- cross-posted to:
- socialism@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- socialism@lemmy.ml
Summary
Senator Bernie Sanders is intensifying his fight against U.S. oligarchy, targeting wealthy individuals like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg.
Sanders argues that these billionaires manipulate the global economy, influence elections, and control the government, hindering democracy and exacerbating global inequality.
He believes this issue is crucial, impacting various aspects of society, including climate change, healthcare, worker protections, and poverty.
You must log in or register to comment.
In the sense that it’s part of how we handle climate change, and part of how we handle covid + other diseases + future pandemics properly, yes.
Yes it’s very important to get your leg unstuck but yes your house is still on fire even if you do.
Idk I think it makes perfect sense. Think of the oligarchs as someone actively firebombing the house in your analogy. It’s not just about getting the leg unstuck but stopping the ones causing the biggest issue
You can’t continue to monetize every single aspect of existence with Oligarchs extracting vast sums of wealth out of the economy, without hurting quality of life for the average person and, eventually - the nation as a whole. Allowing these shit heads to exist hurts everyone.
Narrator: They didn’t.
As someone not from the US (but who has lived/worked/studied in the US), Sanders seems like the only member of the US upper house that is willing to speak honestly and engage in haram speech that goes against local provincial orthodoxy.
I was particularly intrigued by an article that claimed that Sanders was the only “outsider” in the US upper house and that all other senators were more or less on friendly terms (with the implication being that their polemics are a ruse). Unfortunately I can’t find the article.
Sanders seems like the only member of the US upper house that is willing to speak honestly and engage in haram speech that goes against local provincial orthodoxy.
He is, and he’s loved by millions of Americans for it, and also hated by essentially the entire political establishment for it.
As someone not from the US (but who has lived/worked/studied in the US), Sanders seems like the only member of the US upper house that is willing to speak honestly and engage in haram speech that goes against local provincial orthodoxy.
As someone from the US, Sanders seems exactly like this to me, also.
Apologies if you already know this, but Sanders is not a Democrat. He caucuses with them and runs as a Democrat, but he’s not a member of the Democratic Party. Depending on the article they may have been referring to that. (IMO this is one of many reasons the DNC ensured he couldn’t get the nomination in 2016 and 2020.)
It’s honestly too bad he is not in his 40s. At the risk of being overly presumptuous, I will speculate that he would be a good leader for the US and the “free world”.
Who are the younger politicians he is mentoring to carry the torch? I wish my home country had someone like him to follow and support.
AOC. She entered Congress in 2018 and was inspired by Sanders and shares his philosophy. She is the next iteration of him for sure.
The rest of the squad too, to varying degrees. He’s also been stumping for and both officially and unofficially advising many state and local level progressive hopefuls.
And that’s not even counting how many he’s simply inspired to run for office or otherwise help improve things with his “Not me, us” campaigns that almost succeeded in overturning the relentless propaganda machine of what’s probably the richest political party in the world when not counting one party states.
The rest of the squad too, to varying degrees. He’s also been stumping for and both officially and unofficially advising many state and local level progressive hopefuls.
I think that centrist Democrats were so on board with Netanyahu’s genocide in exchange for AIPAC heavily funding opponents to progressives, and members of the squad in particular.
Nah, “centrist” (actually center right to right wing) politicians were already all in on zionism.
Their AIPAC owner donors going after the progressive rivals that expose how fundamentally dishonest and corrupt they are was just an extra bonus for them.
It’d be helpful for AOC to walk this back now that Harris is gone. And not repeat it if she wants to be president someday: https://electronicintifada.net/content/aoc-votes-back-israel-lobbys-bogus-anti-semitism-definition/50066
Doubt. But time will tell, I’d like to be surprised once again.
Yea she seems like she shares similar views. I hope to see more progressive politicians in my lifetime that actually inspire and force change. The future looks very bleak for progressivism in the US right now though.
The progressive caucus, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus
Because of the two party system each party is composed of a coalition of political caucuses. Progressive policy is popular among the US working class when not packaged as an ism or ist, so it has a strong position in the house and basically no support in the senate.
Fastest way to lose your typical American living pay-to-pay is to start talking about how privileged they are. I’m glad people seem to have finally caught on to that, took long enough.
No such thing.
Apologies if you already know this, but Sanders is not a Democrat.
Yeah, that’s still a sore spot since it was one of the justifications given by centrists for how they were fine with him getting ratfucked in 2016.
