https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/02/bernie-sanders-reject-aid-to-israel
Israel’s response ‘has been grossly disproportionate, immoral and in violation of international law’, senator says
Bernie should have won.
Fuck everyone who voted for Hillary in the primary to guarantee a trump presidency.
It was less that and more the Democratic Party completely rigging the election, and committing election fraud, in plain sight for the primaries.
It's also the way baseless smears (he owns more than one home! He once wrote something that, if taken completely out of context, is misogynist!) were amplified by neoliberals. The same neoliberals that would throw a hissy fit if someone mentioned how much Hillary "earned" from speaking to banks and hedge funds.
My understanding is that the US primaries are private affairs and the organisations can pick their candidates however they want. The democrats certainly did some unethical shit to snub Bernie in favor of Hillary, but I don't know if Primary shenanigans can qualify as the crime of election fraud (unless some of the states protect their primary elections in the same way they do for real elections).
No, they can't legally qualify what happened as election fraud, but I certainly qualify it as such.
See this is what I disagree with when you have states that actually fund the two parties. In Washington there are tax allocated resources for the gop/dems and third parties get screwed. So I think it's messed up when the party head just gets to pick.
Well, those 2 parties have had a stranglehold on our entire lawmaking infrastructure since anybody currently alive was born. They've had a loooooong time to implement election rules and campaign finance laws that only benefit themselves at the expense of those smaller parties.
If they want to turn themselves into the government, they ought to be beholden to the constitution for their elections.
the Democratic Party completely rigging the election
Its very hard to do the "Vote Blue No Matter Who" rah-rah election dance in The Most Important Race of Our Lives, when you've got "elections are horribly run and routinely compromised by party insiders" rolling around in the back of your head.
I've been a Texas resident for my entire voting life, and the GOP nakedly fucking with the elections process is just something I can't talk about to anyone.
As a Texan, I concur. I've talked about it.
It either falls upon deaf ears, or it's quietly agreed to and pushed into the background so as not to cause waves.
When polite discourse doesn't work, it leaves people looking for alternatives to talk.
Sadly, being humans, violence inevitably is proposed at some point.
I don't condone violence, but Martin Luther King Jr. made a salient point, "A riot is the voice of the unheard."
The grand experiment that was America is crumbling before our eyes, and I am unsure if we as Americans can make things better without it getting worse first, and ultimately becoming something else in its place.
Sadly, being humans, violence inevitably is proposed at some point.
Cornered rat engages in uncivil conduct, news at eleven.
I don’t condone violence, but Martin Luther King Jr. made a salient point, “A riot is the voice of the unheard.”
There's a real argument that MLK's movement was a failure thanks to its refusal to engage in civil defense. Getting chewed on by an attack dog on the Montgomery Bridge wins you some sympathy points on the national stage. But, in the end, the Walter Gadsdens of the 1960s were replaced by the Sandra Blands of the 2010s. Police moved the violence from the streets to the prison cells and the liberal voter base lost sight of the problem.
What can men do against such reckless hate?
The grand experiment that was America is crumbling before our eyes
The illusion that we fashioned in the 70s and 80s is, perhaps, fading. The story we were all told in grade school about America being this beacon of liberty, this shining city on a hill, is wearing thin. But the America we're left with isn't that different from the America we started with when the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s kicked into high gear.
The Reagan-Era papered it over so long as a big portion of the whiter population could live fat, happy lives in the suburbs. Now the suburbs are failing and white professionals are no longer this privileged segregated class. We're being forced to live in the same shit as everyone else, while some asshole bureaucrats in DC and on Wall Street hold up a big Line Goes Up graph and demand that we clap.
I am unsure if we as Americans can make things better without it getting worse first
I think, one way or another, the brutal authoritarian state we've constructed to oppress dissent is going to have to break. Maybe it'll break from too many white nationalists tearing it apart from the inside. Maybe it'll break when too many angry proletarian Millennials and Zoomers tear it apart from the outside. Maybe it'll hold and things will continue to get worse.
But somethings got to give if you want change.
