I will keep repeating this, Biden will be the reason Trump gets reelected. If he loves his country he needs to leave right fucking now. Democrats like him and Clinton are addicted to power. Bernie Sanders could have beaten Trump in both election but the democrats circles of power made sure to get the candidate they wanted. Old fool.
Sanders wouldn’t stand a chance. Too many moderate Democrats would be terrified of the scary socialist madman.
“The scary socialist madman” accompanied by the Democratic Party apparatus? A presidential candidate Sanders along with a moderate liberal VP would have gotten both the traditional Democratic vote (as long as the party collaborated with him, rather than giving him the Corbyn treatment, which I don’t trust liberals not to do) and a considerable chunk of the electorate who doesn’t feel represented by either party. The day you guys understand that you don’t have to fight the Republicans in traditional terms, but rather, to change the coordinates of the fight, you’ll force Republicans to choose between evolving or getting buried. But the real problem by this point is whether it is too late.
At this point, I’m convinced the Democrats are purposely throwing the election.
Maybe you’re right but too many of us think the opposite. I would much rather a younger more progressive candidate but Joe Biden has a track record of beating Trump. Biden has done a lot of good things in his first term that I’d want to continue. Even where he hasn’t gone nearly far enough or balanced bad with good, it may be necessary to appeal to the undecideds in the middle. Biden is the only one who can overcome the Trump personality cult
If a big complaint is age, how is that a plus for Sanders? I’m sorry but he missed his chance and now is solidly in “too old for this shit” territory
A track record of beating trump?
Something about the statistical validity of a sample size of one.
How about we pick someone who vaguely approaches the average age of an American adult. There’s a ton - Buttigieg, AOC, I dunno even Kamala would be a million times better. Literally anybody under the age of 70. Why is that so hard to do?
You keep repeating it because a false dichotomy, that you must choose between a D or R, prevents you from accepting that the lesser evil is, in fact, evil. So, you’re stuck on stupid and not asking questions. This should help:
The Democrats already, quite predictably, ignored the outcome of their primary to nominate Clinton. They’re not going to do a fucking thing that doesn’t make a corporate donor money. All of Sanders proposals took from corporations to provide for humans. He never stood a chance of being nominated as a Democrat and he damned well knew it. If we give him the benefit of the doubt then his goal was education. If not, he rallied for Democrats to avoid the rise of a Labor Party during a critical time in history.
People keep saying Bernie could have won, but he didn’t beat Clinton.
Sanders and Clinton didn’t play on a level field.
Like what? Did she get votes for him thrown out?
People have been saying for years that she had an advantage and so it wasn’t fair, but those advantages seem to ignore that more people voted for her.
He was an independent running as a Democrat, and then claiming it’s unfair when the Democratic party was more aligned with the person who had always been a Democrat.
those advantages seem to ignore that more people voted for her.
How can that be ignored it is the conclusion of the argument. Those advantages meant more people voted for her.
He was an independent running as a Democrat,
Listen dear, all politicians who want to be president are independents running as Democrats/Republicans.
claiming it’s unfair when the Democratic party was more aligned with the person who had always been a Democrat.
The whole point of a primary is to determine who the democratic party is more aligned with. It is unfair to determine that in advance.
So what were the advantages? The usual one I hear listed is superdelegates, which doesn’t matter if more people voted for the winner, or that they didn’t proactively inform his campaign about funding tricks that the Clinton campaign already knew about.
Are you saying that Clinton was an independent who just happened to align with the party for her entire political career?
I’m not sure you know how political affiliation or “people” work. Being a member of the party for decades vs being a member for months matters. Those are called “connections”, and it’s how most politicians get stuff done: by knowing people and how to talk to them.
The point of a primary is to determine who the candidate is, not who the party is more aligned with. Party leadership will almost always be more aligned with the person who has been a member longer, particularly when that person has been a member of part leadership themselves. It’s how people work. You prefer a person you’ve known and worked with for a long time over a person who just showed up to use your organization, and by extension you, for their own goals.
We have rules to make sure that those unavoidable human preferences don’t make it unfair.The Obama campaign is a good example. He didn’t have the connections that Clinton did, so party leadership favored her. Once they actually voted, he got more so leadership alignment didn’t matter and he was the candidate. He then worked to develop those connections so that he and the party were better aligned and work together better, and he won. Yay!
