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
    90
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    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
      85
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      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
        46
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        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
          2
          ·
          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/

          • admiralteal@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            If “did not vote” were a candidate in ANY modern US election it would win. The 2016 and 2020 elections both had historically high turnouts.

            What is your counterfactual? Would Bernie have been able to get more votes than Biden, then follow it up by passing as much impactful legislation (e.g., the IRA) as Biden did? We can’t really know, but I am extraordinarily confident the answer is ‘no’. He’d be labeled a full commie by the likes of every GOP + Manchin/Sinema and fully blocked from doing anything, even appointing cabinet members.

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

              The 2016 and 2020 elections both had historically high turnouts.

              2016’s turnout was 55% of eligible voters. That’s not historically high. Clinton underperformed Obama in total votes received.

              2020’s turnout was historically high- it’s tough to say whether that was all anti-Trump energy (in which a ham sandwich with a (D) next to its name could have won, or if it was all pro-Biden energy that no other Democrat could have received (but TBH, I kinda suspect it’s more the former than the latter)

              Would Bernie have been able to get more votes than Biden, then follow it up by passing as much impactful legislation (e.g., the IRA) as Biden did? We can’t really know

              Probably not, given that centrists seem to prefer kneecapping progressives to supporting them.

              As for things we “can’t really know”, we do know 100% that Clinton didn’t win in 2016, and that resulted in flipping SCOTUS rightward for a generation, the overturn of Roe, it meant that we’d have the pandemic under leadership that just wanted people to pretend it wasn’t there and sacrifice themselves for the economy, it was a terrible shit-show and the biggest thing we all got was ballooning debt so the billionaires could get their tax cuts and American foreign policy experienced setbacks from which it may never recover.

              He’d be labeled a full commie

              So was Biden. So was Obama. So was FDR. So was Kennedy. So was LBJ. They’ve called every Democrat to the left of Hoover a communist since Woodrow Wilson’s administration. This “oh no, we have to nominate people that republicans will accept or they’ll call us names” nonsense is quite possibly the worst sort of preemptive-surrender politics imaginable and I imagine it has something to do with why young people don’t vote

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

                Counterfactuals. You can’t ignore counterfactuals.

                The counterfactual to Biden is even less successful progressivism than we got. You yourself agreed with this and it is the most salient point.

                You can and should demand more. You can and should advocate for change far beyond this. But my original points stand. By the time we reached the general election, Biden had proven he was the candidate to vote for to cause the most positive change possible. There was not a better way to spend your vote.

                This “oh no, we have to nominate people that republicans will accept or they’ll call us names” nonsense is quite possibly the worst sort of preemptive-surrender politics imaginable and I imagine it has something to do with why young people don’t vote

                That’s all well and nice, but it wasn’t republicans holding up far more aggressive and progressive legislation. It was Sinema, Manchin, and the other “centrists” who at least are smart enough to see the GOP for the totally evil lunatics they are, even if their politics really isn’t much better.

                I imagine it has something to do with why young people don’t vote

                Young people getting out and voting is WHY Biden won. He didn’t win in spite of them.

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

                  Young people getting out and voting is WHY Biden won.

                  Yes, young people showing up tipped it that way. It worked out better for Biden than it did for Clinton and I’m really glad about that.

                  But did they show up because Biden earned their vote, or because a ham sandwich vs. Trump would have got their vote?

                  By the time we reached the general election, Biden had proven he was the candidate to vote for to cause the most positive change possible.

                  Certainly in the general he was vastly preferable to Trump, but was he really a better choice in the primary than, say, Sanders or Warren or Buttigieg? I see a lot of confident assertions and untestable claims about that, but I suspect we’d all do well to consider the Democratic primaries as first and foremost a money contest, as secondly a process by which the money people signal to the voters which candidates they will support or tolerate- and in which whoever designates “the candidates that can win” has leverage to get voters to give up on what they might really want in order to get someone who “can win”. In other words, are the primaries really a way of getting to know the will of the people, or are they a means of pressuring a critical mass of people to vote a way the donors will accept and then presenting that as the genuine will of the people?

                  There’s a certain begging-of-the-question involved when we use confident claims about who “can win” to influence the way people vote. After all,

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          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
          17
          ·
          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
          11
          ·
          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.”

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

          They love dangling that carrot stick before elections. Only for it to ripped right back election day and tucked away for the next election

        • 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
          1
          ·
          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.

