Just a moment...
www.politico.com

Summary

Sen. Bernie Sanders is touring Iowa and Nebraska to rally against “the oligarchy,” aiming to energize progressives rather than launch a 2028 presidential bid.

At 83, he seeks to shape the Democratic Party’s future, arguing it lost in 2024 by neglecting working-class voters.

He hopes to influence budget battles and the 2026 midterms, targeting GOP lawmakers in battleground districts.

With Democrats lacking clear leadership, Sanders’ prominence and focus on economic inequality could define the party’s direction in the Trump-Musk era.

  • Bloomcole@lemm.ee
    661·
    2 days ago

    he’s been the only senator voting against something>

    I have literally said this in another comment. He and other fake progressives do this when they are absolutely sure it will have no consequences. Not when it’s possibly a close call. Pure empty virtue signaling.

    I’ll copy another comment on his voting habbits tho :

    VOTED in favor of almost every US invasion in the following nations: Afghanistan, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Yugoslavia,2, Bosnia, Haiti, Congo, Liberia, Sudan, and Ukraine. Even parroting the regime narrative that drones ‘are sellective’ and ‘take out the people they should’ while 90% they killed are innocent people. Be a “I am 100% pro-Israel” genocide supporter. VOTES in favour of the US aid to the Zionist settler-colony every time. VOTED in favor of a resolution that “reaffirms the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 . During the 2014 assault on Gaza, blatantly biased Senate resolutions S. Res 498 and S. Res 526 that fully condoned the Israeli assault and characterized it as “self-defense” were passed by unanimous consent. Although Sanders did not co-sponsor either resolution, he failed to register any formal objection (a resolution passes by unanimous consent if no objection is raised; as such, no vote is taken). To be clear, this is not the first time Sanders failed to speak up in Congress against Israel’s brutal assault of Gaza. In 2012, Sanders failed to register any objection against biased Senate resolution S. Res 599 that couched Israel’s bombing of Gaza as “self-defense” and that passed by unanimous consent; according to Human Rights organization B’Tselem, 167 Palestinians were killed, including at least 87 civilians (vs. 4 Israeli civilians). In 2009, biased Senate resolution S. Res 10 backed Israel’s assault on Gaza and yet again justified it as Israel’s “right to defend itself” without garnering any objection from Sanders (it passed by unanimous consent); according to B’Tselem, 1387 Palestinians were killed, including at least 773 civilians (vs. 3 Israeli civilians). In 2006, Sanders actually supported the brutal Israeli assault on Gaza and Lebanon during the war that killed 1191 Lebanese civilians per Amnesty International (vs. 43 Israeli civilians killed) when he VOTED Yea to House resolution H. Res 921.

    He can speech, object, condemn or whatever he does. It’s empty words.

    • Dogyote@slrpnk.net
      132·
      2 days ago

      Just some life advice. I’m not sure what you’re trying to accomplish with your comment, but a fairly awful person once said: however beautiful your strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.

      Really, there’s nothing wrong with being an idealist but at some point you need to work with what you have.

      • Bloomcole@lemm.ee
        213·
        2 days ago

        Gabage lesser evil take if not gaslighting. This has systematically led to even worse candidates. Culminating in an actual genocider, all the same endorsed by people like precious Bernie.

        This is not ‘working with what you have’, this is keeping that horrible system in place. People can vote 3rd party, you know how people in real democracies did. I’ve seen it happen plenty with hopeless parties getting 3% at first then groing every few years to eventually winning.

        And it’s very clear ‘what I’m trying to do’ since it’s very obvious. Exposing Sanders for the fake progressive he is so less people fall for his BS and waste their vote.

        Also I resent this loaded question as if I had some evil motive. Here’s my life advice:

        “Two roads diverged in a wood, and I… I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.”

        In other words, grow some balls if you actually care and want to change something.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
          2·
          1 day ago

          People can vote 3rd party, you know how people in real democracies did. I’ve seen it happen plenty with hopeless parties getting 3% at first then groing every few years to eventually winning.

          Won’t happen in the US unless we get some form of ranked choice voting.

          Look at the last 25 years or so from the various Election wikis:

          2000 - Green (Nader) 2.74%, Reform (Buchanan) 0.43%, Libertarian 0.36%, Constitution 0.09%, Natural Law 0.08%.

