Bernie is a centrist at best. Things like civil rights are bare minimum, I’m talking about fundamental workers rights like the right to unionize, repealing Taft-Hartley, setting up matching programs with unions so that they can buy up their companies and become worker cooperatives, etc.
I believe Bernie is more based than centrism in his real views, but his public views are centrist at best.
He exists to deal with the revolutionary energy that is building and make people feel like their voices are being heard under the current establishment. But the reality is that you need corporate backing to win an election in the US by design. It is a corporate oligarchy, not a democracy
Bernie fights for universal healthcare, universal education, strong unions, higher taxes for the wealthy.
These are radically progressive positions in the US and most other countries.
“I believe Bernie is more based than centrism in his real views”
Your belief has no basis in reality, while his political track record is filled with the introduction of legislation and his public advocacy for the causes above and many more.
“you need corporate backing to win an election in the US by design.”
this is also incorrect, the design was for anyone to be able to enter politics in the US. At a local level, this is still largely possible.
Corporate backing determining higher-level political outcome is a recent consequence of Citizens United, the ruling by the US Supreme Court that allowed unlimited political funding by the wealthy. That ruling is a corruption of the US political process, not “by design”.
Bernie has also proposed legislation repealing CU and regularly advocates for repealing CU so that the “design” of political entry in the US can be reestablished.
Those are all great in the context of US politics. But things like universal healthcare shouldn’t even be part of the debate, they should just be the standard expectation.
yup, I was speaking to the US context of the post.
aa for the “standard expectation”, maybe in a perfect world, but unfortunately not in this one.
universal healthcare, education, housing, and the protection and maintenance of fundamental civil rights must be “part of the debate” because they are not guaranteed in most, and arguably all, countries.
To be clear, I’m not dunking on Bernie or AOC. Their intentions might be in the right place.
I’m saying the system will only allow so much muckraking. The ruling class ultimately determines who is on your ballot in the first place.
Then you have the list of other problems like first past the post voting, voter ID laws (poll tax), gerrymandering, the electoral college, and the fact that electorates are not legally required to vote the way their representatives vote in the election.
Not for lack of trying. You failed in mischaracterizing and insulting Sanders because I proved how baseless each of your accusations and assumptions are here: https://sh.itjust.works/post/35914985/17933545
“Their intentions might be in the right place.”
There’s no “might” about it, as I pointed out in the same comment.
“I’m saying the system will only allow so much muckraking.”
And rivers are only so wide. Profound.
“The ruling class ultimately determines who is on your ballot in the first place.”
Realizing your earlier error(“…by design”), you are now just less accurately paraphrasing my prior comment:
"the design was for anyone to be able to enter politics in the US. At a local level, this is still largely possible.
Corporate backing determining higher-level political outcome is a recent consequence of Citizens United, the ruling by the US Supreme Court that allowed unlimited political funding by the wealthy. That ruling is a corruption of the US political process, not “by design”."
Thanks for backtracking, but pretending you were saying something different than you were before is disingenuous and irritating.
You were wrong about the US electoral process, or charitably, you misunderstood and mischaracterized it.
Your diagram is simplistic and fundamentally flawed.
You made up blatantly false and consistently vague accusations about Sanders and the US electoral system at large.
I corrected you on these points in earlier comments.
No. In the US the right tries to restrict civil rights and everyone to the left of Reagan, including center-right corporate stooges, tries to expand them. If the capitalists like it, it’s not leftist policy.
You are pulling the wool over your own eyes because it is easier to complain about how everything is set against you than to support a cause that is not certain to succeed.
Like the diagram: incorrect, but simple to understand.
Uh… Those are two different causes, which is why until 2020 one was successful and one wasn’t. Now both are failing, because without an equitable society civil rights will inevitably be degraded by rightwing demagogues, and the Democrats simply don’t want an equitable society. I’m not saying that means there’s no path forward, but that the Democrats won’t give you that path; the people of America (which I’m not one of) will have to make it themselves.
They are not, but if they were, it wouldn’t matter anyway.
“until 2020 one was successful and one wasn’t.”
this is plainly incorrect, both were changing as they always do, civil rights and social services do not have a static end point.
