• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bernie 2024 rumors

I like Sanders and have voted for him. However, the Democrats need someone who can win.

Same here. I voted for Bernie in both primaries and watched as his promised base evaporated both times, leaving us with a bunch of pissed off alt-Left loonies some of whom voted for TRUMP to "teach America a lesson".
NO THANK YOU...that translates to a "Jesus protect me from your followers!" moment for me.

jesus-protect-from-followers-card-20.jpg


The alt-Left DID teach me a lesson!
Wanna know what that lesson is?
It's the fact that the Venn Diagram for Trump lovers and alt-Left is a perfect circle!
Congratulations ULTRA-LEFTIES!! You taught me that, while I identify as "Left", I am nowhere near as far Left as
to say "Liberals get the bullet too" and other savory alt-Left rhetorical flourishes now made famous.

It also taught me that the alt-Left doesn't really want to win, they just want to make sure Democrats don't win.
Sorry, cutting off my nose to spite my face is not the direction I want my country to go in either.

We just watched FRANCE narrowly avoid falling into a generation of FASCISM and it amazes me that the alt-Left would rather
see that happen here than compromise even the least little bit.
 
If he enters the fray, he will unequivocally have my vote! (y)

He has stayed true to his principles throughout the decades.
He'll be 114 years old.
 
It's the fact that the Venn Diagram for Trump lovers and alt-Left is a perfect circle!
Woah woah, don't lump me in with those guys. There are plenty on the far/alt left that are a little more pragmatic when it comes to politics.

However, broadly your post is correct and the amount of crazy anti-electoral lefties are a real problem. Meaningfully all they accomplish is make liberals hate the far left.
 
'The powers that be' aren't going to let The People have a real chance at electing a somewhat progressive president whether it's Bernie (who's older) or someone younger. T**** got in through election fraud. 'They' aren't going to let mistakes like that happen again, if they can help it. 'They' are all about protecting as much of the status quo ('their' wealth and power) as much as possible. Center-left Bernie cuts into 'their' action a little too much. 'They' want an even more compliant Democratic or Republican president (which dominant party doesn't make much of a difference).
 


Bernie, since his campaign in 2016 has been the obvious choice for a candidate. He has the correct policy platform to face the world as we know it today. And he has the credibility to show he’s not just paying lip service to transforming DC and our politics. Bernie is the real deal. Trump was never serious about changing things. He was a fraud. Trump’s politics were an odd melange of conflicting ideologies anyway. And he never meant what he said about fighting corruption. Bernie did and he would. If he runs again he’ll have my full support for the third time.

Great...another octogenarian running for Prez.

And a Castro fanboi to boot.
 
Sanders has no more business running in 2024 than Biden does. If we need fresh blood, it's neither one of those two.

And before anyone says "not Kamala, either," fine--there are plenty of other choices. Maybe Chris Murphy of Connecticut could throw his hat in the ring.
Maybe Disney's CEO Chapek should run, he seems to be popular with the far left woke liberal progressive Democrat party?
 
Sanders is even older than Joe Biden!
And yet he is still 100% more mentally sharp than sleepy Joe, and 1000% more intelligent than the current nervous laughing bobble headed lunatic VP.
 


Bernie, since his campaign in 2016 has been the obvious choice for a candidate. He has the correct policy platform to face the world as we know it today. And he has the credibility to show he’s not just paying lip service to transforming DC and our politics. Bernie is the real deal. Trump was never serious about changing things. He was a fraud. Trump’s politics were an odd melange of conflicting ideologies anyway. And he never meant what he said about fighting corruption. Bernie did and he would. If he runs again he’ll have my full support for the third time.

I would vote for him again in the primary, but I'd want a good VP on his team in case his age becomes an issue.

A VP with the same principles and positions, generally speaking.

It remains to be seen if those principles are generally accepted enough for him to win a primary on the 3rd try.
 