          2004 - Reform 0.38% (Nader this time instead of Buchanan), Libertarian 0.32%, Constitution 0.12%, Green 0.10%, Peace and Freedom 0.02%, Socialist 0.01%, Socialist Workers 0.01%, Christian Freedom 0.002%.

          2008 - Nader 0.56%, Libertarian 0.4%, Constitution 0.15%, Green 0.12%, America’s Independent Party 0.04%

          2012 - Libertarian 0.99%, Green 0.36% (Jill Stein), Constitution 0.09%, Peace and Freedom 0.05% (Roseanne Barr), Justice 0.03%, America’s 0.03%.

          2016 - Libertarian 3.28%, Green 1.07% (Jill Stein), Independant 0.54%, Constitution 0.15%, Socialism and Liberation 0.05%.

          2020 - Libertarian 1.18%, Green 0.26% (Howie Hawkins), Reform 0.19%.

          2024 - Green (Jill Stein) 0.56%, RFK Jr. 0.49%, Libertarian 0.42%.

          The best shot any 3rd party had was Nader in 2000 and the Libertarians in 2016. All other races? Yeah, no. You know it’s bad when you can add up ALL the 3rd parties across multiple elections and still not crack 3%.

        • Dogyote@slrpnk.net
          2·
          1 day ago

          I don’t think you’re wrong, I don’t think you’re quite right either. I do like what you’re getting at. Bernie, relatively speaking, is way better than the other candidates we can currently choose from. That’s what I’m getting at, you’re attacking someone on a single issue and ignoring everything else they say and do. Hardly anybody will listen to you. They’re writing you off as a weird, single issue voter. Don’t you think your issues would have a better shot of being addressed if there were more people like Bernie in congress? Seems like abstaining instead of choosing the lesser evil also isn’t working.

    • ProtecyaTec@lemmy.world
      3·
      2 days ago

      He and other fake progressives do this when they are absolutely sure it will have no consequences.

      Not when it’s possibly a close call. Pure empty virtue signaling.

      First off, based on everything else he does - who fucking cares fr What a great way to both share your stance on an issue and garner attention for your causes - stand out. It’s both harmless and clever - in American Politics even.

      • Bloomcole@lemm.ee
        15·
        2 days ago

        TF is this opinion?

        Who cares about his VOTING? The only thing that actually has effect. Right, “but he SAYS what we think so well” that’s what important to you? Great take.

        • ProtecyaTec@lemmy.world
          1·
          1 day ago

          Your claim is that “Bernie being the only one voting ‘no’ is virtue signaling.” where my point is that if you know a vote is going to pass or fail, you might as well either stand out of use that opportunity to voice your opinion. If a vote is going to pass regardless of Bernies vote, who care if he wants to use that as a catalyst to spread his message, ideas, and opinions.

          • Bloomcole@lemm.ee
            13·
            1 day ago

            I have posted an extensive list of his horrible pro-war empire and zionist voting. Leave the " to voice your opinion…a catalyst to spread his message, ideas, and opinions." for the brochure. The only thing he’s spreading is the illusion there is place for progressives in that horrible party and to keep gullible people away from 3rd parties that actually want change. End of convo

            • ProtecyaTec@lemmy.world
              2·
              1 day ago

              I saw that, I wasn’t commenting to your entire opinion which is why I quoted the specific parts I was referring to.

              The only thing he’s spreading is the illusion there is place for progressives in that horrible party

              That’s not the message I’m getting from his talks and video blog updates. Maybe stop reading article headlines and head to the source directly to reinforce your opinion on the message he’s spreading. I don’t think you’re here to convince people of some kind of solution or better future though. All you’ve done is doomsay and complain. None of your opinions address the current message he’s trying to get to the people, which is that Billionaires are buying Politicians and money in Politics is a huge problem right now, and We, The People, need to voice our opinions on it or do something about it before it gets too bad.

              Your Doomsaying only distracts from the current problems at hand, which I’m willing to bet you understand.

    • shiroininja@lemmy.world
      810·
      2 days ago

      You Gaza people are getting old and your hissy fits are helping the downfall of American democracy. Please tell me, what other genocides are going on right now? what other conflicts do you know about? Ukraine is a war of self defense you muppet.