Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said the reelection of former President Trump would be the “end of democracy” in an interview released Saturday by The Guardian.

“It will be the end of democracy, functional democracy,” Sanders said in the interview.

The Vermont senator also said in the interview that he thinks that another round of Trump as the president will be a lot more extreme than the first.

“He’s made that clear,” Sanders said. “There’s a lot of personal bitterness, he’s a bitter man, having gone through four indictments, humiliated, he’s going to take it out on his enemies. We’ve got to explain to the American people what that means to them — what the collapse of American democracy will mean to all of us.”

Sanders’s words echo those President Biden made in a recent campaign speech during which he said that Trump’s return to the presidency would risk American democracy. The president highlighted the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol in an attempt to cement a point about Trump and other Republicans espousing a kind of extremism that was seen by the world on that day.

  • @derphurr
    link
    1010 months ago

    It’s that simple. DNC should be having debates and put forward the best candidate. DNC is completely corrupt and bought by the most fundraising.

    attorneys representing the DNC claim that the Democratic National Committee would be well within their rights to “go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way." https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/

    • @Maggoty
      link
      810 months ago

      A. Parties haven’t held effective primaries for an incumbent since I was born.

      B. Political parties are private organizations. They are completely within their rights to go back into the smoke filled back rooms.

      C. That would be political suicide and tells us exactly what the DNC thinks about us.

      • prole
        link
        fedilink
        English
        510 months ago

        Right? I’m tired of being fucking surrounded by misinformation, even on lemmy.

        Political parties don’t give up the incumbent advantage. This isn’t new.

      • @derphurr
        link
        110 months ago

        A. Primaries have existed since 1972. 1976 Ford primaried by Reagan. 1980 incumbent Carter challenged by Ted Kennedy. 1992 Ross Perot.

        If B is true, they shouldn’t be able to use tax dollars and public employees for their primary elections. They should have to fund and administer their private org election themselves. In fact, in many states only the two parties even have access to primary ballots.

        C. DNC could care less about winning. See also Bernie.

        • @Ensign_Crab
          link
          English
          610 months ago

          1992 Ross Perot.

          Ross Perot was a third party candidate, not a primary challenger to an incumbent. I take no issue with anything else in your comment.

          • @derphurr
            link
            210 months ago

            Sorry. Buchanan primaried Bush Sr. (Incumbent)

            • @Ensign_Crab
              link
              English
              010 months ago

              That makes more sense. I’d forgotten about Buchanan entirely.

        • @Maggoty
          link
          310 months ago

          Ross Perot was an independent. That’s hardly a party primary. The others were before I was born. Also primaries have been a thing since the early 1900’s. They just didn’t have as much weight then as they do now.

          I’m going to need an example state where minor parties can’t get on the ballot. At any rate afaik, they pay the state for the election. But it’s also in the state’s best interest to run it.

          And they did win with Biden. I think it’s more fair to say they care more about their internal politics than winning.

          • @derphurr
            link
            010 months ago

            Presidential primaries did not exist until the 20th century, and they did not have a major impact on conventions until many years later. In 1960, John F. Kennedy won several Democratic primaries, but Lyndon Baines Johnson remained the favorite of the party establishment.

            At any rate it was the Convention that selected candidate until…

            After the controversial 1968 presidential cycle, the Democrats began to reform their nomination process to make it more inclusive and transparent, and to make its results more representative of the will of the party as a whole, not just the party bosses and insiders.

            • @Maggoty
              link
              110 months ago

              Which is what I said.

          • @derphurr
            link
            0
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Ohio is one example that took away third party ballot access. The first hurdle would be getting 60,000 valid voter signatures in a limited time frame. Then you would need to get 120,000 General election votes for a Gov candidate. Arkansas etc are similar

            https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_political_parties_in_Ohio

            Other examples can be found https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_political_parties_in_the_United_States

            • @Maggoty
              link
              110 months ago

              That’s not a ban. That’s third parties not having enough support.

              • @derphurr
                link
                110 months ago

                You don’t know what you are talking about. Taking Ohio as example when 3rd parties sued for ballot access, Libs had 3% of the vote, 4-6% for statewide.

                https://lpedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_of_Ohio_Historical_Election_Results

                Green Party with 1% to 3% when allowed on General election ballots

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_Ohio

                Not sure what your definition of “enough support” is. Ohio repubs then tailored the law to exclude any future 3rd parties. (Through petition signatures which amount to millions in CPRS)

                • @Maggoty
                  link
                  110 months ago

                  Fun story, they were on the ballot for the general election in 2020. They got 1 and 0.3 percent respectively.

                  Frankly, these aren’t good enough numbers to be on the ballot. Even if they were at 3 percent. The standard around the world is generally 10 percent to get seated in a parliament.

                  So Ohio asking for a fifth of that in signatures isn’t bad. In other countries they’d need to show half a million people for Ohio’s voting population.

    • Cosmic Cleric
      link
      4
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      It’s that simple. DNC should be having debates and put forward the best candidate.

      Exactly. The Democratic establishment is trying to play things as if its just another regular election (by not maximizing their chances of winning with another candidate), and not a critical one, with the country in the balance, in hopes of gaining/maintaining power.

      The fact that they are trying to guilt-shame everybody into voting for Biden is truly unethical/immoral/wrong. People died for our freedom to vote, its not something that should be manipulated so that a vote is forced a certain way.