673
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 16 Jan 2024
673 points (100.0% liked)
People Twitter
5258 readers
863 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I wonder where we'd be if Bernie had won in 2016?
And Gore instead of Bush?
Gore did win. If you want arguments of illegitimate presidents W. takes the cake
I was extremely unhappy when Trump won in 2016, and I absolutely blame all kinds of factors like misinformation, Comey, Clinton’s own campaign missteps of course, sexism, etc. But ultimately you are right, the only person who actually was a fraudulent president who won by illegitimate means was W.
Sadly, he likely would have been assassinated, I am sorry to say, or to even think that.:-( He is REALLY hated by the establishment, yes even that strongly.
They pull out ALL the stops when reporting about his performance - ignoring humongous entirely sold-out crowds that showed up during sub-zero temps in a snowstorm even (while conversely Hillary Clinton literally paid people to show up at hers, and still could not manage even a quarter of a much smaller room - they had to put up flags on either side just to make it look less empty, and this even in her home state), and I recall one analysis that I saw on Reddit showing images where they swapped the "this person won = shown first, and in green color" and "this person lost = shown second, and in yellow", showing Bernie's win in yellow and second EVEN THOUGH HE WON. It was accompanied by commentary from someone who worked at a TV station who explained how much effort it would be to swap out the color plates from showing one person, then swap them out quickly while switching to Bernie, then swap them out AGAIN to describe the person after him - i.e., they really went out of their way to make that little "oopsie" happen (assuming this was true, but I tend to believe it based on everything else I've seen happen wrt how they report him).
The thing is, Obama brought up some solid points about why he makes a good congressman but may not make a good President: it is one thing to advocate for reform, like a prophet in the wilderness Obama said, but it is another to be a King - you have to make the tough choices. i.e., Bernie tells us which way we should go, and that is a huge service that he does us, plus serves as a Senator, but could he really stand up to Putin - is he capable of realizing the sheer amount of evil that he represents? (this might be the link? I don't have an X account so I literally cannot read it myself, and I refuse to make one too:-P)
Then again, just about every decision that Bernie has made has been correct so far - as demonstrated by his voting record - so... there is that:-).
Absolutely. Bernie is fearless. For your second question, do you really think that after more than 50 years serving in one of the highest seats in the land, he doesn't understand what happens in the government? He understands considerably more than you and I do. He understands more than everyone in this thread combined. But he faces it and always stands for what is right, and people hate him for it.
Thanks for this honest comment. I think we all agree we'd prefer to go down on fire trying to do right vs chickening out.
I think Bernie would prefer to say least try, and I wish he'd gotten the chance.
For Bernie to win the general in 2016 we would’ve already had to be a pretty different country. Though I agree things would probably be a fair bit better.
The idea that his odds were worse than Hillary who the republicans spent two decades preparing against is laughable.
The moment he accepted being branded as a socialist he lost. The upside is he also accelerated the death of that term meaning anything other than “not Republican.”
We owe Hillary an apology. She was right on target.
He would have crushed Trump under his heel. Almost anyone would have.
It’s tempting to speculate and claim victory when he never had it tested, but I just don’t think that is valid when he didn’t even win the primary, which is going to have further left participants than the rest of the nation in the first place.
The democrat establishment was against him and put their thumb on the scale among the party elite but ultimately people didn’t pull the levers for him. He raised the cash, he shot his shot, and people did not come out for him as expected (despite the impressive showing). It didn’t help that in both campaigns he assumed a youth vote was waiting in the wings that was never there. Disastrous assumption on his part based on no quantifiable data.
Polling showed him beating Trump both times. In 2016 it showed him beating Trump but Clinton losing to Trump. It's not only speculation.
That is indeed speculation and “polls” meaning what? Which polls? When in the race?
All those people who were voting for him in the polls should’ve showed up at the primaries if they were so numerous. I’d entertain the idea if you told me just 2016, but 2020 there is no way. He did worse than 2016 by a large margin. Once biden won SC Bernie’s campaign collapsed. I’d know - I worked it!