“Now both are failing, because without an equitable society civil rights will inevitably be degraded by rightwing demagogues”
You’re hiding behind the big bad “everything is out to get me and there’s nothing I can do” again.
You are also plainly incorrect again, as proven by current democracies under which civil rights have been expanded and protected by what you consider left-wingers.
“the Democrats simply don’t want an equitable society”
Also plainly incorrect, since you’re stating an absolute about a dynamic group.
" I’m not saying that means there’s no path forward"
strange that you are the one to bring it up, then.
“the Democrats…”
You cannot speak for them since you clearly don’t know anything about politics, especially the US Democratic party.
“people of America (which I’m not one of)”
seems unlikely, given your language and understanding of several “American” terms like “rightwing” and “leftwing”. hiding?
“…will have to make it themselves.”
correct! glad you unwittingly agree in the end. Bernie Sanders, AOC, Ohmar, Abrams, all “people of America”.
It’s not entirely incorrect. The two party system is designed to force both parties to appeal to the average person. But when one side goes radical and still appeals to a big chunk of voters, the other side has to consider how to capture those voters too. In the case of the democrats, that means taking an extremely conservative approach to countering the Republicans, because they somehow still believe there’s a chance Republican voters will swing towards them. Young people are looking for a far more left wing government than the democrats are providing and so voter apathy among that demographic is so high, leading to this spiral. There are people fighting for sure, but the average is moving to the right.
The diagram as a representation of American politics, especially with respect to Sanders, is incorrect, lazy and harmful to political comprehension at large.
this is ridiculous and completely incorrect.
pretty colors, vapid content.
Bernie, AOC, Abrams and others are fighting for the expansion and protection of civil rights.
trump is taking away and devaluing civil rights.
Bernie is a centrist at best. Things like civil rights are bare minimum, I’m talking about fundamental workers rights like the right to unionize, repealing Taft-Hartley, setting up matching programs with unions so that they can buy up their companies and become worker cooperatives, etc.
I believe Bernie is more based than centrism in his real views, but his public views are centrist at best.
He exists to deal with the revolutionary energy that is building and make people feel like their voices are being heard under the current establishment. But the reality is that you need corporate backing to win an election in the US by design. It is a corporate oligarchy, not a democracy
“Bernie is a centrist at best.”
Plainly incorrect:
Bernie fights for universal healthcare, universal education, strong unions, higher taxes for the wealthy.
These are radically progressive positions in the US and most other countries.
“I believe Bernie is more based than centrism in his real views”
Your belief has no basis in reality, while his political track record is filled with the introduction of legislation and his public advocacy for the causes above and many more.
“you need corporate backing to win an election in the US by design.”
this is also incorrect, the design was for anyone to be able to enter politics in the US. At a local level, this is still largely possible.
Corporate backing determining higher-level political outcome is a recent consequence of Citizens United, the ruling by the US Supreme Court that allowed unlimited political funding by the wealthy. That ruling is a corruption of the US political process, not “by design”.
Bernie has also proposed legislation repealing CU and regularly advocates for repealing CU so that the “design” of political entry in the US can be reestablished.
Those are all great in the context of US politics. But things like universal healthcare shouldn’t even be part of the debate, they should just be the standard expectation.
yup, I was speaking to the US context of the post.
aa for the “standard expectation”, maybe in a perfect world, but unfortunately not in this one.
universal healthcare, education, housing, and the protection and maintenance of fundamental civil rights must be “part of the debate” because they are not guaranteed in most, and arguably all, countries.
To be clear, I’m not dunking on Bernie or AOC. Their intentions might be in the right place.
I’m saying the system will only allow so much muckraking. The ruling class ultimately determines who is on your ballot in the first place.
Then you have the list of other problems like first past the post voting, voter ID laws (poll tax), gerrymandering, the electoral college, and the fact that electorates are not legally required to vote the way their representatives vote in the election.
“To be clear, I’m not dunking on Bernie or AOC.”
Not for lack of trying. You failed in mischaracterizing and insulting Sanders because I proved how baseless each of your accusations and assumptions are here: https://sh.itjust.works/post/35914985/17933545
“Their intentions might be in the right place.”