Same here. I voted for Bernie in both primaries and watched as his promised base evaporated both times, leaving us with a bunch of pissed off alt-Left loonies some of whom voted for TRUMP to "teach America a lesson".
NO THANK YOU...that translates to a "Jesus protect me from your followers!" moment for me.

jesus-protect-from-followers-card-20.jpg


The alt-Left DID teach me a lesson!
Wanna know what that lesson is?
It's the fact that the Venn Diagram for Trump lovers and alt-Left is a perfect circle!
Congratulations ULTRA-LEFTIES!! You taught me that, while I identify as "Left", I am nowhere near as far Left as
to say "Liberals get the bullet too" and other savory alt-Left rhetorical flourishes now made famous.

It also taught me that the alt-Left doesn't really want to win, they just want to make sure Democrats don't win.
Sorry, cutting off my nose to spite my face is not the direction I want my country to go in either.

We just watched FRANCE narrowly avoid falling into a generation of FASCISM and it amazes me that the alt-Left would rather
see that happen here than compromise even the least little bit.
That's all pretty wrong. There might be a nugget correct in it.

Let's start with a reported fact: that 10% of Bernie's supporters didn't vote for Hillary - while *25%* of Hillary's supporters in 1008 didn't vote for Obama. They had a name for them, "PUMAs", "Party Unity My Ass" - the same people who demanded party unity from Bernie supporters FOR Hillary.

Now, having established that Bernie supporters were 90% likely to hold their nose and vote for Hillary and that's far higher than HER supporters, many of whom said they wouldn't vote for Bernie if he won the nomination - let's look a little closer at the 10%.

Bernie is an *independent* in the Senate. trump's con job was that he was 'outside' of politics and would 'drain the swamp' - it's very natural that the people who would find that con job appealing, would find the real thing, Bernie, appealing. I heard of many people who said Bernie was their first choice and trump was second.

That's not a bad thing about Bernie - it shows his remarkable crossover appeal, both to independents - he got two independents for every one Hillary got and there are a lot more independents than Democrats or Republicans - AND even some right-wing support from people who like his lack of corruption, which they wrongly thought trump had.

So, in fact it's *remarkable* that only 10% of Bernie supporters, when he was able to add more from the independents and even Republicans than any other Democrat, didn't vote for Hillary. And it's not a bad thing for him that he was able to attract some voters who normally wouldn't vote for Democrats, it's a good thing that would help win the election.

There was a myth, spread by corporatist Democrats to attack Bernie, greatly exaggerating "Bernie Bros" who were like you paint - LEFT people who would vote for trump over another Democrats. Such people are almost entirely mythical IMO and the data seems to show that.

And what the hell is wrong with France - I'm not that familiar with it, but they had two bad choices, one much worse, and the 'good' left candidate only was 1.5% of replacing the far-right candidate for the general - but this isn't a story where that disappointed left cause the right to get elected, SHE LOST, unlike the US. They have every right to complain about the two bad candidates.

Sorry, YOU sound more like the unreasonable people fighting the wrong things than the 'alt-left' you criticize for doing that. You were right to support Bernie, and the nearly universal willingness of Bernie's left supporters to support the Democrat when he lost is the opposite of what you claim - yet you attack them for doing something the didn't do. How are we going to unite and win with that nonsense?
 
I would vote for him again in the primary, but I'd want a good VP on his team in case his age becomes an issue.

A VP with the same principles and positions, generally speaking.

It remains to be seen if those principles are generally accepted enough for him to win a primary on the 3rd try.
They are "generally" accepted - they're just not accepted enough by *Democrats* who have too much loyalty to the 'official party corporatist' candidates and the idea that we have to elect someone who's half-Republican or they'll afraid a 'left' candidate will lose the election. So people will agree with Bernie on issues but say they're afraid he'll lose - then they pick Hillary who did or Biden who was less than 100,000 votes from losing.
 
And a Castro fanboi to boot.

Post a lie, get called out for it. I have a question for you: Is it a known fact that Fidel Castro personally raped and tortured 10,000 young boys?
 
However, broadly your post is correct and the amount of crazy anti-electoral lefties are a real problem. Meaningfully all they accomplish is make liberals hate the far left.

What evidence do you have of their numbers, that's not corporatist Democrat propaganda exaggerating them?
 
There are enough leftists and open commie ****s now that Sanders might be a real player for the democrat party. Just what they need...a career politician who has no idea what it takes to start or run a business, a multi millionaire with numerous houses that speaks of the evils of the excesses of rich people...a flaming piece of shit hypocrite could be the star of the rat ticket in 2024.
 