💯
all other senators were more or less on friendly terms
This is true for the parties as a whole. They are far too comfortable trading positions of power between themselves because they’re all interested in keeping themselves in the ranks of the privileged. Neither party is willing to make any serious changes that would risk upsetting the balance for the greater good. They don’t want change. Not actual meaningful change.
They have their elections and one party rules for a while before switching to the other, but the poor remain poor and the powerless remain powerless. Meanwhile they keep (or expand) their wealth and influence.
They may oppose each other in some ideologies, but make no mistake that they’re on the same side when it comes to their own privilege.
Bernie is on the outside of this, which is why they will keep him down at all costs. He’s a threat to their power structure.
all other senators were more or less on friendly terms
Except for Ted Cruz. Everyone hates Ted Cruz.
Al Franken likes Ted Cruz more than most people, and he hates Ted Cruz.
Have you ever examined your own biases, or the biases of the American social media that you’re exposed to?
I try to. I will admit, it can be difficult.
Anything specific you are referring to?
Yeah, the “only Bernie loves us” bullshit.
Here are ratings from the AFL-CIO, America’s union federation, where you can find the current year and lifetime ratings of all US Senators.
Bernie has a 98%.
Twenty five Senate Democrats have higher pro-union ratings than him.
Damn, you think that’s a dunk? At 98% lifetime with 100% current, you think you might be splitting hairs a bit to make that sound bad?
Did you read the part where 25 Democratic Senators have higher lifetime ratings than him?
Anyway, the contention here is the stupid notion that the only “good” US Senator is Bernie.
Ahh, that’s a strawman. The person you are replying to never made that argument, you created that argument in your head because it was easier to defeat with this piece of information.
Sorry for disrupting your circlejerk!
Here, let me get into the mood:
The only thing we need to do is make Bernie president, then we’ll never have to think about politics ever again!
There’s no contention except what you’re creating it, no one’s said that at all and I see you’re trolling the rest of the thread. Get lost, troll.
As someone not from the US (but who has lived/worked/studied in the US), Sanders seems like the only member of the US upper house that is willing to speak honestly and engage in haram speech that goes against local provincial orthodoxy.
I love Bernie, but it’s hard not to just feel utterly hopeless when you see how Elon basically bought the government and we see the other oligarchs flying down to mar-a-swampo to kiss donvict’s ring.
Putin’s oligarchy is here.
It is amazing how quickly the elite is closing ranks around the Trump government this time around. This includes essentially all major media, billionaires and even some Democrats. Completely different from the first term when we immediately saw a major resistance movement.
Realistically he will end the Ukraine war (since Ukraine has to cede land without US support), and it’s likely that investment will skyrocket (as tariffs make it too costly to import). The same will happen to inflation and inequality (but we won’t see that in the media). Let’s not even think about minorities and women. My worst fear of competently-looking facism may well be on the way.
Tariffs will not significantly increase domestic investment. The US is at its maximum employment and that’s without deporting people. Who will even work in those factories?
Not to mention American labor means that products made here are at least double the price. So no it’s smarter to just raise your prices 20-30% than build a factory that will also have raw material costs 20-30% higher anyways.
There’s some fictional reality where young people yearn for the factories. Ignoring the second half of the story where that actual generation dreamed of a world where their children didn’t have toil in manufacturing.
Also ignoring the fact that wages have been going up for lowest earners.
Ukraine has to cede land without US support
Seems like that’s going to be the best-case scenario for Ukraine. Worst case is the US starts supporting Putin instead.
Guess we know what to do now. Shoot his jet down
KS Robinson has the anonymous resistance send drones into plane engines shortly after takeoff, 6 private jets in one day. Things change in the novel quickly after that.
Much easier just to shoot the individual than the plane I think. Maybe I’m wrong. I imagine a 50 cal sniper would fuck up a plane. But planes can glide. Hypothetically speaking.
It seems to me he should continue to work with labor and student unions to organize a general strike for explicit, specific goals by a given deadline. The best tool the working class has to take power back from oligarchs is to coordinate stop working at the same time until demands are met, and it requires politicians and labor leaders like Sanders and Sean Fain to build and coordinate alliances across the workforce.
Yes this! I’ve been watching Bernie speak up about this. So far though, it’s just talk. Ranting. I’m looking forward to see what his plan of action is. I think gearing up towards a general strike, or threat thereof, is the only really tool we have given the incoming admin.
