566
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

With the 2024 presidential race beginning to unfold, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont said he believes that President Joe Biden will again earn the Democratic nomination — and the president likely win reelection if he runs on a strong progressive campaign.

"I think at this moment ... we have got to bring the progressive community together to say, you know what, we're going to fight for a progressive agenda but we cannot have four more years of Donald Trump in the White House," Sanders said Sunday on "Face the Nation."

Sanders endorsed Mr. Biden in April. Sanders referenced several of those issues in underscoring what he believes is the importance of building "a strong progressive agenda" to win the presidency in 2024.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 64 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But he's not all that progressive. He never has been. In a sane country, he'd be a middle-of-the-road Republican. There is no progressive left in this country. Not with any real power.

[-] HWK_290@lemmy.world 73 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I keep seeing this but I'm not sure what you all want ..

  • biggest investment in climate infrastructure ever
  • biggest investment in infrastructure since the new deal
  • codified gay marriage into law
  • attempted to forgive $10k in student loan (blocked by republican scotus, still attempting a workaround on interest at least)
  • attempted ban on assault weapons (let's face it, this will never happen without an act of congress)
  • negotiated drug prices for Medicare (10 drugs so far, a blueprint for more)

Dude is ticking a ton of boxes. Sure we're not living in a socialist utopia with universal basic income, etc but it's been 3 years

Edit: with a republican congress no less

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 38 points 1 year ago

They don't like Joe Biden because he doesn't pick losing fights on principle, in general, and because they don't want to admit that the primary process on the left actually does select for the strongest candidates.

I get it. I feel the same way at least emotionally. But $1.3 trillion dollars towards climate change and what is almost certainly the most important climate bill ever passed in the world so far is really hard to argue with.

I would like him to stand up and advocate for court reform. We need to strike while the iron is hot and people are seeing the Supreme Court for the corrupt political institution it always has been. He's backed down with very little fight on a couple of the things they've pulled lately when the Trump Administration would have just kept hammering on passing the exact same laws with tiny changes until they accept it. For example, the opinion on that student loan relief case made this incredibly idiotic argument about how the HEROES Act doesn't give permission for partial waivers because it only allows a modification or a full waiver and the partial waiver apparently doesn't count as either of those. I think you should have just come back and said well all right then, full waiver and total jubilee. That probably would also have been struck down but it would have really shown how vapid and hypocritical the court was.

The word neoliberal has basically lost most meaning. But everything they accuse Joe Biden of being are things that describe Joe Manchin. The guy who singularly keeps killing Progressive legislation put forward by the Biden administration.

[-] BeautifulMind@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

the primary process on the left actually does select for the strongest candidates.

Does it tho?

The 2016 general election was a contest between candidates with historically low favorables It took just 27.2% of eligible voters (in the right places) to put Trump in the White House Clinton underperformed Obama, while Trump over-performed Romney

If 'Did not vote' had been a candidate in the 2016 general, it would have won in a landslide https://brilliantmaps.com/did-not-vote/

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -5 points 1 year ago

primary process on the left actually does select for the strongest candidates.

this seems to imply that the democrat party is left, but it is not.

[-] Bonskreeskreeskree@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

He's also yet to declassify weed even though he carrot on a sticked it leading into the general and then again before primaries. He could do it any time and has not.

[-] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

If Biden were to make any such change to Marijuana scheduling by executive order, the next president would just undo it the same way. Worse still, the GOP would use such a move as a talking point that Biden is soft on crime and trying to get their kids on drugs, which the GOP base would eat up.

In fact, though, the Biden administration actually is making progress on this front. Some time ago, they requested that U.S. Department of Health and Human Services study whether or not Marijuana should be rescheduled. Just a few days ago, HHS sent their recommendation to the DEA to reschedule marijuana from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule III drug. The DEA has sole authority on drug scheduling.

“While HHS’s scientific and medical evaluation is binding on DEA, the scheduling recommendation is not,” the HHS spokesperson said. “DEA has the final authority to schedule a drug under the CSA (or transfer a controlled substance between schedules or remove such a drug from scheduling altogether) after considering the relevant statutory and regulatory criteria and HHS’ scientific and medical evaluation. DEA goes through a rulemaking process to schedule, reschedule or deschedule the drug, which includes a period for public comment before DEA finalizes the scheduling action with a final rulemaking.”

