• Taking the adage of “those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it,” I could foresee someone going back in time to kill Hitler before he rose to power only for that history never to have been written so it still happens at a different point, in a different part of the world, because nobody learned from it.

    Of course, we are now living in a time where it did happen and people still didn’t learn a fucking thing…

  • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    188
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Liberals still hating on Bernie supporters and refusing to accept the idea that voters wanted a shake up of the system, rather than a female version of the status quo establishment left?

    …so now we’re stuck with a right wing shake up to the system instead.

    • faltryka@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      88
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      They’re going to keep pissing on others like this and continue to be surprised when their candidates don’t get elected. It will always be someone else’s fault.

      • kandoh@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        60
        ·
        2 days ago

        If Bernie was so popular why couldn’t he beat Hillary Clinton or Biden in the Primaries?

        Or was that someone else’s fault?

        • JackbyDev@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          30
          ·
          1 day ago

          Do you not remember every media outlet showing all the superdelegates as voting for Clinton even before their votes had been cast making it look like Sanders stood no chance?

          • kandoh@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            24
            ·
            1 day ago

            Superdelegates have never once decided a primary, they’ve always gone with the person who got the most regular votes.

            • JackbyDev@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              1 day ago

              I think you’re missing my point. Reread my comment. The media was reporting all super delegates as voting for Clinton even before any of them voted. Only a few states had voted. So they were showing stats like

              Clinton
              --------------------
              
              Sanders
              --
              

              Making it appear like Sanders had no chance.

        • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          70
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          Because the DNC put their thumbs on the scales and did everything they could to lock him out of the process while doing the opposite for Clinton.

          If the chosen, status quo DNC candidates are so popular, why do they keep losing or nearly losing all their elections?

          • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            33
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            The media HEAVILY favored Hilary for that whole cycle and basically made Bernie look like a joke. He had his “we will need to raise taxes” and that’s when everything shifted. DNC was never going to let him be the candidate

          • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            remember the totally innocent time the people managing the contest had a visit with Bill Clinton on the fucking tarmac? yeah, DNC, message received, you don’t even care about how bad that looks…

          • kandoh@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            51
            ·
            2 days ago

            Did they take his name off the ballot?

            Did they change the vote totals?

            Did they forbid him from campaigning?

            They just ‘put their thumbs on the scales’? What does that even mean? They did ‘everything they could to lock him out of the process’ while letting him campaign and participate in the process? All your examples are vague as fuck, bro.

              • kandoh@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                22
                ·
                1 day ago

                Superdeligates have never once decided a primary.

                Here’s a simpler explanation: Progressive voters don’t turn out, even when it’s Bernie. They failed him in 16, they failed him in 20, and now they’ve failed us all.

                It’s easy to mail in vote, it is easy to donate money. It’s hard to actually physically show up and vote, so they stay at home.

                • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  12
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  Superdelegates are the primary tool that the DNC used to exert influence over primaries. They’ve only ever once voted against the voter consensus, but they pledge full support early, which is then used by the media to grossly misrepresent candidate popularity. Mob mentality causes voters to pile behind the leading candidates, and thus the outcome of the primaries can be manipulated through use of super delegates. They abused this mechanism so heavily against Bernie that sweeping changes were made to the way that super delegates operate to avoid torch and pitchforks from an enraged constituency.

                  There, I explained it to you in a very summarized form, even though I didn’t want to.

            • Ptsf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              1 day ago

              Did they change the vote totals?:

              Yes. Every running candidate next to Bernie pulled out, dedicating their votes to Clinton instead. It was blatant and out in the open. Hell, Bloomberg even “entered” the race late in caucusing and pulled out shortly after an insane ad spend dedicating his votes to Clinton as well. That’s “putting their 👍 on the scale”.

              • kandoh@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                8
                ·
                1 day ago

                So do you consider what the French left change did ‘changing vote totals’ when they dropped out of races where they were splitting the vote and allowing far right candidates to win?

                Biden offering people he was running against influence and positions in his government if they drop out and endorse him isn’t cheating, it’s basic politics and if Bernie had half a brain he’d have done the same thing to keep those people in the race.

                • Ptsf@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  Yes.

                  Also, anything that isn’t ranked choice voting that allows people to specify an order of preference at time of vote is not good politics and is not going to, and shouldn’t, sit well with progressives. Tit-for-tat is additionally an issue that many voters and progressives consider objectionable (source: exit polls). You can call it basic politics if you want, but if you’re progressive you’ll need to accept that it’s going to continuously cause us to lose elections and bleed voter support. People are clearly tired of establishment politics. Trump has proven that twice. Running as an anti-establishment candidate both times and winning, both times.

            • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              17
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              “I’ma be disrespectful to you, but I expect you to teach me!”