Yeah, Bernie just said Depose.
Looks like it’s up to us to Defend
I can’t Deny that. but, how do we get within 50 yards?
Get good at 300yds.
That’s asking for a lot.
Not really. 300yds is expected for any GI.
If not 300, go for 150, or 200, or 100yds.
as long as it’s a multiple of 50 you’ll be ok
If you can hit center mass at 150 and 200 yds, you’ll be fine at 168 yds :)
I don’t think the GIs are going to be the ones interested in disobedience
You’d be surprised… lots of prior service in the SRA, for example.
50 yards isn’t far. Neither is 100 yards.
Still not the answer
It’s getting to the point that there only seems one answer. Name another.
The question is how to get within 50 yards. It’s not metaphorical.
Why the requirement to get within 50 yds? With a scope and a decent rifle, you can easily hit up to 300m without that much effort. Wouldn’t even need a spotter at that range.
I mean like any heist movie you just have to post up and stake out places until you know routines. Also, social engineering.
You don’t defeat oligarchs by protesting alone. You also don’t break their power hold by forcing them into concessions. The position of oligarch must be eliminated entirely, and anyone with links to the position they held is either removed from the planet, or imprisoned where they never have human contact to try and manipulate their way out.
Jon Stewart & Bernie Sanders on Rebuilding Trust & Efficacy in the Government | The Weekly Show
He’s correct
“Awesome. What’s on tv tonight?” -America
Sometimes Bernie is wrong (rarely) but he’s always honest.
Can you name one example?
I’m a two-time Bernie for President alum and believe without hesitation that he would have been a transformative president for America and the world.
Honestly I can only name two things on which Bernie and I disagree, and it’s unsurprising because they are two things on which a lot of people disagree and highly nuanced, and it’s heavy policy wonk differences on gun safety and certain middle east policy. I don’t want to go into them in detail here. They’re both issues on which our views have changed over time.
I’m a pretty hardcore lefty: do on-the-ground organizing, contribute some of my time to NGOs, am part of the working group on some causes, etc… Damn near everyone of note in my union knows me by first name.
So it comes as a real shocker to them that I think gun control as they want to pursue it is deeply misguided. This is not an emotional decision: my stance is informed by statistics, experience, and theory. You can actually have working gun control without banning anything.
Him supporting FOSTA/SESTA (if I remember correctly).
What exactly is wrong with that? Wikipedia makes it seem like it just requires sites to moderate user content or face consequences for blatant enabling of sex trafficking specifically:
They clarify the country’s sex trafficking law to make it illegal to knowingly assist, facilitate, or support sex trafficking, and amend the Section 230 safe harbors of the Communications Decency Act (which make online services immune from civil liability for the actions of their users) to exclude enforcement of federal or state sex trafficking laws from its immunity.
I feel like the key detail is “knowingly”.
No, it literally removed the Section 230 protections.
Ok, that makes more sense. It was not clear from Wikipedia.
Thanks.
His expectation that most would understand what he meant by, “I’ll never tell you who to vote for. And, if I do, don’t listen to me.”
Snopes is showing that he didn’t say quite that. He was responding to a question in a town hall meeting where he said Clinton needed to earn the votes of his supporters to win, and even if he endorsed her, his supporters needed to make up their own mind. It was a long and thoughtful response that was not boiled down to two sentences.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bernie-sanders-told-supporters-hed-never-tell-them-how-to-vote/
I’d love it if people cared enough to read the long form. But, the idea can be spread much more efficiently with a two sentence good faith summary:
Some wish to tell you what to think. Others wish to help you reason out your own answers.
I get your point, but it is not his error if someone else makes a meme taking a fraction of his comments out of context.
They’re absolutly not “taken out of context”. His intended message is represented well in summary.
I like Bernie as much as the next person but idolizing people and believing they can do no wrong is not helpful
I don’t believe he can do no wrong—I was asking for examples, and the ones I replied to were not totally accurate in my opinion.
If we ever take control of government again, we need to do a “Defensive Democracy” approach. Rich people need to be banned from politics.
It started off with rich, white cultists who took over disease ridden, Native American ghost towns. Close enough, though.
Right again.
Sorry my misunderstanding. I would say if you are able to do what you need within 100 yards then you don’t need to get to within 50 yards.