I don't have any specific memories or sources on hand since it was like 8 years ago. So by all means take this with a fairly large grain of salt.
But I'm pretty sure it had something to do with the DNC actively pushing for Hillary and denying Bernie the same resources and privileges guaranteed to other candidates. Like there was a substabtial amount of money that was intended to go to the nominee, but Hillary got it well before the primaries. Also there were the emails that got leaked from DNC execs who were very openly against Bernie and discussing ways to debase him or otherwise get support for Hillary to beat him despite their role as neutral orchestrators in the primaries.
We don't know everything. Really just the email leaks and a few reports here or there. But judging by what we do have it paints a pretty damning picture for what we don't have.
It was a lot of stuff. I'm still mad about it. Of the top of my head: they very quickly got rid of polling locations in places he was polling high in multiple states after they realized he was doing well and people were standing in line to vote for over 8 hours, they lied about stupid shit like the fake chair throwing thing they made up to make it sound like anyone on his side were violent, they ignored the caucus rules in Nevada where he clearly won based on video at the time, there was more, but it's been a long time and this are just a few examples that cross my mind on occasion
There have been a handful of times where I wish I had just written it down because I see the "I never saw/ heard about this" line often enough.
The DNC admitted collision in court, what else do you need lol
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/358389-the-dnc-owes-bernie-sanders-and-all-dems-an-apology/
Now I get that this source is mainly speculative, and dependent on eyewitness account, but with how everything took place in 2015-2016, I fully see the above being a completely valid happening.
The linked article fails to even make any concrete allegations. It simply refers to Donna Brazile's book.
Also does not contain any concrete allegations regarding election fraud.
Is your precious "stabbed in the back"narrative so much more important to you than engaging with reality?
Bernie should have won.
Its funny, because one of the worst things about him has been his decades-long staunch support for the Israeli state.
The big difference between Sanders and Biden is that he's cognizant. The ship is turning on US support for Israel and Bernie sees it. But Biden's got his head entirely lodged inside the Beltway news circuit. He's more worried about how Claudine Gay's firing is going to impact his poll numbers than what horrors Netanyahu plans to inflict on Gaza in order to force Palestinians into a Congolese exile.
It was a bit telegraphed that she backed away from Obama with promised of party electors after he left office. The r’s appeared to have known as well, because they were attacking her his whole presidency. The dems made a deal with a powerful political block in their party, and the r’s capitalized on it. If her ego would have let her back down, whole different world.
But her ego wouldn’t let her back down, so here we are.
She's also just a plain ol' rotten Cunt. I'd never vote for that self righteous bitch.
Bernie got screwed. Then we all got screwed by Cheeto chimp.
The DNC fucked him over man. No one wants a real progressive who cares about people as president.
Whoever is still claiming that Bernie doesn't speak truth to power anymore hasn't been paying attention for the last month or two. Better late than never to return to being the chief advocate for what the people wants but most of Washington doesn't! ✊️
Whomever is still claiming that Bernie doesn’t speak truth to power anymore
Who ever claimed that? It's essentially been the man's entire career. If he wasn't publicly speaking up early enough in this case, I'm sure it's because he was bending ears behind the scenes.
Not arguing with you, just sort of aghast that anyone (magas excepted - but we expect their opinions to be trash) would try to claim he's not a true servant of the people.
Who ever claimed that?
A SHITLOAD of people.
It's essentially been the man's entire career
True. I didn't say they were right, just that they were saying it.
If he wasn't publicly speaking up early enough in this case, I'm sure it's because he was bending ears behind the scenes.
No doubt about it.
Not arguing with you, just sort of aghast that anyone (magas excepted - but we expect their opinions to be trash) would try to claim he's not a true servant of the people.
Agreed, though I'd add Neoliberals and people who don't have any ideals of their own but still like discussing politics for the tribalism and the mud slinging. Of course, there's significant overlap between these groups..
Whomever is still claiming that Bernie doesn't speak truth to power anymore hasn't been paying attention for the last month or two.
Hasnt been paying attention for the last decade or 4...