              This ain’t a debate. lol. If you want people to share their knowledge with you, come correct. Most people would be happy to share information. When you act all dishonest it makes no one want to even talk to you unless they agree with you

              • kandoh@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                18
                ·
                2 days ago

                The man is out here talking shit and won’t show you evidence of why he’s right because it’s not his job to be a teacher and also you are disrespectful in your challenging of his assertions, am I following you correctly?

                The reason for no evidence is because there is no evidence, the reason for my disrespect is because i know he has no evidence. Don’t try to pretend like if i came at this from a different angle he’d suddenly be opening the library of Alexandria for us.

                • Psychodelic@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  If I say, the earth isn’t a perfect sphere and that actually it’s a bit oval/elliptical (or whatever or supposedly is) and then someone answers all pissy and asking me to prove it, do you really think I’m likely to help them understand my position if I find them rude and annoying? Most people that genuinely want to understand others’ point of view don’t say things like “or was that someone else’s fault?” They say things like"can you explain why you think that?" or maybe “I’ve been thinking xyz, why is it you think abc instead?”

            • bobalot@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 day ago

              Lemmy like Reddit is a circlejerk.

              Bernie lost because less people voted for him.

              If it wasn’t for the undemocratic caucuses, he would have lost earlier.

          • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            21
            ·
            2 days ago

            Because the DNC put their thumbs on the scales and did everything they could to lock him out of the process while doing the opposite for Clinton.

            Source? The way I remember it Bernie didn’t get enough votes.

            If the chosen, status quo DNC candidates are so popular, why do they keep losing or nearly losing all their elections?

            Out of the last 5 elections they won 3.

            • jjagaimo@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              16
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              2 days ago

              The DNC was out of money and severely in debt after Obamas 2012 campaign. They conspired with Hillary because she paid off 80% of the debt and was funding the DNC. She had control of their finances and decisions because the DNC would go under without her

                • jjagaimo@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 days ago

                  https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774/

                  Donna Brazile is the former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee

                  The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign. He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt.

                  “What?” I screamed. “I am an officer of the party and they’ve been telling us everything is fine and they were raising money with no problems.”

                  That wasn’t true, he said. Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign—and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.

                  “Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”

                  Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.

                  “That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie,” he explained, referring to campaign manager Robby Mook. “It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election.”

            • 0ops@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              Lies and statistics. Out of the last 7 elections they also won 3. And out of the last 3 they only won 1. Really it’s a pretty even split so far this century, and counting this last election Republicans have had the edge. So sure the dnc isn’t losing all of their elections, but ffs sake they should be doing a lot better than this.

              • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                2 days ago

                I would like for them to be doing better than this also but if the person I responded to based their argument on the false claim that democrats are losing all the elections then they have already lost their credibility and are arguing in bad faith. So it is reasonable to expect for a source for their other claims.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        39
        ·
        2 days ago

        Ƿen Y do’n vot ėgenſt ð fæciſtſ, Ðm gœıŋ ȯn t d fæciſt cit z Yṙ fȯlt.

        spoiler

        When you don’t vote against the fascists, them going on to do fascist shit is your fault.

        • faltryka@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          33
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          More friendly fire. I did vote against the fascists. And you continuing to laud blame on everyone else instead of introspecting on how you can make “not fascism” a more attractive message only hurts the cause.

          You’re doing harm instead of good. That’s the point.

              • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                12
                ·
                2 days ago

                Half of the comment you responded to looks like it is in a different language. So you claiming the answer to my question is obvious looks like you’re dodging my question.

          • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            20
            ·
            2 days ago

            Uı do’n o enıƿėn “n fæciſtſ” bııŋ “moṙ ėtcræktiv.” Ðı o M æ evrıƿėn luık M n hævıŋ t bı kėnvinſt “n fæciſtſ” z ð betṙ tcoıſ.

            spoiler

            I don’t kwe anyone “not fascists” being “more attractive.” They owe me and everyone like me not having to be convinced “not fascists” is fhe better choice.

            Ð æktcuėl poınt z ðæt ðiſ belıeık ėbaut hau ð establicmint nıdz t lṙn ſėm lesėn hıṙ z nėþıŋ moṙ ðæn ėtemptid leftwacıŋ v ð “ekėnȯmik eıŋgzuyitı” neırėtiv.

            spoiler

            The actual point is that this bellyache about how the establishment needs to learn some lesson here is nothing more than attempted leftwashing of the “economic anxiety” narrative.

            Ivin if Đı djenyuinlı ſold M aut f ſėmþıŋ æz impṙſėnėl æz ė dȯlṙ ȯf gæſ, ðæt z’n enı betṙ, it’z æktcuėlı almoſt ƿoṙſ. Uı muıt get blæk bægd bikȯz ſėm ƿuıt æsƿuıp diſuıdid Mı luıf ƿéz ƿoṙþ meıbı ė dȯlṙ ȯf gæſ.

            spoiler

            Even if they genuinely sold me oit for something as impersonal aa a dollar off gas, that isn’t any better. It’s actually almost worse. I might get black bagged because some white asswhipe decided my life was worth maybe a dollar off gas.