So what rules did they break for Clinton? What advantages did she have over Sanders that she didn’t have over Obama?
Which of those advantages weren’t just "new people to the party didn’t know tools the party made available?”So what were the advantages?
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic Party, was found to have sent an email during the primary election saying Mr Sanders “would not be president”
There were six primaries where ties were decided by the flip of a coin — and Clinton won every single one. The odds of that happening are 1 in 64, or less than 2 percent
The usual one I hear listed is superdelegates, which doesn’t matter if more people voted for the winner,
superdelegates system favoured Clinton by pre-announcing their support, giving Clinton a massive early lead.
or that they didn’t proactively inform his campaign about funding tricks that the Clinton campaign already knew about.
Clinton bought the DNC by paying off the debt created after Obama.
Are you saying that Clinton was an independent who just happened to align with the party for her entire political career?
I’m saying she doesn’t align and would happily run as an independent if she thought she would be elected.
The point of a primary is to determine who the candidate is, not who the party is more aligned with.
“The party” is the people who vote in the primary.
Party leadership will almost always be more aligned with the person who has been a member longer, particularly when that person has been a member of part leadership themselves.
Party leadership is not the party.
It’s how people work. You prefer a person you’ve known and worked with for a long time over a person who just showed up to use your organization, and by extension you, for their own goals.
Exactly. This is why the primaries were rigged in Clinton’s favor and Sanders and his supporters were right to claim unfairness.
We have rules to make sure that those unavoidable human preferences don’t make it unfair.
Those rules were broken. Debbie Wasserman Schultz has to resign.
The Obama campaign is a good example.
Of fairness (or a super strong candidate beating stacked odds).
So what rules did they break for Clinton?
- Campaign finance
- Debate questions
- Impartiality
What advantages did she have over Sanders that she didn’t have over Obama?
I haven’t researched how unfair Obama had it so I can’t compare.
Which of those advantages weren’t just "new people to the party didn’t know tools the party made available?”
Hilarious you refer to a 76 year old career politician like Sanders as a new person.
Quoting a phrase from an internal email out of context makes you seem disingenuous. The emails that were stolen show people being mean, but it also shows that they were consistently not rigging anything. Or does someone making a shitty suggestion and then a higher ranking member of the party saying “no” not fit the narrative your drawing? Or that the only time they talked about financial schemes was after the Sanders campaign alleged misconduct?
In context, Sanders told CNN that if he was elected, she would no longer be the chair person. The internal comment was “this is a silly story. Sanders isn’t going to be president” at a time where he was already loosing.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz has to resign.
She did. Eight years ago.
Tldr, party leadership preferred Clinton over Obama. Turns out that preference without misconduct doesn’t have much impact.
you refer to a 76 year old career politician like Sanders as a new person.
Oh please. It’s even in the bit that you quoted: new to the party. I act like he was new to the party because he was, and his campaign was run by people who didn’t know the party structures. When their inexperience with the party tools led to them not taking advantage of them, they cried misconduct for the other campaigns knowing about them.
Most of this country is centrist, so no unfortunately sanders would have lost to trump.
lol at thinking Americans are mostly centrists…
Most Americans I know think they’re centrists, even if they support either major party… I’m an American so I know a few Americans lol
Lol at thinking Americans lean hard left or right
Can you guys just put obama back in? I would unironically say thanks. It would be poetic.
Yeah there’s still a few doctors without borders hospitals he hasn’t bombed yet.
No. Trust me, this would be amazing but he cannot legally run again :(
No, there’s an amendment in our consimtituion that says a president can only be in office for two terms total. The only president who evaded this was FDR and he’s still villainized to this day.
Actually. I’m pretty sure hes the reason that amendment got passed.
Before FDR it was just a tradition, started by George Washington. Personally I think FDR deserves a pass, he got us out of the great depression and through WW2, it would have been hard to have a leadership change in the midst of that turmoil.
Totally agree. But imagine a 4-term Obamna presidency, with the orange avatar of conservative rage building in strength and gathering malice for 16 years instead of 8.
I am pro term limits, but you’re kinda making a good counter point. Eight more years of Obama instead of Trump and Biden… Doesn’t seem that bad. The conservatives went ballistic anyway, at least we’d have reproductive rights and better healthcare. I’m certain Obama would have been a lot better at managing COVID and the BLM protests. He was pro ceasefire in Gaza way before Biden too. Idk, for all his flaws, Obama seems better than what we got in his place.
I would have loved it too. But the backlash would be intense
Its … horrible how you treat your elderly in closed wards.
I shall avert my gaze.
Didn’t mean to pry, it was just too loud to not notice it.I’d rather look at our … increasingly hard-right EU politics … wait, that can’t be right, wtf.
As a French tho, do watch the debate between Gabriel Attal, Merdella and Manuel Bombard. See how Bompard (the left wing candidate) politely wipes the floor with both shitbags.
The vibes I get from the French left in social media remind me of the days when Podemos (in Spain) was soaring. It gives me a bit of hope. Good luck.
Unfortunately, when America farts we’re all forced to smell it. America wants Europeans to stay out of American business, buts that’s rather difficult to do when that country demands to be the center of attention.
America wants Europeans to stay out of American business
I don’t. Please send help!
Last time Europe sent people to “help” America it didn’t end well…
Times have changed a lot since then.
we’re our own kind of fucked up over here :( Except the Finns, the Finns are cool.
Really? Because every time the weather in Finland goes about 10°C I hear my Finnish friends complain like it’s the apocalypse. XD I’m just glad Denmark is having a decent summer this year.
I’m a big fan of any country voting against the populist trend, so I may ask for asylum in Finland eventually. Although, despite my motivation to learn new languages, that might be a challenge :)
Scandinavia has always been very left side, so it comes to low surprise to me that the left won the European election in Denmark, despite the right trend in the rest of Europe.
However, I will add that right wing Europe is still pretty left from America. Take Geert Wilders, the new guy from the Netherlands. The policies he wants to enact are stricter laws, more difficulty for immigrants, a stronger police force, street curfews for teenagers (real old man yells at cloud energy), and withdrawal from the climate agreement. All very right wing.
But… He also wants better funding for hospitals and schools, higher wages for nurses and teachers, more robust free healthcare system, hard caps and regulations on the increasing housing prices, more affordable housing, a more efficient and cost effective energy grid. If an American politician starts talking about these things they’ll be called a communist!
Scandinavia has always been very left side
Maybe from a hard neo nazi perspective. Denmark and Sweden especially have right-wing extremist parties (Denmark Democrats + New Right + Danish People’s Party together ~= 14.3%, Sweden Democrats 17.5%) with a voter base that has been established over a longer time. The German right wing populists have risen to that level only in recent elections, which is frightening. Geert Wilders is not “the new guy” from the Netherlands, he’s been a populist rightwing piece of shit for decades. Unfortunately, the average Dutch person over 40 / outside university towns is also quite racist under the surface - I lived there for 4 years, speak fluent Dutch with a German accent and since they felt “safe” with their bigotry around me, I have heard enough racist and sexist bullshit from “average middle class” Dutch people that I didn’t feel comfortable in that country anymore. The young people in urban centres are okay, but unfortunately those are not a large enough demographic.
As for comparing with the US - maybe not a good idea: Even young US americans see the democrats for the corporate shills they are, and know that they have to vote for them just to prevent a Handmaid’s Tale Season 6 becoming a documentary.
The US are the scary example for Western Europe as “this will happen here if you don’t pay attention”. No one in Europe will be able to say “I didn’t know” when we slip into a totalitarian regime filled with hate and controlled by corporations, because it might be happening in front of our eyes with a ~10 year headstart in the US. I just hope that’s not what is going to happen in the end, but things have progressed far too much into the worst dystopian future thinkable for this century.
We did but then you lot started ringing bells.
Tbf, were fucked too.
And all that hot air rises to Canada.
Unfortunatly it seems america just shat it’s pant.
In german media there is so much content about america even I sometimes get confused whoch country I actually live in.
At least you can tell where something happens by place names, I get headlines ‘12 shot in Manchester gun fight’ or ‘Birmingham man kills 8 in roadrage incident’ and there’s just no way of telling it’s America… OK, well those examples are obvious but the point stands.
It’s not that us outsiders like to watch your elections closely. But we need to since they’re gonna have a big impact on the world we live in, whether we like to admit it or not.
Americans, humble? We could never
Too late, I watched it all. It would have been funny if it hadn’t been so sad.
Will this ever not be appropriate?
I dont know, I dont think Canada has much room to throw bricks in glass houses at the moment.
something doesn’'t feel right…
deleted by creator
Canada is north of America. North is typically depicted as being up, or on top.