      • purahna@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        these are the lowest fucking bars imaginable

        try the following:

        • enough climate infrastructure to at least stave off apocalypse
        • enough infrastructure to keep people from sleeping on the streets in the richest nation on earth
        • codifying gay marriage?? that’s where you want the bar? maybe try codifying trans rights, that one isn’t a political softball for free. It’s not even true either, states don’t have to issue marriage licenses if they don’t want to
        • “attempted” lmao really? he pretended to around midterms to stir up votes and then let it flop. he was never going to.
        • attempted a ban on assault weapons? Again, if he cared, he’d executive order it
        • how about we don’t make people pay a corporation to not die

        in regards to ticking boxes, if someone ticks every single box I’ve outlined here, I’ll think about calling them a centrist instead of a rightist

        • HWK_290@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I mean… Yes? I agree with you 100%

          But who was ever going to achieve this? I voted for bernie in the primary in 2016 but he was never ever going to make it, and he knew it too. But because of him, progressive ideas remain in the public discourse, to the point where Biden incorporates many of those ideas in his campaign still

          Biden inherited a republican led senate and now a republican led house. If he tried more, you’d all be crowing about how he’s just screaming into the void and pointing out how much more he is failing to achieve. Let’s take the wins as easy as they may be, pray to all the gods that ever existed we’re not living with the alternative, and not let perfect be the enemy of good

      • purahna@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        this just hurts to read friend, please, want better for yourself. We deserve more. Don’t settle for the pathetic Biden offering, you and I deserve so much more than these crumbs.

        • HWK_290@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ok, I agree, we do!

          I’m curious… Can you sketch a realistic road map for me where we exist in 2023 with more than crumbs? I’m genuinely interested

          The future is wide open but I’d say we’re doing the best we can possibly hope for given the last 8 years.

          • Estiar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            I don’t think you’re giving it enough credit. Those are in fact very important drugs that many seniors take. It will save seniors and the government billions of dollars that can be spent elsewhere or reduce the deficit. It stretches fixed income further than before. Is it going to fix everything? No, but it’s a great step in the right direction.

            • Krauerking@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Oh my God you are telling me Biden is going to do something that directly helps pretty much only the older generations in America?

              Wow that doesn’t sound like him at all and really shows that he’s come around on being what truly can be called progressive

      • PopOfAfrica@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        On just one of those, because imo climate is the biggest problem right now, I think there is tons more he needs to do. We are to the point where a climate emergency needs to be instated and drastic measures need to be taken. Im talking no oversight emergencies power and regulations to industry.

        We all work in different industries and could run off tons of idea per industry that could reduce emissions. Heres what could be done for tech, for example.

        Mandated long 10 year support cycles on consumer goods, reparability, phasing into RISC based architectures to reduce energy consumption with a governmentally backed x86 compatibility layer funded by tax dollars to insure compatibility.

        Reduce server loads by banning digital ads and tracking protocols, as well as creating site standards that reduce bloat.

        Heck, incentives for work from home would drastically cut our vehicle emissions.

        Im sure we all could do what I did for every single industry with even greater depth. We need a no oversight emergency commision to do just that and insights it.

    • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      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
      12
      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
        7
        ·
        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
    75
    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.

    • minnow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      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?

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      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.

      • 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.

      • vagrantprodigy@lemmy.whynotdrs.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        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.

      • qwrty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        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.

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

      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.

      I think we may have found out that’s a risky strategy in the general election in 2016. It’s as if having a choice between a status quo centrist and republican crazies isn’t good for turnout- when the American Dream is increasingly regarded to be a cruel joke by young voters and the result is such low turnout that if ‘did not vote’ had been a candidate it would have won, maybe it’s time for the Dems do some soul searching here.

      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”.

      I don’t see him switching either, and in any case it doesn’t make sense for him to run away from progressives to avoid being called radical- after all, they’re calling him radical anyhow and it’s unlikely they’d stop doing that

      To the extent that running to ‘the center’ is seen as just appeasing Republicans in trade for no benefit to anyone but those Republicans (I think it is seen that way by a lot of younger, left and independent voters), I take the view that the one thing the Democrats must do (if they do nothing else) is keep on pressing hard on antitrust enforcement and restoring unions and labor protections and promoting environmental protection. If they don’t, I expect a lot of stupid protest votes going to the green party or other splitter factions set there to split the democrats and lower the bar enough for the GOP to heave a fascist boomer into the white house where they will finish the job of dismantling American democracy

    • phillaholic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      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
    59
    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
      3
      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
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        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
          2
          arrow-down
          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.

        • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          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”. 🤷

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

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

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

            Lobbying for WHICH climate action group, though? Some are as good for climate action as Neera Tanden’s CAP is for progress.

            In fact, you’re sounding like a more polite version of her right now with your exceedingly vague yet utterly false trumpeting of neoliberal saviours 🙄

  • nucleative@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    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
      7
      ·
      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
    38
    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
        17
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        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
        14
        ·
        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
          19
          ·
          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.

  • archchan@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    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
        5
        ·
        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.

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

          Hence the error of a two party system; no one can afford to go out on a limb, especially now that literal Nazis are the alternative.

    • phillaholic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      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.

  • Hairyblue@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    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
    19
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    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!

    • kase@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Do i take my socks off too? I don’t want to keep them on and get them dirty, but I don’t wanna take them off cause the grass is prickly :/

  • Metal Zealot@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    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 rally behind.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          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
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            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.