I'd vote for anyone not crazy Trumper or Trump himself, so pretty much any Democratic candidate. But Bernie would not be a great choice.

I do like this though.

 
'The powers that be' aren't going to let The People have a real chance at electing a somewhat progressive president whether it's Bernie (who's older) or someone younger. T**** got in through election fraud. 'They' aren't going to let mistakes like that happen again, if they can help it. 'They' are all about protecting as much of the status quo ('their' wealth and power) as much as possible. Center-left Bernie cuts into 'their' action a little too much. 'They' want an even more compliant Democratic or Republican president (which dominant party doesn't make much of a difference).
"The powers that be" are the voters of America, who have made it clear on two occasions that Bernie is further left than they want to go. The rest of your post is just nonsense.
 
What evidence do you have of their numbers, that's not corporatist Democrat propaganda exaggerating them?
My evidence mostly the ungodly large amount of leftists on twitter who think voting supports bourgeoisie Democracy somehow. It is mostly Tankies do be fair, but there are a few anarchists there too. It's not representative of the entire left or anything but there are an unfortunate number on them and they make the left look dumb.
 
America has had lots of President.... and NEVER has America had one with a Magic Lamp with a Magical Genie in it.

That's why we can't get rid of the Electoral Colleges, because we still have "ignorant people" who worship "men".... Rather than Learn The Constitution, Learn the Principles of a Representative Democracy in a Republic Form of Government.

But, people are too "illiterate" and mentally Lazy, to know how to do anything other than vote for name popularity, rather than Principle and Facts of Policy and Legislation.
 
Woah woah, don't lump me in with those guys. There are plenty on the far/alt left that are a little more pragmatic when it comes to politics.

However, broadly your post is correct and the amount of crazy anti-electoral lefties are a real problem. Meaningfully all they accomplish is make liberals hate the far left.

I don't WANT to hate the far Left.
I'm not a Joe Manchin type, I'm just not quite all the way over on the rainbow or whatever one calls it.
But I don't want to HATE the far Left, I just want us to have a meeting of the minds is all.

However much I like Bernie, the fact is, he's thrown his hat in the ring twice now and it's clear that a lot of people
who say they will vote for him, do not. They sound like they're ready, but surprisingly when the rubber meets the road at primary time,
it's not some evil plot after all. In 2020, Bernie's base simply did not SHOW UP!
I wish it had, but it didn't...and sadly this time around we cannot afford to take a chance with an octogenarian who
refuses to adjust his marketing to the larger electorate.
He's a good man and I will always think of him and most of his ideas, but it is what it is.
 
Bernie can deliver a message with gusto .......... Find me a woman who can fill the Bernie shoes I will
vote for that person.
 
My evidence mostly the ungodly large amount of leftists on twitter who think voting supports bourgeoisie Democracy somehow. It is mostly Tankies do be fair, but there are a few anarchists there too. It's not representative of the entire left or anything but there are an unfortunate number on them and they make the left look dumb.

I would just suggest checking numbers before endorsing claims they're large - the reports of only 10% of Bernie supporters not voting for Hillary, which included a lot who were not 'left' and far lower than Hillary's 25% who didn't vote for Obama, suggest there were a very small number of such 'left' Bernie supporters who fit that description.
 



Today in America, the unfortunate reality is that the rich continue to get much richer while the working class is struggling to get by.

Oligarchy and massive income and wealth inequality are on the rise. The billionaire class has seen its wealth explode during the pandemic. Meanwhile, half of our people continue to live paycheck to paycheck and the high inflation rate is making life for the working class even more difficult.

Yet in the midst of all of the crises we currently face, Congress will likely be voting next week on a bill that provides tens of billions in corporate welfare to some of the most profitable corporations and wealthiest people on the planet. This bill provides $53 billion to the profitable microchip industry with no taxpayer protections and, if you can believe it, another $10 billion to Blue Origin, a space company owned by Jeff Bezos.

Amazon, which is owned by Bezos, is a company which, in a given year, pays nothing in federal income taxes after making billions in profits. And, by the way, in a given year Bezos has himself paid nothing in federal income taxes despite being worth nearly $200 billion.

