retrospectology @ retrospectology @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

757

Joined

1 yr. ago

I understand that everyone has differing priorities

And what, specifically, are those for Clinton? Protecting corporate oligarchy? What exactly do you believe Clinton truly offers to the average voter that Sanders does not?

The question i originally addressed was whether the DNC screwed Sanders. There is no evidence that they did anything to him that would have overcome the shellacking he took.

Yes, there is. He was painted as an "extremist" by the establishment, his supporters were repeatedly portrayed as "Bernie Bros" despite being a majority women in order to give the impression that his following has some kind of latent misogynist leanings (which Warren played on again in 2020 by lying about him saying that a woman can't be president). The party super delegates were allowed to pre-vote to give the impression Clinton had a greater lead than she really did. Primary debates between Sanders and Clinton were scheduled for times with the least viewership, he recieved very few interviews on major outlets and when he did it was almost always just some talking head aggressively criticizing his "extreme left wing" policies.

There was the email leak that demonstrated that there was hostility towards Sanders from within the DNC and that members were looking to help Clinton's campaign.

Do we not remember that it was concluded in court that the DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was working to sabotage Sanders. The court didnt deny the rigging was hapoening, it just decided it was ok to rig things against candidates because in its view the party can pick whatever candidates they want.

It's not a question of whether or not the DNC and their corporate media allies working to undermine the Sanders campaign, it's established, yes, they were. That's how public opinion is manufactured; by leveraging the media and party apparatus to create a false narrative to decieve voters and manipulate people's perception of who and what ideas are viable. Pretending there weren't powerful interests aligned against Sanders plays into that narrative.

Damn, the selfishness and out of touch arrogance is crazy. They really think they're entitled to power, even at the cost of our democracy.

What are you talking about? We're funding a genocide.

I'm saying critical reform of the Democratic party is not possible if you keep supporting fascist-lite candidates and letting them get away with their pied piper bullshit. Ever. People are already dying and suffering due to the lesser of two evils politics, both in Gaza and here in the US. What you're afraid of is that you will suddenly start to feel the consequences of your politics. People are already getting screwed over, it's just acceptable to you because you're not part of those effected groups. You're allowing them to suffer for our collective political sins.

It has to sink in sooner or later that neoliberalism is politically bankrupt, it can't deliver what we need to stop the slide into fascism and the more energy you put into trying to convince everyone that voting for the Bidens and Clintons of the party will save us, the more acclimated the general public becomes to fascism until one day nothing Trump or the next christo-fascist does will elicit any shock or outrage, there will be nothing you can do to get the majority to care or resist because they're comfortable and all the bad stuff is out of their sight.

That's the attitude that made the gas chambers possible.

Yes and the American people voted for Trump over Clinton, that doesn't mean he won due to his popularity, he won because he exploited a broken system, same as Clinton exploited a broken system within the DNC.

Clinton's primary win is not evidence that she was overwhelmingly popular, it's evidence that democratic voters was misled about Sanders (who we both supposedly agree is a better candidate). Clinton voters are low-information, a condition that's fostered deliberately by the DNC and Democrat-aligned corporate media, because if they didn't decieve people those voters would understand that Sanders is actually someone who would work to deliver the things that benefit all of us.

If you actually think Sanders is the better candidate then you should agree that most normal people aren't aware of why. On the other hand, if you think Sanders lost fair and square and democratic voters voted with full knowledge then that's basically just saying you think progressive policy is a failure on its own merits.

Not voting for the corporate obstructionists would be the most basic starting point. Its not about having everything figured out, it's about the urgent need for people to understand that what you percieve as harm reduction isn't working, that thinking is why we're here to begin with. It's not even actually harm reduction, it is soft-selling fascism and acclimating the Democratic base to it which increases the potency of the GOP's fascism by helping normalize it in increments. It can't be allowed to become the new normal.

Yes, and Democrats don't want to resist Project 2025 or build a strong institutional defense against it, they want it to always and forever be an immediate danger, so they can leverage it as a threat against Americans if they don't vote for their Chosen One every election.

That's why neoliberals are complicit in the creep of fascism, they stand right up at the line and use it for political expediency but when they fail (like Clinton) it's catastrophic.

