so averse to playing dirty that he goes to the other extreme and lets his competition get away with anything as long as worse exist. He’s like a neoliberal in that one aspect, always have been.

                  He doesn’t have the energy to fight against the status quo within his own party anymore. A younger Bernie did

                  Still not a lack of energy, he’s just playing too nice with his allies who should be his lesser enemies. And younger Bernie didn’t have much influence outside of Vermont and Washington since, this being pre-internet, the establishment decided which ideas got to most of the population. Like local public radio and tv enabled him to become one of the most influential people in the history of Vermont, the internet and the resulting ability to reach people without going through establishment tastemakers enabled him to build the (inter)national influence he always deserved.

                  As voting citizens, we don’t give enough chances to younger politicians

                  I partly agree, partly disagree: on the one hand, I agree that there are far too many old and out of touch people deciding things, but on the other, there is such a thing as too inexperienced. A 25yo would be fine for local office, but I wouldn’t trust someone THAT young to run a country. I’d say late 30s to mid 50s is probably the goldilocks zone, with exceptions to be made for exceptional individuals such as Bernie or AOC.

                  honestly we should be demanding of the political parties to allow new blood to breathe life and ideas into their party, and provide us with more options.

                  That part I agree wholeheartedly with, no notes.

  • Hairyblue@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Biden is too old to run. And Trump is a liar, criminal, un-American, and working to get rid of our democracy, AND is too OLD. But it looks like I will be voting for Biden again. And he has done some good things while in office.

    So, I hope that Biden will have a moment of clarity about the needs of the middle class and poor people of the US. And he’ll want to die of old age with history saying he was very helpful in fighting for policies to help us.

    Maybe. But I do know Republicans don’t believe in our democracy and they don’t want young people voting. They want to rule us with religion even though they are a small part of your nation.

  • JTode@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hey everyone, go outside and find some grass and take your shoes off and put your feet in it. Stand there for a minute or two and just feel the grass on your feet. Have fun!

  • Metal Zealot@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Maybe the US should create a “Geriatric Party”, where all these senile diaper wearers are put in a home.

    Voting for a guy who has at MOST 5 years to live is not good foresight, regardless of what political party you really behind

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Great, so what’s your plan? Pick your favorite 3rd party candidate and hope 100,000,000 other people who’ve never voted 3rd party before decide this is the year, and they magically pick the same 3rd party candidate as you?

          • danielton@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            We need an overhaul of our election system. Having Biden vs Trump with no hope of a third candidate ever being successful isn’t sustainable. These geriatrics need to go.