[-] Bonskreeskreeskree@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

So then whats the next step after this recommendation?

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Demand everyone be satisfied with it and coast on it for at least 15 years.

[-] HWK_290@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Good point, forgot that. At least the states (the good ones) have taken on that mantle

[-] K1nsey6@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

They love dangling that carrot stick before elections. Only for it to ripped right back election day and tucked away for the next election

[-] toxicbubble@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Tell it to the Midwestern white women.

The men, too, but let's be real they're a lost cause unless Hell freezes over and the Dems nominate someone with a gun collection.

[-] purahna@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 year ago

this just hurts to read friend, please, want better for yourself. We deserve more. Don't settle for the pathetic Biden offering, you and I deserve so much more than these crumbs.

[-] HWK_290@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Ok, I agree, we do!

I'm curious... Can you sketch a realistic road map for me where we exist in 2023 with more than crumbs? I'm genuinely interested

The future is wide open but I'd say we're doing the best we can possibly hope for given the last 8 years.

[-] LarkinDePark@lemmygrad.ml -5 points 1 year ago

The collapse of the US empire is the best you can hope for.

[-] FishLake@lemmygrad.ml -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Aren’t you satisfied by the reduced price of ten drugs????

[-] Estiar@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I don't think you're giving it enough credit. Those are in fact very important drugs that many seniors take. It will save seniors and the government billions of dollars that can be spent elsewhere or reduce the deficit. It stretches fixed income further than before. Is it going to fix everything? No, but it's a great step in the right direction.

[-] FishLake@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Of course it’s great that the prices for these drugs are reduced. But I’m not satisfied with reduction of drug prices. I’ll be satisfied when there’s actual headway on making all healthcare accessible and guaranteed to all people as a basic human right. Until then I will continue to be a fucking prick about reduced drug prices.

[-] Estiar@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I guess it's the difference between progressive change and radical change. I'm satisfied seeing progressive change more often. But keep fighting for your end goal.

[-] Krauerking@lemy.lol 0 points 1 year ago

Oh my God you are telling me Biden is going to do something that directly helps pretty much only the older generations in America?

Wow that doesn't sound like him at all and really shows that he's come around on being what truly can be called progressive

[-] purahna@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

these are the lowest fucking bars imaginable

try the following:

  • enough climate infrastructure to at least stave off apocalypse
  • enough infrastructure to keep people from sleeping on the streets in the richest nation on earth
  • codifying gay marriage?? that's where you want the bar? maybe try codifying trans rights, that one isn't a political softball for free. It's not even true either, states don't have to issue marriage licenses if they don't want to
  • "attempted" lmao really? he pretended to around midterms to stir up votes and then let it flop. he was never going to.
  • attempted a ban on assault weapons? Again, if he cared, he'd executive order it
  • how about we don't make people pay a corporation to not die

in regards to ticking boxes, if someone ticks every single box I've outlined here, I'll think about calling them a centrist instead of a rightist

[-] HWK_290@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I mean... Yes? I agree with you 100%

But who was ever going to achieve this? I voted for bernie in the primary in 2016 but he was never ever going to make it, and he knew it too. But because of him, progressive ideas remain in the public discourse, to the point where Biden incorporates many of those ideas in his campaign still

Biden inherited a republican led senate and now a republican led house. If he tried more, you'd all be crowing about how he's just screaming into the void and pointing out how much more he is failing to achieve. Let's take the wins as easy as they may be, pray to all the gods that ever existed we're not living with the alternative, and not let perfect be the enemy of good

[-] LarkinDePark@lemmygrad.ml -4 points 1 year ago

But who was ever going to achieve this? I

Sounds like you could be on the verge of a breakthrough.

[-] HellAwaits@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

I keep seeing this but I’m not sure what you all want …

Really simple. Pay close attention.