Ya, except now that it’s upside down it’s more Australia than Canada.
deleted by creator
We wish… the good/bad neighbour analogy is very apt here; whatever happens in the USA spills over here all the time.
We are about to enter our own Trump shit show when PP is elected next year.
The worst part about the politics here in Canada is that the Liberals always spend years setting up the layup that the Conservatives use to dunk on Canadians. This round is going to feature a whole host of anti-competitive business, bad trade deals, media favouritism, privatization, waves of attacks on worker’s rights… all this and more thanks to the moves set up by the Liberals doing things like refusing to stop the Rogers/Shaw purchase, the failure to make deals with other countries, setting up media and “CanCon” subsidies that favour big media companies, and the intentional attacks on the efficiency and effectiveness of public services.
We are so fucked.
Are the mooses swimming in the pool a good thing or a bad thing? Or maybe just a weird thing?
I don’t know how to pluralize moose
Serious answer: the plural of “moose” is “moose,” not “mooses.”
deleted by creator
Oh, nevermind, I see everyone already made that joke.
It was just…. ugh. 😞
It shouldn’t come as a surprise.
How is this fascist right wing shit show not a global debacle? Putin, Netenyahu, Bolsanaro, Trump, Modi… Italy & Germany both rolling right. North Korea (of course) jumping on the Russian bandwagon and Xinny the Pooh.
Does Britain’s finally dumping the Tories (after a decade & a half+) make them one of the few to break left at this time on the global stage? {Something about broken clocks being right from time to time.}
No I wouldn’t think that about the UK. Tories shifted massively rightwards over the past decade and they are really losing most voters to Reform - a hard right party, so they are simply not hard-right enough for most voters, meanwhile Labour has shifted massively right to occupy the space Cameron-style neocons were in before.
The right win in the long run because if labour wins, the dynamic will be of that between Cameron-esque conservatives under Starmer Labour and hard-right conservatives under Reform/UKIP/whatever Farage party as the two major parties. This is the final form of the overton window shift, on which the UK and US led the world on in 2016.
If anything the lib Dems - if you take their manifesto at face value - are far more progressive than Labour at this point and don’t adopt the “managed decline” style of governance.
This is where the UK FPTP system might actually work well, Reform could get as many as 17% of votes, ahead of Tory 15% and become the 2nd largest party, and yet end up with like one parliament seat because they dont end up with a majority in any one county this time around.
The only hope then is that Starmer is just secretly a really good guy who won’t say so because the tory media would eviscerate him on culture war shit, that he survives the power struggle of a labour seat supermajority and kicks out the likes of Duffield and Streeting.
The crazy thing is everything up to this point was so much better. They’d show biden waiving at “nobody” and then they’d zoom out and there’s someone standing there. Or he’d say “president of Mexico” when he meant to say “president of Egypt”. But then last night was like nonstop fail. It’s the perfect nightmare scenario because now everyone can say “You shoulda seen it sooner!” but really, we couldn’t.
This is comparable to a loud family feud carried out on the streets with yelling and throwing stuff at one another and then yelling at the shocked onlookers to move away.
We’re the family that gets kicked out of the Applebee’s for having a very loud and emotional fight while some other family is trying to celebrate their kid’s 8th birthday
No chance, I usually don’t care about American politics but I’m not gonna miss the chance to watch 2 geriatric fucks attempt to debate one another.
It was so much worse than I envisioned it to be though. Like one guy seemed to make up literally everything with insane claims that were delivered with confidence only rivaled by how stupid they were and the other sounded like his brain turned to soup if he spoke for more than 5 seconds and when not speaking he looked like a frog seeing a very tasty fly on the wall.
I really hope Europe can get our collective shit together and supply Ukraine once the US shits the bed there.
Your family is in our neighbourhood and in this domestic dispute I’m just wondering if I need to call the police or the abundance.
I’m just wondering if I need to call the police or the ambulance
Both? One of these guys is a convicted felon turned robber baron and the other is a retirement home escapee who has lost the light in their eyes.
In America, you can’t call just one—you’ll still get police if you ask for an ambulance.
Source: am American, have tried calling for only an ambulance before.
We call an ambulance we get fire dept first responders, then an ambulance if you need it. Never got the police, and we have done it many times with my father in law with heart issues.
… And I live in Tulsa
Who’s driving that ambulance?
I’d rather drink bleach than watch this shitshow.