Warren backstabbed Sanders in 2016 and 2020 even after she lost, she fell in line with the establushment instead of fighting for what she claims to believe. She's arguably worse than out and out conservative dems, she's there to sabotage the left and siphon away votes.

Millions were swayed by lies spun by corporate media.

It's possible to defeat a popular progressive like sabders when you have the backing of the party establishment and their corporate media apparatus.

Clinton won her primary through voter suppression by the DNC and corporate, that doesn't make her a better candidate. The General proved that.

If she "demolished" Sanders, and then lost to Donald Trump, that means Trump is therefore the "best" candidate. That's your logic here.

Clinton is super pro-corporate, what are you on about? She was unelectable and never should've run, she's directly responsible for Trump.

And I think the thing he doesn't understand is that, if he ever actually achieves his goal of implementing a fascist totalitarian state, guys like him are the first to get liquidated by the regime. He thinks he's going to be a duke or something, but he'll be tossed aside like trash.

No. If I misunderstood then campaign finance and lobbying money wouldn't be the rock solid predictor of how a politician will vote. But money remains one of the most reliable predictors of politician behavior, and most democrats take huge amounts of corporate money to obstruct any real progress.

The people who vote for Biden will literally vote for anyone. Whether or not anyone voted for Schiff isn't that strong of an indicator for the general since voter suppression within the Democratic party is much more severe than in the general.

The party backing a candidate doesn't mean they're the best for the general, you'd think Clinton would've demonstrated that pretty clearly. In fact, party establishment picks are so anemic that they need to go out if their way to help prop up extremist GOP candidates to make their own guy look more electable. That's literally their strategy to avoid supporting populist progressive candidates, to roll the dice with fascism.

I don't mean it as a pejorative, I mean it as a description of one of neoliberal dems defining characteristics; they lose, chronically, when it counts.

They got a supermajority and they still fumbled. And it's deliberate losing, that's their role in the duopoly set-up; to promise progressive change and fail to deliver because of those "wascally wepublicans". What they are failing to understand is that the Republican party is no longer playing the "one hand washes the other" game to maintain the corporate status quo -- the Republican party has been taken over by literal fascists who are out for blood and the neoliberal democrats still think they're playing the status quo game. They don't understand that losing comes with real consequences now, but it's all they know how to do.

The winners in any debate, if there must be any, are the people who use what they see and hear to inform their voting choices.

This thinking is part of what lost Biden the debate. He thought he was attending a debate in the traditional sense, but that's not what political debates are. A political debate is about communicating your platfotm and hammering on the other person's weaknesses (ex. Abortion, him being a convicted felon etc.).

Biden lost because he sat there like a dope and tried to answer the questions, instead of doing what he claimed was his strategy for taking the debate in the first place; exposing Donald Trump as worse.

As usual, neoliberals fail to understand the moment and meet it, which is why they're losers.

If Biden won in November democrats would take it as confirmation that they can keep doing their pied piper strategy, you'll end up with the exact same kind of choice. Project 2025 is not going away, so it will always be used to scare democrats into voting neoliberal corporate chosen one. There will be no reset, unfortunately.

She lost because her party backed Schiff. The party is too heavily involved in picking winners during the party to know if a candidate could win a general.

"He has the same 34% approval rate as Trump, that means he's the only one who can beat him."

Neoliberalism; not even once.

Kind of mildly misogynist though.

A politician claiming they support a policy means nothing in modern politics, it only matters what they actually deliver and fight for. Biden is too corporate to do anything but waste everyone's time. He adopted progressive policy points in 2020 because he was up against Sanders but then more or less abandoned those policies after they either got shot down by his party or were employed as temporary emergency measures (ex. Child tax credit).

Much of Biden's left appearing policy is just a thin cover for pork barrel spending, and worse he will deliver these little bits here and there that provide nothing to build on and then pat himself on the back and sit back on his laurels like he did more than the barest of minimums.

I'm just not impressed with his actual policy achievments or goals, when you strip away all the big rhetoric there really isn't that much there. Biden's not a fighter and he gives the impression he doesn't believe in any of the stuff he tepidly pushes for, he just figures he can't only give gandouts to corporations or it becomes to obvious what he's there to do.