You're viewing a single thread.
I've been saying since 2016 that Sanders' executive orders alone would have moved the US further in the right direction than any president since LBJ.
The last six months of Donald Trump have proven that. The presidency has all the power any party needs if they actually want to do real good.
I think its hilarious how before Trumps 2nd term, the libshits would argue "but if they use executive orders to push through {legalization of abortion, marijuana, socialized healthcare, public transit, any number of good left leaning policies} the R's will do it back when theyre back in office!!
Now look where we are.
fucking libshits and MAGAts.
we had better damn well put in a president who's gonna EO everything to the far left
Yeah, elder statesmen like Biden still believed in things like exercising power responsibly within the balance of power like many presidents before them.
That wasn't good enough, too many people took the "lesser evil" quote to heart. So now we have a dipshit writing EOs faster than the court system moves, and I hope there's a god to help the country get out of this.
Stop huffing your own farts
They have the house, senate, the courts and are all yes man followers.
Let’s not forget they’ve spent the past 4-8 years putting their people into the right places to allow them to start doing whatever they want.
You say this as if the dems could have never done what they did.
That’s still completely true. Not only that, Congress and SCOTUS can nullify any executive order.
haha, yes they sure can. And they have! Look at how well its going!
There are only "checks and balances" when all 3 branches of government are not fascist/corrupt.
None of these things can be performed by executive order. A big reason that bill just had to be passed was his deportations and detainings couldn't be performed without money from Congress
Sanders’ EOs with a conservative Supreme Court would have been unilaterally nullified. The conservative supermajority is what has allowed Trump to get away with the vast majority of this.
Sanders’ EOs with a conservative Supreme Court would have been unilaterally nullified.
If they'd run Sanders, they've had ended up with a Democratic supermajority. SCOTUS would have been largely irrelevant.
But it doesn't change facts. The powers of the presidency in the hands of an actual reformer, not a performative one like Biden or Obama, would have entailed true, fundamental change.
Sanders couldn't even win the Democratic primary. What makes you think he stood a chance at winning the election?
Good morning.
Respectfully, what you're repeating here is a lie. The primaries were rigged against Bernard Sanders, and when the Democratic Party was later sued for it, they admitted it. The bummer here is that in rigging primaries for Clinton, Democrats not only gave us Donald Trump, but also gave Trump control of Congress at the same time.
Rigged how, exactly? Were all the voters that didn't vote for Bernie in on the conspiracy?
Bernie lost, he wasn't popular enough. Get over it.
Bernie polled better during the primaries than both Clinton AND Trump. In fact, there were polls showing that he polled better than Trump among Republicans (so long as you only talked about his policies without mentioning his name. As soon as you said his name they'd call him a dirty communist and 180 their opinion - quite literally going from saying they'd vote for somebody with those positions to vowing to never vote for him). Clinton polled worse than Trump, and Bernie had a decent lead over Trump - enough that he was considered the better candidate to run against Trump right up until he dropped out of the race.
So, what happened? Well, major news networks airing 30 minutes of Trump's empty podium instead of Bernie's speech happened. He was the target of a major campaign by the leaders of the party who poured tons of money into making sure Hillary's face was everywhere and his voice was snuffed out. They quite literally said that they were under no obligation to run a fair primary.
So if he was already so popular he was outshining Clinton and Trump, why didn't people vote for him? Could it maybe be because he's only popular in highly populous cities that have relatively few electoral votes when compared to the rural areas where he's not as popular, and so nationwide polling isn't indicative of actual electoral success?
Also, as we all know now, presence on major TV news networks doesn't align with electoral success either. Trump basically cornered the podcast market and he won the election. People don't watch TV news anymore.
Could it maybe be because he's only popular in highly populous cities that have relatively few electoral votes when compared to the rural areas where he's not as popular
Really? You're saying that on a post of a picture showing his popularity across like 80% of the country? I would think that that applies better to Hillary than Bernie, but I have nothing to back that up and she was a fairly unpopular candidate regardless - Trump and Hillary were the two lowest ranking candidates in terms of popularity since they started tracking that. Also, we're talking about the Democratic primary here, not the election, where only Democrats and independents matter in terms of voting (and independents are allowed to vote in primaries only in some states. Others have closed primaries that are only open to people registered with that political party).
Also, as we all know now, presence on major TV news networks doesn't align with electoral success either. Trump basically cornered the podcast market and he won the election. People don't watch TV news anymore.
Right, which is why Trump lost both elections he ran in, since his face has been plastered on the TV day in and day out for practically a decade now. While I do agree that TV doesn't matter as much anymore, media presence very much does, as Trump shows, and this is where the Democratic Party kneecapped Bernie's campaign. Not only did they give funding and marketing priority to Hillary (a large portion of Bernie's funding was from donations from average Americans - I don't think he had any corporate donors or anything except his own "SuperPac" which is TINY compared to all the others and, again, made up of individual donations), but they also colluded with media organizations to limit the amount of media exposure he had. And even with that handicap on people even knowing about him, he still pulled major points during the primary.
Look at all those small town voting districts that voted for Bernie.
The DNC didn’t 'rig' the primary in the sense of changing vote totals, but they did actively tilt the scales through media collusion (leaked emails showed DNC officials mocking Sanders and strategizing against him), debate scheduling (minimizing exposure), and voter suppression tactics (e.g., purging independents in closed primaries). The lawsuit revealed the DNC’s lawyers openly argued in court that they had no obligation to run a fair process.
That said, yes, Clinton won more votes, but the system was structurally biased from the start. The real question is whether a truly neutral primary would have had a different outcome, given Sanders’ momentum and Clinton’s weaknesses (which absolutely contributed to Trump’s win).
Bernie lost, he wasn’t popular enough. Get over it.
Telling people to 'get over it' ignores why this still matters. The DNC’s actions in 2016 (and again in 2020, with the sudden coalescence around Biden after South Carolina) reinforced the perception that the party prioritizes control over democracy. That disillusionment cost them key voters in swing states. Which is how we got Trump.
Did Bernie get more or fewer votes than Clinton?
Any good candidate would lose the democratic primary.
That’s wholly incorrect. The only reason Trump’s executive orders have any power is due to the full majority support of the Republican-controlled Congress and the conservative SCOTUS.
Democrats forced a 15-day vote on the constitutionality of Trump’s initial purse-control power grab. The Republican majority redefined the entire congressional calendar as a single day, just to a valid holding the vote.
This amount of control comes from the abject loyalty of all three branches.
This amount of control comes from the abject loyalty of all three branches.
How did that happen? Didn't the dems do something? Wasn't Biden fighting this super hard for 4 years? \s
LeBron James?