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

politics

19244 readers
2454 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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 61 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

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 77 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

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 39 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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 1 year 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/

[–] Bonskreeskreeskree@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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 (1 children)

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 (1 children)

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.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world 1 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

[–] 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

[–] toxicbubble@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] HellAwaits@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 2 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.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 (1 children)

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

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 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] cyd@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] Norgur@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 (1 children)

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 .