707
RFK Jr. and Bernie Sanders get into screaming match over Big Pharma
(newrepublic.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2025
707 points (100.0% liked)
politics
26562 readers
2288 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I feel sorry that the Democratic party opted to cheat us out of President Sanders.
Contrary to the circles we reside in, most of the US despises any act of "socialism". It's ingrained in the culture after 50 years of waging a cold war against an entity that was associated with everything on the left because of propaganda. It will take a long time before enough of the people born before 1990 have died off before people will warm up to it again (I'm in this group too, being born 1982, but I wasn't politically aware enough care at the time, but some other kids' parents no doubt instilled this hate of socialism into them growing up. Millennials/Xennials, the generation that was supposedly the most left leaning in recent times, basically started 4chan, and look what it became).
We ARE in an echo chamber. I came to discover this when talking to young folks about Harris/Trump. Despite the enthusiasm I saw here for Harris, it did not translate to the real world at all. We have to come to grips with the fact that the majority of Americans suck.
Most of the US hates the word socialism, but if you pitch an actual example through a lens of saving money or creating jobs or something, they fucking love it. Just don't actually say the word and your golden.
I think about this every time I talk to my "liberal" family and they don't even realize they're spouting conservative bullshit.
"I worked hard for my house, I deserve to live in it alone until I die" while their son who didn't ask for cancer or to not be able to afford his medications is on the verge of homelessness. I guess my hard work and being underpaid my whole life just doesn't count compared to theirs? I guess the fact that our country mercilessly exploited the rest of the world, preventing them from living such comfortable lives, to be able to achieve such comfort for ourselves, means nothing? Those people in other countries worked hard too and lived in multigenerational housing for, well, generations. But they don't deserve it somehow, they aren't American, and we're the best so we deserve it or some other fucking delusional shit I don't fucking understand it.
They don't get it and at this point I'm pretty sure they never fucking will because the poison of Individualism has gotten them and US citizens don't understand Collectivism or the sacrifices you make for society at all.
All the Boomers are just like Biden. No matter being the source of all our problems, they won't lift a finger to make a sacrifice at the end, because "they worked hard and they shouldn't have to." Sure, when all the queers are being lined up for the firing squad, I'm sure it will mean a lot to them that you just couldn't lift a finger to prevent it because "you worked hard" and "you deserved a calm end of your life" as if these other people being rounded up to be murdered didn't deserve that.
Biden could have done a fuckton for us on his way out, but not a single fucking person in charge is going to make a sacrifice for us. Not Biden, not Merchan, not anybody.
My immediate family is largely conservative voters, and they go on about what government should do, and it's all decently lefty suggestions, but try to point that out to them and they go nuts. Most people just seem very ignorant of politics in general.
Except younger.
Nah dude, Bernie was WAY more popular than you’re giving him credit for. That’s revisionist history. He won multiple states in the primaries. That doesn’t happen for a Reddit echo chamber candidate. He even won important states like Michigan and Wisconsin.
He really did shake up the Democratic Party, which is why they panicked and did everything they could to push Bernie out. Both in 2016 and 2020.
Must be an interesting corner of Lemmy you found to have seen people who had enthusiasm for Kamala.
Most here we're as enthused as a kid taking that old school bitter liquid antibiotic.
Okay, maybe not outright enthusiasm. More like relief in the hope we weren't getting Trump.
Also all the claims Bernie was cheated rely on a single guy whose math doesn’t entirely add up. Sanders likely lost for the same reason he did in 2020 which is as you say the opposition to socialism.
How did they do that?
Not only was the primary rigged, but it was established in court that both, it was rigged, and that the DNC are fine to rig their primaries.
https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/
We don't know if it was rigged because that was never actually addressed in court.
The DNC came in and said:
Their argument in court was that, as a private organization, they have a right to do that, and since they have that right, the lawsuit should be dismissed. Their argument was that as a private group, they can rig it if they want to and it's only their own rules that they are breaking so nobody can stop them. How can anyone take such an argument at face value? "We totally didn't rig it, but if we did, it was totally legal to do."
Have you heard that old saying?
This is the DNC pounding the law ("we're a private organization, that's not how this works") to be able to avoid fact-finding discovery.
People always focus on "pound the table" but I think "pound the law" should also be considered. Because there's a lot of bullshit ass law out there.
The DNC went well out of their way to avoid talking about the facts and to focus on the legal mechanisms protecting them from having to admit facts. They also flat out admitted that if they wanted to choose the candidate, they could, and nobody could stop them. It was literally their argument for why the lawsuit should be dismissed, that it was legal for them to choose the candidate without input from the party.
Anything where an election is manipulated is "rigging" an election. You're just splitting hairs.
https://www.giantbomb.com/a/uploads/scale_super/3/33013/2638039-election%20rigging.jpg
Notice that the image I just showed is named "election rigging.jpg"?
The Definition for "rig":
rig: manage or conduct (something) fraudulently so as to produce a result or situation that is advantageous to a particular person.
Having literal media organizations promoting the idea that the Super Delegates were all in the bag for Clinton and emails that showed they actively tried to hamstring him all falls under "rigging."
Are you suggesting a video game as a source for a definition of election rigging? Was there a better quality source you could use?
He doesn't need a better source. We're talking about how language is used in society, and it proves that point fine.
