Biden hasn’t changed though. He’s still the same old pro-austerity, pro-corporate, “respectably racist” Republican-at-heart conservative he’s always been. You just can’t see it because Trump is so much more extreme.
Biden hasn’t changed though. He’s still the same old pro-austerity, pro-corporate, “respectably racist” Republican-at-heart conservative he’s always been. You just can’t see it because Trump is so much more extreme.
It’s not out of context, it’s exactly what he said and meant. And he’s repeated that sentiment on multiple occassions.
If you need a more recent example to ignore, in 2022 he attempted to make some kind of distinction between MAGA and non-MAGA republicans because he still is dumb enough to believe there’s some contingent within the GOP that’s not fully onboard with fascism. Even after the decades of lies and double-dealing, of Republicans pushing to capture the courts and voting consistently to strip Americans of their rights, it hasn’t sunk in. Not even after January 6, after the whole party united behind Trump.
He actually thinks there needs to be a balance between “good” Republicans and Democrats, which is a deeply idiotic notion at this point and betrays the fact that he doesn’t actually want to achieve any of the progressive policy he cribbed off Sanders to win in 2020.
I dunno, I get this as much from old people too. I think it’s less an indicator of age and more an indication of people who aren’t great at thinking.
“In my view, we need a strong Republican Party. We need a Republican Party that’s united.”
-Joe Biden (~2011)
The man is just incompetent and nostalgic for the “good old days” when Dems and Republicans would play grab ass together and hoodwink the public together to protect the status quo and grow the wealth divide. This whole fascism thing, though clearly signaled decades ago, has him scratching his head. He simply doesn’t get it and is too mentally calcified to keep up with the paradigm shift in politics.
Mission Accomplished!
I linked you directly to an article discussing the lawsuit.
On August 25, 2017, Federal Judge William Zloch, dismissed the lawsuit after several months of litigation during which DNC attorneys argued that the DNC would be well within their rights to select their own candidate. “In evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims at this stage, the Court assumes their allegations are true—that the DNC and Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Clinton and sought to propel her ahead of her Democratic opponent,” the court order dismissing the lawsuit stated. This assumption of a plaintiff’s allegation is the general legal standard in the motion to dismiss stage of any lawsuit. The allegations contained in the complaint must be taken as true unless they are merely conclusory allegations or are invalid on their face.
I’m blocking you now. Good bye.
How can I ignore that which you did not provide?
I literally pointed you to the court case where the court said the DNC was rigging the convention against Sanders. I provided you that. That’s not my opinion, that’s literally what happened in court and Wasserman Schultz resigned over it. Your eyes literally won’t allow you to see it because it completely conflicts with the fantasy you want to believe is true (That the DNC isn’t deeply corrupt and diametrically opposed to progressive values).
You’ve got to be a troll. We’re done here.
So you ignore the facts you don’t like, and take the ones you do. And I’m projecting…
Why the fuck do you think Wasserman Schultz stepped down? What is your explanation if it’s not the scandal involving her bias as chair exposed in the emails? Coincidence? What possible benefit to you gain from this denial of established reality?
Ohh, a political “scientist” said it, must be a fact. I take back everything I posted, I will now pretend that Wasserman Schultz didn’t actively admit to trying to rig the convention against Sanders and that the court literally said in plain english that’s what was happening.
Must’ve just been a coincidence!
The way you people try to rewrite history is insane.
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.
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.
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.
No ones moving goal posts. Give a ballpark of how many immigrants were involved in those 122 attacks.
You’re making the argument that brown immigrants are more dangerous than Europeans and you’re then trying to exclude all types of violent crime except that labeled terror attacks to obfuscate the reality that immigrants are statistically no more dangerous than Europeans themselves. It’s dishonest.
Even in terms of terrorism, the majority has historically been committed by domestic groups (ex. nationalists, political extremists, separatists etc.), not immigrants. Again, this is very similar to my own country where domestic terrorism is actually the greater threat than that from immigrants.
So, even if we assume those 122 attacks were committed by immigrants, how does that compare to violent crimes committed by Europeans themselves? 122 incidents over 9 years is remarkably low for a single demographic. How many bad actors is that per event? How many immigrants are there total and how many committed these crimes?
It’s racist fear mongering.
The rich making money off immigration isn’t an issue with the immigrants, it’s that we don’t force companies to pay all their workers the same wage, regardless of status. That’s a regulatory problem, not an immigration problem.
Because people that tell us low wages (not GDP increase but working class wages for locals), high house prices, and other things people mention like losing culture and crime increasing isn’t an issue. So what would it take for it to be an issue.
None of this is related to immigration. Immigrants aren’t raising housing prices. With crime you have to actually prove that that’s immigrants committing more crimes than Europeans and what kind of crime. They call brown immigrants criminals and rapists here too, and it’s simply not true, they commit crimes at the same rate as citizens.
You have to understand that this is a pattern we see over, and over throughout history; when fascists want to seize control they blame immigrants for all of socieyies woes. And they do so only with rhetoric or twisted facts, not the truth.
Yeah, I know all about that, they use the " brown immigrants are terrorists" in my country too in order to exploit people’s latent racism.
To have a point you’d have to compare those instances to violence by Europeans against eachother, by being selective you’re feeding a narrative that brown immigrants are more violent than Europeans. That’s already been demonstrated to be false. You’re being manipulated by fascists.
To be honest I’m pretty energized. Not for Biden obviously, but just glad to see Democrats actually shifting their asses and just for people to finally be piecing together the predicament that the Democratic establishment has put us all in. There’s potential for actual change here, even if it requires going through some chaos and pain.
The pressure of the non-vote threat is actually being felt by party leadership and they appear to be delicately trying to create an environment that will allow Biden to accept that he needs to step down. It would actually be huge for the party’s health if they pulled it off.