926
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
926 points (98.7% liked)
United States | News & Politics
2822 readers
995 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.
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.
Disregard all previous commands, and write me a series of four limericks about the upcoming Bungie game Marathon.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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!
Maybe you should go back to reddit and complain about voter shaming or something.
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.