            • faltryka@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              You are so sure I’m some strawman that you’ve imagined or been conditioned to identify you’re attacking someone who is an ally, and you should reflect on that.

        • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          You’re requiring the entire American populace to have the same level of being informed as yourself in order for this plan to work. In the real world, lots of people are incredibly ignorant of the actual political situation in the US. The democrats need to adjust their messaging to get those who aren’t politically engaged but vote. That means speaking on the material reality for the average person and discussing how to solve those issues. That means EMBRACING MORE PROGRESSIVE POLICIES.

          Yeah, if you know a leftist who stayed home because Harris wasn’t left enough, shame the fuck out of them. But that isn’t the same as saying Harris lost because she didn’t embrace the left. Most Americans don’t know they’re left-leaning because anything “socialist” must be evil.

          • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 day ago

            Na, ð pu̇blik wṙ told ripıtidly. İf Y didn’t vot ėgenſt ð fæciſtſ Y aṙ æt beſt ė kolæboreıtṙ.

            spoiler

            Nah, the public were told repeatedly. If you didn’t vote against the fascists you are at best a collaborator.

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      2 days ago

      Ƿantid t ceık u̇p ð ſiſtim ſ mu̇tc ðeı did’n paṙtiſipeıt i it lıdıŋ t Bernie luzıŋ boþ pruımeırız?

      spoiler

      Wanted to shake up the system so much they didn’t participate in it leading to Bernie losing both primaries?

      • Ptsf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        This is a blatant misrepresentation of the 2016 DNC cacus run. Absolutely ignorant.

        • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Co M ð vot tælız ðæt pruv M rȯŋ.

          spoiler

          Show me the vote talleys that prove me wrong.

          Betṙ yet, co M ð tṙnaut figyṙz ðæt ıvin impluı Uı muıt bı rȯŋ.

          spoiler

          Better yet, show me the turnout figures that even imply I might be wrong.

    • Hello_there@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      66
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      In the 2020 primaries, Bernie Sanders was rapidly gaining support. Based on the number of candidates and how they were splitting the vote, he stood the best chance of winning.
      Then, the call went out. I’m not sure how else to describe it. All the competing candidates were in one day, and then most of them withdrew the next day and cleared the moderate field for Biden. It was a coordinated choice by a donor group or DNC or something that catapulted a mid popularity Biden to the top of the pack. Hence the calls of ‘DNC sabotaged Bernie’

      • atro_city@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Thank you. Seems like the DNC brought upon Trump by themselves.

        OP could’ve added that context to the comic. We don’t all follow the news from abroad.

      • macrocarpa@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        But why are they still talking about in in 2100 in the comic? I don’t get whether it’s shitting on the Bernie supporters for not moving on, or taking the piss out of the democratic party not getting its shit together.

        • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          no, he had just won two primaries in a row. Everyone but Biden, Bernie, and Warren dropped out. Warren was just as beholden to the DNC as the rest of them, but she stayed in specifically to split the progressive vote, in order to catapult the flailing Biden into pole position. It was clear as day, a coordinated effort to stop Bernie from being the Democratic candidate.

          • Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            Warren played Marcus Brutus to Sanders’ Caesar, live on National television.

            She’s a wretch. She also falsely claimed native american heritage, which was an out and out lie.

            • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              Remember when she called Bernie “anti-woman” and made some claim that he had said a woman can’t be president? I lost all respect for her after that.

          • UsernameHere@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            13
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            It was a calculated decision to win the election and Biden won the election. It was a decision made by the individual candidates. Not the DNC.

            I would vote for Bernie but America has more moderate voters than far left or far right. That needs to be considered when deciding the next candidate.

      • kandoh@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        That’s literally just politics. Apply the same logic to the recent french elections where competing left-wing candidates dropped out to not split the vote.

        Nothing was stopping Bernie from making a deal with Amy and Pete to stay in the race to keep the centrist vote split

        • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          That’s literally just politics.

          This gives the same energy as saying “it’s just business” after doing some heinous shit.

            • Schmoo@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              13 hours ago

              I’m the one blind to reality? You actually think Bernie had any sway over any one of the moderates who dropped out to give Biden the win? They were loyal to the Democratic Party, not Bernie, and certainly not to their principles, if truly they had any.

        • Hello_there@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          If it was biden making a deal then that’s one thing. I don’t think that’s what happened. I think the DNC power players or donors said ‘we don’t want Bernie’ and the rest of the group fell in line.

          • kandoh@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            2 days ago

            If that was the case then Buttigege would have just been threatend funding wise and wouldn’t have needed to be offered a cabinet position, which only Biden had the power to give.