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.

    • @jordanlundM
      link
      111 months ago

      Sure I can. The most successful 3rd party candidate we ever had was Ross Perot in 1992. He got just under 19% of the total vote and won exactly 0 elections.

      West is nowhere NEAR the level Perot was at in 1992.

        • @jordanlundM
          link
          1
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          West is running a FRACTION of Perots numbers in '92, Perot won zero elections… It’s basic math at this point.

          But if you want HARD evidence… Since leaving the Green party back in October, the only state where he has qualified for the ballot is Alaska.

          https://www.cornelwest2024.com/alaska

          So he hasn’t even gained ballot access in enough states to earn 270 electoral college votes. He likely won’t even be on the ballot in your state.

          • HACKthePRISONS
            link
            fedilink
            311 months ago

            that’s not proof that he won’t win.

            even if you could provide that (which you can’t because it’s impossible to have proof about the future), if he is on my ballot i will be voting for him.

            if he’s not, i might write him in, or just vote for jill, who i am sure will be there.

            • @jordanlundM
              link
              211 months ago

              Follow the logic… you need 270 electoral college votes to win. West is on the ballot in ONE state with a total of 3.

              It’s not that he won’t win, he quite literally CANNOT win.

              • HACKthePRISONS
                link
                fedilink
                211 months ago

                that’s conjecture, not proof.

                hey, as an aside, i don’t think the mastodon-to-lemmy dms work, but do you think you can do something about the personal attacks (ad hominem, poisoning the well (which is a form of ad hominem), and name-calling) in this thread?

                • @jordanlundM
                  link
                  111 months ago

                  It’s mathematical proof. West is not on the ballot in enough states to win. It’s a fact from West’s own campaign site.

                  Now, they could spend the next 10 months trying to get on the ballot in enough states to win, but that takes away from actual campaigning.

                  • HACKthePRISONS
                    link
                    fedilink
                    111 months ago

                    but you don’t know what circumstances might arise. it’s not proof that he won’t win, it’s just conjecture.