Guns of Infinity



Yeah, but what are they gonna do in the face a monopoly, move to the non-existent competition, abandon what has for many of them become an essential part of their lives?
I mean for me it’s easy I don’t do Facebook or any other “social” media at the moment, a tiny minority might quit the platform and get motivated to seek their news elsewhere (even though that may just drive them to other fake news fronts just as easily these days), but the majority will grumble and don’t change a thing, which means they continue to get exposed the the Facebook controlled news distribution.
Of course if he’s smart and in this case I have no reason to assume he isn’t he’d simply build-up a carefully selected candidate of his own, without even needing to run himself.

Crucially since his platform controls (fake) news distribution to both current Dem and Rep voters, he may not need the “unaccommodating” portions of the Dem base since with the right carefully tailored message he or his candidate probably could run “bipartisan” to a larger degree then any other possible candidate.


You’re underestimating how much US politics is driven by spite at the moment. It won’t be that people will vote for someone else, they’ll just vote for anyonebut him.


Ah, but if you control news distribution to a majority of eligible voters it also enables you to play political “good cop” and “bad cop”. During the 1930’s our mostly Conservative controlled mainstream media used to demonize the left while praising far-right conservatives, while only tersely and briefly covering the conservative Christian candidates, guess which one they really wanted to win (though of course they could have made do with the other conservative as well), thus tipping the scales heavily in favour of a win win situation for their owners.
Of course the media landscape is far more splintered today, but Facebook and possibly only Facebook is in the coveted position of always being the essential middle-man.

So, they could have had a president Sanders (or possibly Biden) instead? Ugh, the Dems really shit the bed on this one then.


That word right there is why you’re looking at President Trump. There wouldn’t be a President Donald Trump without Hillary Clinton.


Probably not. Clinton has about two decades of constant demonisation in the media used against her. The fact that she was openly building momentum over an extended period time meant that she united a good portion of the base behind her, also meant that she was a target for much of that time as well.

Sanders didn’t have the party base bona fides since he was transparently mercenary in using the Democratic Party as a vehicle for his own agenda. Biden would have been unacceptably right wing.


To us, maybe, but then for me that would have been the case with any Dem candidate but Sanders or possibly Warren in any case.
It also seems traditional to give the sitting VP a shot at the top office and as a candidate I think Biden who can “talk plainly” and seems to be able to emotionally and rhetorically relate to the blue collar workers (versus Clinton who appeared out-of-touch, wonky and elitist there), not to mention is a man (a not unimportant thing it seems when taking on somebody like Trump in modern America) would have been a better antidote to Trump.
Hillary also took as VP a man who seemed to the right of Biden on the Wall-Street and abortion issues, so if Biden had wanted to appeal to the left-wing of the Dems he could probably have taken a more liberal VP candidate.
Unlike Hillary (and Kaine) Biden also seems far more skilled at appearing more left-wing then he actually is, a not altogether unimportant skill for most politicians in order to appeal to as broad a base as possible.


To all the Americans that refused to vote for Clinton out of ideological purity, and then some.
It bears repeating that the only thing obfuscating the fact that Biden is several notches to the right of Clinton are eight years of Obama running damage control on him.

That is symptomatic of a major problem within the Democratic Party: the idea that the right-wing “culture war” types are worth courting. Clinton might have won on mobilised Sanders votes if she’d taken Warren or Sanders (or Harris, or Ellison, or almost literally anyone else) as veep.


You can say that our Conservatives would have rejected him over his abortion views, mr. Wilders would (probably) have done so over his de-regulation views, yet in America he’s apparently a “centrist”.

Given the regions she needed, Sanders or Ellison would likely have been most beneficial. Or she would have needed to seriously reach out to the large percentage of non-voters somehow.


America doesn’t know what liberalism is after sliding so far past most country’s version of conservative thought into outright reactionary views. It’s at the point that liberal democracy is compared to socialism and communism, and both nationalistic and jingoistic thought oddly comparable to Antebellum Europe’s politics are increasingly normalized.


All he’s trying to do is push the party more left and get them to be on board about economic justice as much about social justice.