There’s no “might” about it, as I pointed out in the same comment.
“I’m saying the system will only allow so much muckraking.”
And rivers are only so wide. Profound.
“The ruling class ultimately determines who is on your ballot in the first place.”
Realizing your earlier error(“…by design”), you are now just less accurately paraphrasing my prior comment:
"the design was for anyone to be able to enter politics in the US. At a local level, this is still largely possible.
Corporate backing determining higher-level political outcome is a recent consequence of Citizens United, the ruling by the US Supreme Court that allowed unlimited political funding by the wealthy. That ruling is a corruption of the US political process, not “by design”."
Thanks for backtracking, but pretending you were saying something different than you were before is disingenuous and irritating.
You were wrong about the US electoral process, or charitably, you misunderstood and mischaracterized it.
Your diagram is simplistic and fundamentally flawed.
You made up blatantly false and consistently vague accusations about Sanders and the US electoral system at large.
I corrected you on these points in earlier comments.
That’s that.
And the party’s leaders are actively trying to stop them.
Also all of these people were silent or supported the Gaza genocide.
your comment is
explicitly incorrect since Sanders forced multiple votes on blocking US arms to israel,
implicitly incorrect since neither of your comments negate the fact that the diagram is incorrect.
Civil rights aren’t leftwing policy so… okay?
Not okay. Civil rights are firmly left-wing policy, specifically for the politicians mentioned.
In the US, the left wing works to expand civil rights and protections.
In the US, the right wing tries to restrict civil rights and protections.
No. In the US the right tries to restrict civil rights and everyone to the left of Reagan, including center-right corporate stooges, tries to expand them. If the capitalists like it, it’s not leftist policy.
Not at all.
You are pulling the wool over your own eyes because it is easier to complain about how everything is set against you than to support a cause that is not certain to succeed.
Like the diagram: incorrect, but simple to understand.
What cause?
The expansion and protection of civil rights and social services
Uh… Those are two different causes, which is why until 2020 one was successful and one wasn’t. Now both are failing, because without an equitable society civil rights will inevitably be degraded by rightwing demagogues, and the Democrats simply don’t want an equitable society. I’m not saying that means there’s no path forward, but that the Democrats won’t give you that path; the people of America (which I’m not one of) will have to make it themselves.
“Those are two different causes”
They are not, but if they were, it wouldn’t matter anyway.
“until 2020 one was successful and one wasn’t.”
this is plainly incorrect, both were changing as they always do, civil rights and social services do not have a static end point.
“Now both are failing, because without an equitable society civil rights will inevitably be degraded by rightwing demagogues”
You’re hiding behind the big bad “everything is out to get me and there’s nothing I can do” again.
You are also plainly incorrect again, as proven by current democracies under which civil rights have been expanded and protected by what you consider left-wingers.
“the Democrats simply don’t want an equitable society”
Also plainly incorrect, since you’re stating an absolute about a dynamic group.
" I’m not saying that means there’s no path forward"
strange that you are the one to bring it up, then.
“the Democrats…”
You cannot speak for them since you clearly don’t know anything about politics, especially the US Democratic party.
“people of America (which I’m not one of)”
seems unlikely, given your language and understanding of several “American” terms like “rightwing” and “leftwing”. hiding?
“…will have to make it themselves.”
correct! glad you unwittingly agree in the end. Bernie Sanders, AOC, Ohmar, Abrams, all “people of America”.
It’s not entirely incorrect. The two party system is designed to force both parties to appeal to the average person. But when one side goes radical and still appeals to a big chunk of voters, the other side has to consider how to capture those voters too. In the case of the democrats, that means taking an extremely conservative approach to countering the Republicans, because they somehow still believe there’s a chance Republican voters will swing towards them. Young people are looking for a far more left wing government than the democrats are providing and so voter apathy among that demographic is so high, leading to this spiral. There are people fighting for sure, but the average is moving to the right.
“It’s not entirely incorrect.”
The theory is not entirely incorrect.
The diagram as a representation of American politics, especially with respect to Sanders, is incorrect, lazy and harmful to political comprehension at large.