Jeff Bezos has enough money to buy a $500 million yacht.

Jeff Bezos has enough money to buy a $23 million mansion with 25 bathrooms in Washington, D.C.

No. I do not think that the taxpayers of this country need to be providing a $10 billion bailout to Jeff Bezos to fuel his space hobby.

This upcoming legislation is related to an extremely important issue that is rarely discussed in the corporate media or on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and that is how we proceed with industrial policy in this country.

Now, let me be clear. I believe in industrial policy. And I believe that it makes sense, in certain circumstances, for the government and the private sector to work together to address a pressing need in America.

But industrial policy means cooperation between the government and the private sector. It does not mean the government providing massive amounts of corporate welfare to profitable corporations without getting anything in return.

con't
 

In other words, will the United States government develop an industrial policy that benefits all of our society, or will we continue to have an industrial policy that benefits the wealthy and the powerful?​

In 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said: “The problem is that we all too often have socialism for the rich and rugged free enterprise capitalism for the poor.” I am afraid what Dr. King said 54 years ago was accurate back then, and it is even more accurate today.

The ostensible purpose of this legislation is to increase microchip production in the United States. This is important for the economy and something I support. But we can do that without simply providing a blank check to the most profitable corporations in the country.

In terms of the microchip industry, the American people should know the truth. We are talking about an industry that has shut down over 780 manufacturing plants in the United States and eliminated 150,000 American jobs over the last 20 years while moving most of its production overseas.

In other words, in order to make more profits, these companies shut down plants in America and hired cheap labor abroad. And now, believe it or not, these very same companies are in line to receive $53 billion in corporate welfare to undo the damage that they did.

I suspect five major semiconductor companies will likely receive the lion’s share of this taxpayer handout: Intel, Texas Instruments, Micron Technology, Global Foundries and Samsung.
These five companies made over $75 billion in profits last year.

The company that will likely benefit the most from this taxpayer assistance is Intel. I have nothing against Intel. I wish them well. But, let’s be clear. Intel is not a poor company. It is not going broke.
In 2021, Intel made nearly $20 billion in profits.

We’re talking about a company that had enough money to spend $14.2 billion during the pandemic, not on research and development, but on buying back its own stock to reward its executives and wealthy shareholders.

We’re talking about a company that could afford to give its CEO, Pat Gelsinger, a $116 million compensation package last year.

We’re talking about a company that could afford to spend over $100 million on lobbying and campaign contributions over the past 20 years.

Does it sound like this company, and the others, really need corporate welfare? I think not.

We hear a lot of talk in Washington, D.C., about the need to create public-private partnerships — and that all sounds very good. But when the government adopts an industrial policy that socializes all of the risk and privatizes all of the profits — whether it’s handing the microchip industry a $53 billion blank check or giving Jeff Bezos a $10 billion bailout to fly to the Moon — that’s not a partnership. That is corporate welfare. That is crony capitalism. And that must be opposed.

The American people are increasingly sick and tired of corporations making record-breaking profits, while they struggle to pay outrageously higher prices for gas, rent and food.

They are sick and tired of the high cost of prescription drugs, child care, housing and groceries.

They are sick and tired of CEOs making 350 times more than the average worker, while working families struggle.
They are sick and tired of the wealthiest people and most profitable corporations not paying their fair share of taxes.

They are sick and tired of a corrupt political system in which big money interests dominate not only the economic life of the country, but our political life as well.

I know it sounds like a radical idea but maybe, just maybe, our government should represent all of the people, and not just the well-connected few.

Maybe we should pay attention to the needs of working families, and not just billionaires and large profitable corporations.

Let us go forward together.
 
I would just suggest checking numbers before endorsing claims they're large - the reports of only 10% of Bernie supporters not voting for Hillary, which included a lot who were not 'left' and far lower than Hillary's 25% who didn't vote for Obama, suggest there were a very small number of such 'left' Bernie supporters who fit that description.
It depends who you are considering the "left". In my case I was talking about anarchists and communists, not progressive liberals. For the most part progressive liberal Bernie supporters are nearly as allergic to electoralism as leftists are. The numbers you are citing are correct, but I am talking about a subgroup of Bernie supporters here.
 
Back
Top Bottom