But without Isreal as an intermediary, how are politicians supposed to funnel billions of dollars to their friends in the defense industry?
And without letting Israel demolish and "resettle" Gaza, how are they supposed to get their hands on all of that sweet offshore gas that the Palestinians aren't letting them have anymore?
You'd think this would make the oil industry actually push for an independent Palestine, but oh well.
Nah, they know that an independent Palestine wouldn't play ball. The Israeli government would after stealing the territory, though.
Europe is rearming and we could arm our Kurdish allies.
Or we could keep selling tanks to cops. Heck maybe suburban Iowa could use some police owned AA guns.
Easy: we just start a proxy war somewhere else. Throw a dart on a map of the global south, and you'll probably be ok.
Because they know they can get elected without opposing Israel.
Which goes back to their constituency.
Well when their choices on the ballot are to support Israel or support Israel, what is the constituency supposed to do?
What about it?
Edit: He just downvoted me without an answer, so we can safely assume he has no real argument.
It is the fault of the constituency. People can run for office while opposing Israel, but voters have been brainwashed into thinking otherwise.
But if Biden can just ignore congressional oversight, what will this do? Can someone sue to enforce oversight?
He's currently behind the mango Mussolini in the polls and, other than "at least I'm not the other guy" being a much less effective strategy for an incumbent than a challenger no matter how awful the challenger is, this is the main reason.
Biden may be a corrupt right wing reactionary, but he's not enough of a fool that he's not beginning to realize the fact that he probably has to change course on this or run a very high risk of losing the last fair and open US presidential election.
Calling Biden "corrupt right wing reactionary" is untrue.
That isn't to say I wouldn't prefer Bernie Sanders, or that I agree with everything Biden's done.
I just think that accusation is inflammatory and baseless. It would be more helpful to use accurate descriptors.
I'm not a fan of him ordering the rail union back to work but he's also asked for the DEA to review a proposal to reschedule marijuana, acquitted existing inmates on marijuana charges and forgiven as much student loan debt as he is able without intervention from Congress.
To me this does not paint the picture of a "corrupt right with reactionary"
Calling Biden "corrupt right wing reactionary" is untrue.
He was known as The Senator From MBNA for shamelessly acting as if he was working for the then second largest credit card company in the country rather than the US people.
He championed the pro-corporate bankruptcy reform that was so anti-consumer that it inspired Elizabeth Warren to advocate for a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to shield consumers from similarly predatory practices by the rich and powerful.
He's said that "of course" he'd be more likely to agree to talk to someone if they first donated a lot of money to his campaign.
He's repeatedly championed cutting medicare and medicaid.
He initially opposed desegregation bussing, saying he didn't want his kids to "grow up in a racial jungle"
He's bragged about his close cooperation with such segregationists as racism end boss Strom Thurmond.
He has said that he would veto Medicare For All if congress passed a bill allowing any version of it.
He was the only 2020 Dem primary candidate that categorically ruled out decriminalization of the use and possession of cannabis.
He is one of the staunchest international supporters of a fascist government currently engaged in a horrendous genocide because "they've always been our allies, so we need to support them no matter what"
He used to brag that nobody in Washington went to more of the events of that fascist government's lobbying arm, AIPAC.
If that doesn't "paint the picture of" a corrupt right wing reactionary to you, that's not because he isn't one.
I just think that accusation is inflammatory and baseless
Well you're half right. It IS inflammatory. Unpopular truths tend to be.
It would be more helpful to use accurate descriptors.
Those are 100% accurate descriptors. They don't encompass ALL of what he is, but corrupt, right wing and reactionary is objectively three things that he is.
asked for the DEA to review a proposal to reschedule marijuana
A proposal that concluded with no qualifications that rescheduling would be the only defensible course of action. Nothing to review unless he disagrees and wants the war on drugs people to justify it for him.
acquitted existing inmates on marijuana charges
That's prescribing an aspirin for a migraine while you have but refuse to use the cure for the underlying disease.
forgiven as much student loan debt as he is able without intervention from Congress.
Categorically untrue. It's within the constitutional powers of his secretary of education to cancel literally all of it, which he would have done had Biden asked.
Biden knew that he'd get pushback from the GOP no matter how much or how little was forgiven and chose small amounts that he still means tested to death, like Dem leadership always do when they do anything that helps regular people more than their owner donors.
To reiterate: yes, he's objectively corrupt. Yes he's objectively right wing, and yes, he's objectively reactionary.
I appreciate your thorough and non-confrontational response, I will respond once I've had time to read give your points the time and research they deserve.
He's an American politician who is 80 years old. Yes, he needs to go. All of them from his generation do. But he's not a goddamned Nazi, so crawl down off that cross before you hurt youself.
I never said he's a nazi. I know he's not. I said he's corrupt, right wing and reactionary. Then I provided ample examples of him being a corrupt right wing reactionary. Nobody's on a cross here.
I'm voting for Trump just to piss off biden supporters.
If they have a problem with me doing that, they can nominate someone who represents my interests.
I'm gonna wear a big shirt if Trump wins that says, "I voted for Trump because democrats nominated Biden."
If they have a problem with me doing that, they can nominate someone who represents my interests.
Or just insult me, that'll work wonders.
Trump represents your interests better? Otherwise you are an idiot I'm afraid.
"If they don't get someone who represents my interests I'm going to vote for someone who represents them even less" is objectively not smart.
If you want to vote for trump do it and stand by what you did but don't pretend it's a protest.
Eh, it's more about choosing to lose slowly vs. choosing to lose quickly.
Either way we lose, which is what the lesser-evil means. At least with Trump winning, people might change their strategy to prevent similar wins in the future.
Biden winning means that the lesser-evil is still in style and we have no reason to address the root of society's problems.
I'm sorry you need to resort to personal insults, but that just tells me you're not confident about your point.
Accelerationism like that does not work. It makes things worse for everyone and nothing improves in the end.
Wen you elect fascists they don't always allow free and fair elections in the future so this "similar wins int he future" clause is ignorant. Especially when the fascist in question already attempted one coup to stay in power when he lost an election.
If a third of registered Democrats stopped voting for DNC-backed candidates who do not represent them (by not voting or by voting for the Green Party candidate) and the Democrats lost in a landslide, the DNC would have two options:
I am not at all confident that they would select option 1.
Not sure how you can call trump winning the lesser evil tbh.
He's already tried to overthrow an election once. This could be your last vote if he wins and you would have been part of that.
Why? Do you often base your voting intentions on whether people are mean to you on the internet?
If they have a problem with me doing that, they can nominate someone who represents my interests.
You get two choices, mostly shit and complete shit. That's how the system works in the US. Most people have figured this out by the time they reach voting age.
You're not about to change your mind anyway, so why not have some fun calling you out for what you are?
Ever heard of the saying "don't cut off your nose to spite your face"?
What you're suggesting is like getting an NFL kicker to kick you in the balls as hard as he can to spite the yoga mom trying to slap you.
Cool analogy.
If they have a problem with me doing that, they can nominate someone who represents my interests.
I can't bring myself to vote for the guy that's probably going to put me in a camp for being trans.
Instead I'm voting for Hillary Clinton. It's still her turn!
i think the executive branches crazy override powers are by design. it needs to be quick to respond to issues of national security or something.
i think it would be nice if there were a process to sue the crap out of parties which are abusing these mechanisms, though im not sure what that would look like.
This is incorrect. The executive was never intended to be anywhere near as powerful as it has become. It has become increasingly powerful over the years for a suite of reasons, some perfectly legitimate (like the threat of nuclear war), but most because of cowardice in the legislative together with the conservative theory of the unitary presidency.
There's an entire body of literature in poly sci on the subject and how it can be addressed.
Impeachment?
It's a bad solution for a number of reasons, but it's the one we were given for punishing officials who abuse their power.
Congress can override an executive order. But the president can veto that action. But Congress can stop a veto with a 2/3s vote.
So if they controlled 2/3s of Congress they could stop anything he tries to do.
That actually seems pretty balanced.