I might hate terms like "Rizz" but as long as people use them to refer to a certain context, there's no room to argue that "Technically, Rizz isn't a word!!11"
Rigged is the correct term, in spite of you lack of curiosity.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/23/487179496/leaked-democratic-party-emails-show-members-tried-to-undercut-sanders
Since you are trying to rewrite history, I'm at least going to post this here so people understand the context of why we say, with out mixed words or a lack of emphasis, that the DNC rigged the primary against bernie.
This wasn’t incompetence—it was outright election interference. The DNC didn’t just favor Clinton; they actively sabotaged Bernie Sanders while pretending to be fair. The leaks confirmed everything.
No sources for anything and up to this point your only quoted source explains the flaws in your claim.
Maybe hold back on commenting about this further.
Don't forget they were DKIM verified to be real and unaltered.
But Assange was turned into the villain in this story because he didn't personally hack the Republicans and get dirt on them too, and because nobody did it for him, that's all his fault somehow. I'm still not entirely convinced of the story that he somehow had similar access to similarly compromising material on the Republicans and just chose not to release it.
Yet somehow...
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/13/media/trump-campaign-hack-news-media-report-iran-wikileaks/index.html
Huh. Hmm. Interesting. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, there's a thing called "editorial discretion" something no one seemed to think Assange deserved. Let alone once again that I have never seen definitive proof that Wikileaks had documents on Trump in 2016 that they refused to release. We even had a massive internal leak of their chats and nothing about having Trump info that they were sitting on and not releasing.
Note: Assange is shown in the chat logs to be quite the sexist and to in particular have an overly glaring hate for Hillary Clinton. I'm not saying Assange is a good dude, I'm pretty sure he's a sex pest, and he has the sexist attitude to support it. But in this instance, regarding the DNC emails, I think he was unfairly maligned.
To quote Orwell apocryphally: "The truth is the truth, even if it comes from a scoundrel."
Assange is no hero here and clearly has/ had an agenda of his own. I think if anything it shows we shouldn't rely on personalities or tribes of one for necessary acts of public good. Its a good thing that the DNC emails were leaked, and more importantly, found to be unaltered. Anything about Trump also should have just been fully released. Its a bad thing that didn't happen. It would be better if Assange had no editorial hand in what did or didn't get leaked, but thats not what happened.
NPR didn't call it rigged. They quoted a tweet from Donald Trump calling about. Why are you spreading Trump lies?
Says the revisionist historian. What a crackup.
All right quote any revisionist history you like. Give me an example just for fun. Whether I ever did or didn't. At least I'm not quoting a fascist to be divisive.
You offer only negative value in these discussions.
Put your projection aside. Take Trump's words out of your mouth. And quote a single instance.
You are just a toxic, toxic troll kid. An apologist who is as much to blame for Trumps rise as Trump himself.
Lmao. Your projection is hilarious.
Try reading your own source as there is a whole explanation about why the case was dismissed that you need to read.
Oh, oh. It gets soooooo much better. Search the article for the word rigged. There's one instance. Where they literally link to a trump tweet or truth calling it that. And I dunno about you. But if the only sources I can find to support my opinions are DT. I'm changing my opinion fast! 🤗
Yes those were the rules the Democrats had used for the last 40 years. It wasn't actually rigging. It wasn't very democratic. But when you're abiding by the rules that were set up. That's not called rigging or cheating. them's the rules. That's why I voted for sanders. Because even though he didn't win the grand prize he won concessions to change those rules and actually make it more democratic. Before those rules. We didn't even get to vote publicly in the presidential primary.
It’s been rigged for 40 years to keep candidates like Bernie Sanders out and push shitty candidates forward. Controlling the rules is rigging it.
“ 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.
The order then explained why the lawsuit would be dismissed. “The Court must now decide whether Plaintiffs have suffered a concrete injury particularized to them, or one certainly impending, that is traceable to the DNC and its former chair’s conduct—the keys to entering federal court. The Court holds that they have not.” The Court added that it did not consider this within its jurisdiction. “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing ‘only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.'”.”
Im not sure that means what you think
"Cheat" is a wide-ranging term which is a little too cumbersome to use here, but there were absolutely some shenanigans at play.
The heavily abridged version (which is open to criticism for doing so) is that the democratic leadership had effectively selected Hilary Clinton before the party had even had the chance to select the candidate officially, and Bernie's campaign had it's legs done before it even had a chance to take off.
Would Bernie have won? Who knows, but he's consistently a decent and open candidate.
They consistently presented these super delegates as a forgone conclusion.
Brilliant, thank you for the clarification. Eight years feels like a long time ago.
It's still infuriating.
It's completely inappropriate here. If I tell you the rules to the game. And you agree to play. As Sanders did. And we both abide by the rules. Then no one cheated.
Shenanigans? Barely. Wasserman Schultz lost her job over it. Minimally impacting the Sanders campaign for a few days at most.
The Democratic primary rules were ironically not very democratic. But no one violated them or cheated anyone. Sanders knew that that going in. And he still almost won. Not only that. He didn't whine like a entitled child that he'd somehow been cheated. In a winner take all contest. He lost. But still won concessions. That's why I voted for the man. He made the future primaries more democratic and open to people like himself.
The DNC colluded to push Clinton/Biden, giving Bernie's challangers more publicity and promising other candidates positions if they drop out and endorse Clinton/Biden