• madcat@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    Bernie wasn’t ever the nominee. how does him endorsing the Democratic nominee push people on the left to vote for Trump when they support Bernie?

    He wasn’t the nominee because the DNC screwed him over in 2016 in favor of Hilary. At that point Sanders had a choice, he could either break with the right wing democratic party or support the official democratic nominee. This was a historic opportunity to break apart the two-party system of the US and Sanders squandered it. The decision to endorse Hilary was seen by a large part of his support base as betrayal. Contradictory as it may seem both Sanders and Trump had tapped in the same mood of discontent among the masses. They were both seen as anti-establishment candidates and there was a big overlap among the people who supported them. But unlike Trump Sanders embraced the failed strategy of “lesser-evilism” and that directly led to Trump’s victory. If Sanders had stood firm history may have been different.

    As for the Republicans going left wing. Neither of the two US parties is left wing but it’s a fact that the Republicans have taken the role from the Democrats of pretending to support the working class. They even use the phrase “working class” now, even on Fox News. That was unheard of only 10 years ago. When is the last time you heard a Democrat refer to the working class? It’s all “middle class” for them. The Democrats are the party of Hollywood now, not the workers. So yea, the republicans are using left-wing rhetoric now, the dems are moving more and more to the right. Identity politics is not “left wing”. It’s just what passes for left wing in the US liberal circles, and people are tired of it.

    • migo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 hours ago

      History would be exactly what happened with Ralf Nader - everyone blaming him for the outcome.

      I Nader’s case it was the de facto most consequential election imo - Al Gore x Bush. We would be fighting climate change properly and the terrorism response would’ve been significantly different.

      Bernie was pragmatic and lived to fight another day. And the progressive movement gained momentum.

      • madcat@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 hours ago

        And the progressive movement gained momentum.

        There is nothing “progressive” about identity politics.

        • migo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Ok, now you’re showing your true colors. You don’t care about real issues, you care about how people live their lives. Have fun with that mindset.

    • MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      Ah, I misinterpreted your meaning. Didn’t realize you were saying the alternative was for Bernie to run as third party. While I disagree that that would have ended with a different outcome I can at least see your logic there. Fine.

      But as far as the working class thing goes are you just arguing that Republicans are saying more lefty things or are you meaning to imply that they are actually more left leaning than Democrats? If it’s the former I don’t really see how that even matters. Whether Democrats say “middle” or “working” doesn’t really change the fact that the economic policies put forward by the Harris campaign were designed to benefit lower income families and individuals while the policies put forward by the Trump campaign were designed to benefit the upper class. Republicans can say “working class” all they want. It doesn’t mean they all of a sudden became progressive. Theyre just lying through their teeth. Just as they’ve always done. That’s not to say no dem has ever lied but there’s a vast divide between the two parties when it comes to their relationship with reality.

      • madcat@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        the economic policies put forward by the Harris campaign were designed to benefit lower income families and individuals while the policies put forward by the Trump campaign were designed to benefit the upper class.

        They were both designed to benefit the upper class, let’s not kid ourself. Also let’s not forget that as the vice president of Biden, Harris is complicit in genocide. That is reason enough not to vote for her. I for one am glad Genocide Joe is leaving. Trump may be a reactionary bigot but maybe that’s exactly what we need.

        • MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 hours ago

          They were both designed to benefit the upper class, let’s not kid ourself.

          Except they objectively weren’t. Harris’s tax plan would have significantly increased taxes for the highest earners in the US. Whereas Trump is going to significantly cut the taxes of those same high earners. You’re either being purposefully “both sides are bad” or you don’t know what you’re talking about.

          Also let’s not forget that as the vice president of Biden, Harris is complicit in genocide.

          No arguments here. That’s not what we were talking about. But let’s not pretend that trump is somehow better in that regard when he is so so so much worse. At least Kamala tried to act like she didn’t want to support Israel.

          Trump may be a reactionary bigot but maybe that’s exactly what we need.

          Just truely a ridiculous statement.