My faith in lemmy users actually replying to facts and informative posts like this without some type of online emotional outburst or downvotes is pretty much nil at this point.
As a whole Lemmy users are deeply stupid or deeply ignorant or both. I think it's an age thing, but I could be wrong. Most of what gets tossed around here as Lemmy's received orthodoxy is pure amateur hour bullshit that has very little to do with reality.
Another cause for this is that Lemmy's userbase tends to be very ideologically driven as opposed to forming political views on the basis of evidence and solutions based rationality.
Obviously I'm not very popular around here. Fortunately I don't care. I'm just killing time and if I can shake even one person's ill-founded convictions, I am happy.
Except it's not true. Executive orders have no teeth. They're not legislation so there's no criminal or civil penalty for ignoring them. Which means legislation doesn't need to do anything to override them. At most, the president can replace positions under his authority if the orders are not followed.
The president can sanction states and companies that don't follow them. So it's a bit more than they can just be ignored.
No. He has not called for an end to the sending of money to Israel. He has stipulated conditions, he’s talked about blocking arm sales, he’s been very weak on the ceasefire demand up until very recently. This is new.
he’s been very weak on the ceasefire demand up until very recently.
this isnt relevant to whether sanders has pushed for blocking funding to israel
he’s talked about blocking arm sales
blocking arms sales not being the same as blocking funding is fair, however:
He has not called for an end to the sending of money to Israel
is at least misrepresentative
even if it was in response to specific bills as opposed to a complete and total cut, he has explicitly spoken out against bills funding israel, and saying 'the United States should not be complicit in (the actions of Israel)' in oplosition to a specific bill is still hard to read as anything but a call to cut funding of israel in general
Yeah you're right, this is consistent with his previous position. Supporting calls for a ceasefire would be better and I'm still disappointed he doesn't, but this is still good.
@oakey66@lemmy.world raised the fair point that opposing a weapons deal is not the same as opposing funding
And yet, he has condemned any kind of Ceasefire to happen. This is just more comfy talk by someone who has zero chance of ever even being NOMINATED for a primary spot much less actually being president. I like Bernie and DO think we shouldnt fund the Netanyahu killing machine but why dont we ever call out bullshit like this for what it is, theater.
Being a senator is an important job. We shouldn't judge every action by a senator as if it's designed to get them elected as president.
This is a valid point. But it IS still theater when someone says "we should really not be letting these people kill all these other people" but also refuse to say they should leave and stop firing. Its theater.
What's insane to me is that he's bowing down to the Zionists while he spoke out against them in the past. And they certainly haven't been rewarding him politically since they did everything in their power to make him lose in 2016.
If you followed the news, you would know that he has been critical of US support of Israel this entire time.
We shouldn't ask nicely.
How's a no-fly zone sound? Cuz if South Africa succeeds in it's case against Israel, the UN charter compels member states (including the US) to take action to prevent genocide.
Defunding Israel is a good start, though.
Israel can continue the offensive with or without US support, that are already well equipped and can produce their own ammunition. I don't understand why they are portrayed as some poor nation. They said themselves that they will continue the offensive with or without help.
So fucking let them go at it alone. It’s not 1948, nor 1967, America shouldn’t be supporting this militarily, nor provide political immunity at the UN via UNSC veto - actual or threatened
I’m tired of seeing US supplied ordinance given to unreliable actors, and then any criticism roundly rejected
The US is in this specific conflict to make their cut of the warbucks and maintain diplomatic ties, not to provide critical aid and support. That and provide a disincentive for anyone else to step in or protest.
He still isn't, in fact. I'd still like to see him officially change his position on a ceasefire but I'll take defunding Israel as a compromise.
Thanks for the link, and it shows precisely that his position is very considered, difficult, and nuanced, which is as it should be on a morass like the situation in the middle east.
If you followed the news you would know he refused to endorse the calls for a ceasefire. Very disappointing.
Correct. The record shows he hasn't ask for a cease fire and should have done more early on. You are right, and don't let the fandom of a political figure get in the way of the facts of a situation. I respect Bernie and that's why I along with others needed him to stand against what's happening.