Well, he’s succeeded.
If the Republicans had been running someone like McCain or Graham, that might have actually meant something, instead of committing the Democrats to spending the next twenty to thirty years cleaning up the current mess.


I wonder how much he intends to do help clean up said mess more than anything else, as far as the worth of anyone (in office or attempting to be in office) speaking well of him.

Not that I expect him to be in office another twenty or thirty years, but that’s neither here nor there.


at least for my perspective and God knows my home state needs it he’s trying to go and build a better Democratic Party. I have no clue if he wants to run for the Oval Office again and if he does I feel like it’s something he really does not want to do especially considering his age. Personally I feel like he would much rather help prop up a candidate of both social and economic Justice.


That would be nice, although the question is whether he (and his support base) would be willing to put aside personal loyalty to back a compromise candidate who is just centre enough for the existing democratic establishment (including its base - especially it’s African American base) for the sake of getting stuff done.

As a left populist, Sanders and his wing of the party kind of have an uphill battle there, and they’re the ones who’ll likely have to compromise: left populists in general have a history of either using racism as a talking point, or openly allying with those who do (see: Huey Long).


Well you got to learn to separate your evil bank from being anti-Semitic. Mind you too was the 1930s I Can Only Imagine being anti-semitic wasn’t too far field back then. Long sounded like a very polish left-wing Trump.


We’ll see, some of the candidates they tried to run even after, such as @Rogar 's new governor (Murphy) and the failed Ossoff bid still seem to tell a rather different story.

That would depend on whether he’s still in office or in a position as a “grey eminence” after 2020 while Trump isn’t. Otherwise not much he or anybody else could realistically do.
Still doesn’t change the fact that the US desperately needs a major (third) left-wing or centre-left party at the very least comparable to Canada’s Liberals (preferably NDP, but for the US I guess Cata’s party is already seriously left-wing too) :unamused:
In order to discuss all of that stuff the two major American parties of today absolutely won’t.


It’s both more and less than that.

A lot of Socialists ended up turning into Fascists in the 20s and 30s (See: Moseley, Mussolini) not because of any affinity between ideologies (as certain people on the right would claim), but because talking up economic redress to desperate, starving people is a great way to get a support base which is personally loyal to you, regardless of what ideology they preach. When those would-be-Socialist demagogues learned that if they flipped right, they’d be subject to a lot less uh… peer-review from the Gramscis and Atlees of the world, they had no trouble profiting.

The problem is that to people who have historically found themselves on the business end of that sort of dynamic, it’s going to take a lot for any kind of populist to prove that they’re actually in it to make peoples’ lives better, and not to build their own personally-loyal power base.

And IMO, Sanders hasn’t been doing a very good job of that.

Americans describing Trudeau as some kind of hyper-stalinist whilst sharing the same FB wall as my more local friends complaining about how he’s been offering up more empty platitudes than action (which is a valid complaint, IMO) is always good for a chuckle.


I mean he’s kind of dragging a very established corrupt system kicking and screaming. Literally that I have friends that are getting involved politically in a running for office because of his campaign for me personally speaks volumes. And literally that’s what he wants the most. He wants the he normal middle-class Working Class People running for office. Speaking of of a huge culture shock I’ve gone to my new unit the other day all of them at least a good majority of them are hard-core Trump. When they asked me how I feel about politics I. Give them combination of I am fan of Mattis and I like Smedley Butler political talking points without going into detail about his talking points.


I also been reading this to update myself with mild knowledge I’m Rusty as hell.


The problem is that he seems on track to replace one predatory system with another, not out of any fault of his own, but because the sort of “underground progressive” movement within the United States that he’s so beloved by is similarly riddled with abuse and discrimination (I mean, half of Jacobin’s writing staff is apparently made of serial sexual harassers now), and seems extremely resistant to any kind of self-critique along those lines, something which, ironically, the “establishment” Democrats seem to be handling surprisingly well.

Personally, I don’t see that as necessarily a good thing. Even the Clintons were once “normal middle-class/working class people”. I think the rot in the American political environment goes deeper than that, and as it is now, those “regular people” trying to run for office aren’t going to be much better than the people they replace.