You won't see Sanders become president. That will never happen. They, the bipartisan political establishment, robbed you of that forever, in 2016. But you do need to go and listen to this guy, learn from him, absorb his energy and regain hope. That is how a decent, intelligent American thinks, talks and acts. He is doing this because he sees something alarming happening from within the state and he is throwing a hail Mary to every decent people he can find on the streets. He knows change is outside the system.
this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2025
587 points (99.2% liked)
politics
20394 readers
3230 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 politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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 a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Debbie Wasserman Schultz was the DNC chair at the time. She put her foot on the scale for Hillary, and set us on the current course.
100%
What's crazy and I feel very shortsighted of the Democrats is that they aren't doing this more often. There is a large population that will/would respond to this type of politicking from the "opposition". They would generate tons of energy for more protests and put more pressure on the republicans to oppose shit.
instead we get:
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) has garnered scorn for meeting with Silicon Valley executives to "mend fences" with the powerful tech sector—where numerous CEOs have signaled support for Trump during his second term.
Ken Martin, the newly elected chair of the Democratic National Committee, said last month that the party should continue to take money from "good billionaires."
Democrats are the controlled opposition. It's why they would never give Sanders a fair shake. He would upset them "good billionaires" because going further right is preferable than a single step left for the wealthy.
Under the proposed Trump tax cuts, I bet a vast majority of our Democrat leaders are looking at a big tax cut. From their standpoint, they need to put up just enough push back to get re-elected next election. Don't rock the boat and get on Trump's bad side.
We need to clump the corporate democrats with the Republicans. None of them work for us. We need more AOC, Bernie, Jasmine Crockett, Rep Maxwell Frosts.
From their standpoint, they need to put up just enough push back to get re-elected next election.
You just unlocked the D playbook going back to at LEAST 2000 and dubya.
The fact that it still has to be Bernie doing this is nothing short of a failure on the part of the American people.
Pritzker is the only one even close to Sanders level, and he has the money to create a private army to hunt the gop traitors down like animals. I hope he does. File state level treason charges against Trump and his appointees, fly in some Ukrainian spec ops troops, a bunch of SAM's and drones, and I'll be one of the first volunteers help end the Russia problem
File state level treason charges against Trump and his appointees, fly in some Ukrainian spec ops troops, a bunch of SAM’s and drones, and I’ll be one of the first volunteers help end the Russia problem
Giggitygiggitygiggity GOO!
Well, I'm spent.
He's one of precious few in office who have any credibility on the issue.
I mean yes, and that's what I'm calling a failure on the part of the American people.
Or a success on the part of the two party hegemony.
The DNC could have let him win instead of cheating him out of the primary in 2016, we should have had a green new deal by now.
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.
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 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.
load more comments
(6 replies)
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. 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 candidate. Easy had 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.
Also signed a slightly hopeful American
load more comments
(3 replies)
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.
This is the man that should be the U.S. president. Not the fucking fascist rapist felon who’s all cozied up to Russian Putin scum.
Just imagine if he had been elected president in 2016 like he should’ve been
view more: next ›