Some sort of universal healthcare Stop attacking telework as much as he currently is Stop using draconian border policies that are just as bad as Trump's if not worse Stop attacking primary challengers like he did with Marinanne Williamson. You don't have to like her, but the Biden Administration doing this is childish as hell. Stop running. He's 80 years old. He's part of the problem with politicians being too old to hold office. Biden should've just passed the baton instead of being stubborn like Diane Fienstein and Mitch McConnell. He also could've played hardball with Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin and he didn't and the infrastructure bill was greatly watered down for it. Biden is also more anti-weed than he should be. Sure, there was that thing where he lowered the weed scheduling, but he's made it clear before where he stands on weed and it's dumb.

Now as for some of your points.

"attempted to forgive $10k in student loan (blocked by republican scotus, still attempting a workaround on interest at least)" He literally can forgive it all with his presidential powers. This is a classic carrot and stick routine and you fell for it.

"Dude is ticking a ton of boxes. Sure we’re not living in a socialist utopia with universal basic income, etc but it’s been 3 years"

He also ticks a lot of boxes that makes him a glorified 80s republican. All of the stuff I mentioned requires no act of congress and he has more than enough political capital to do. And even if he did all of this, he still wouldn't be all that progressive. I really wish you neoliberal would stop with this nonsense.

[-] hypnoton@discuss.online 3 points 1 year ago

Spot on.

I wasn't a fan of how Biden quashed the railroad strike, and his response to the Maui wildfire was lackluster.

I want someone who fights like hell for my interests, not a goddamn third way triangulator.

No more hugs.

[-] PopOfAfrica@lemmy.one 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

On just one of those, because imo climate is the biggest problem right now, I think there is tons more he needs to do. We are to the point where a climate emergency needs to be instated and drastic measures need to be taken. Im talking no oversight emergencies power and regulations to industry.

We all work in different industries and could run off tons of idea per industry that could reduce emissions. Heres what could be done for tech, for example.

Mandated long 10 year support cycles on consumer goods, reparability, phasing into RISC based architectures to reduce energy consumption with a governmentally backed x86 compatibility layer funded by tax dollars to insure compatibility.

Reduce server loads by banning digital ads and tracking protocols, as well as creating site standards that reduce bloat.

Heck, incentives for work from home would drastically cut our vehicle emissions.

Im sure we all could do what I did for every single industry with even greater depth. We need a no oversight emergency commision to do just that and insights it.

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

There are certain facets to consider here. The nuance I would add is that if he campaigns as a progressive, that will be a more winning platform but they will still just be campaign promises.

[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Then he should do that. Then, if he doesn’t uphold his promises, we can hold his corpse accountable.

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I would like to live in a world where politicians treat campaign promises as a blood oath, but we do not and cannot live in that world.

[-] HerbalGamer@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Pretty sure he lines up well with the neoliberal side of most European parties, which is on the right.

[-] cyd@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

If neoliberalism means massive state intervention in investment activities, and putting up trade barriers, then the word has no meaning.

[-] Norgur@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

Thing is: it really has none that's if any use globally. A "liberal" in the US is something a liberal form Europe will not recognize as even remotely similar to their own stance and vice versa.

[-] iain@feddit.nl 4 points 1 year ago

I don't think there is much difference in the use of the word liberal. If I compare the politics of the main liberal party in my home country (VVD in the Netherlands) there isn't that much difference with the average Democrat in the US. The main difference is whether they are perceived as left or right wing by the population.

And it very much is neoliberal. Both parties (VVD and Democrats) are in favor of a smaller government and laissez-fair capitalism. They might need to compromise on these principles from time to time to remain popular, and in Europe maybe a bit more.

Funny thing: right wrong conspiracy nuts get their talking points from the us, so more and more people are starting to call liberals left-wing communists in Europe. So far it's just by the people who get their talking points online.

[-] HerbalGamer@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

You're right. It's the left/right part they seem to have shifted mostly.

Although Republican tends to be a leftist thing in monarchies like the Netherlands.

[-] iain@feddit.nl 1 points 1 year ago

Republican means you are in favor of a republic, meaning no monarchy. Communism wants a classless society, so they are republicans as a logical consequence of the ideology. America is a democratic republic, so both Democrats and Republicans are just meaningless labels .

this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
566 points (95.9% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2011 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS