Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. That's the phrase, right?
Bernie 2016: I'm running as a democrat
DNC: We're actively screwing you in favor of Hillary
Bernie 2020: I'm running as a democrat
DNC: How about no?
So is this the stage of shame on Bernie for not running as an Independent... which...is...what...he...holds...office...as...a...Senator...in...Vermont...as...
Always thought it was ridiculous he switched for the election. It's bit him twice.
@L_D_G
I think the problem he has is that independents are locked out of the system until they can show they are *already part of the system*. In most cases, they aren't allowed into debates or put on ballots unless they got enough votes *in previous elections*.
So he would either have to run on one of the loony fringe parties that have made it onto some ballots, or run as a wolf in donkey's clothing.
It is a broken, shitty system.
@thereal_renaissance_man I agree that the system is broken. However, I think Bernie has enough support to force change. He could have done a live stream during the debates and for every commercial he makes his points. Him or his followers eventually make enough noise that parties and networks can't ignore. Eventually everyone thinks parties and networks fear him. They probably do now. But if he's an Independent, they can't short his delegates.
@L_D_G
And that's another issue at play here... He'd have to win the electoral college. The whole process has been heavily rigged to a two party system where those two parties *must* have *huge* infrastructure in place. The bar for entry is very high. The party machines are disturbingly complex and expensive.
@thereal_renaissance_man that's the thing. The fear of Trump has forced everyone to Biden while alienating a bunch of voters. I would have thought that especially after 2016, Sanders and followers wouldn't trust the DNC. Guess it was just the Chairwoman that was rigged, huh?
You make a good point about the electoral college, but at least he would have been in the general election.
Now in a field that once had Kamala, Warren, Buttigieg, and Bernie...the choice is Biden?
@L_D_G
Agreed. Biden is not my optimal choice at all. I really wanted Bernie or Warren. I see the brokenness, but I don't know what the evolutionary solution is. And, though there is *never* a great time for it, I fear a revolution under the current circumstances.
@thereal_renaissance_man I mean, Trump has even alienated republicans.
He's the guy that beat Hillary.
I would think that this is the perfect time for a revolution when tensions are this high. The choices right now are bad and worse and I don't know what the confidence is in Biden, but I imagine if Bernie was running as an Independent, he'd still be there and you wouldn't be thinking Biden or bust.
@L_D_G
In my opinion, Trump didn't beat Hillary. Hillary lost to a more accomplished manipulation machine. Trump was a pawn.
And the current world, overrun with chaos and fear, with pandemic run wild, is not the optimal place to attempt rational organized revolution. It would be melee and slaughter.
@thereal_renaissance_man if Trump wins a second term, 2024 at least will have someone new.
However, is that when people decide to go for a less extreme (either direction) voice or does the sword of Damocles go to the other side?
Stabilization might be easier with someone new. Stabilization is not a revolution though.
@thereal_renaissance_man so in 4 years when it's likely a democrat gets elected (more likely than now), is that the time for revolution or does blue just take the win...or does someone actually try something?
@L_D_G
A group significantly weakens its position if it prematurely resorts to violence when other non-violent options exist.
Constructive change is impossible under Trump, but is possible (with great pressure and influence) under Dems.
Protest of any kind will be met with crushing force under Trump and is, quite simply, self-defeating under the pandemic. If he continues in his current destruction of democracy and consolidation of power, there may be no choice.
But that time has not come yet.
@thereal_renaissance_man I haven't been thinking in terms of violence so much as finally getting a 3rd party candidate some traction. I don't think it requires as much violence as it does confidence.
@L_D_G
Aggressive and persistent protests and pressure are the only way things will change. It has to be significantly more painful and threatening to re-election than loss of corporate/PAC/lobbyist funding - because everyone knows they will lose the funding if they give in to meaningful change.
@L_D_G
My stance has been: GOP are evil, Dems are less so. Getting dems in office is not the solution, but it is a requirement before we can move to a solution.
And yes, this is quite likely to end in a continuous shift from one party's belligerent and punitive control to the other's until we revolt and force change. Both are using chaos to benefit the wealthy, they are just doing it with varying degrees of chaos and destruction. Dem's abuse is easier to tolerate.