In an interview with the Guardian from his home base in Burlington, Vermont, Sanders urged the Democratic president to inject more urgency into his bid for re-election. He said that unless the president was more direct in recognising the many crises faced by working-class families his Republican rival would win.
“We’ve got to see the White House move more aggressively on healthcare, on housing, on tax reform, on the high cost of prescription drugs,” Sanders said. “If we can get the president to move in that direction, he will win; if not, he’s going to lose.”
The US senator from Vermont added that he was in contact with the White House pressing that point. “We hope to make clear to the president and his team that they are not going to win this election unless they come up with a progressive agenda that speaks to the needs of the working class of this country.”
Sanders’ warning comes at a critical time in American politics. On Monday, Republicans in Iowa will gather for caucuses that mark the official start of the 2024 presidential election.
Biden faces no serious challenger in the Democratic primaries. But concern is mounting over how he would fare against Trump given a likely rematch between them in November.
What a brave man supporting genocide and imperialism. The empire must last a 1000 years and nobody should ever try to change it.
Your change involves kids in cages, dead immigrants in rivers, American military deployment in American cities, assassinated political opponents, and dead women in American hospitals. I think I prefer Joe Biden.
Just to be clear–I’m not a fan of the ongoing Palestinian genocide. It’s reprehensible. But Biden didn’t cause that. The US supports the state of Israel for complex geopolitical reasons that aren’t that different from why it also supports other regimes that lack stirling human rights records, and those reasons date back nearly a hundred years. That’s realpolitik, and you might not like how the diplomatic sausage is made. It’s not pretty for the US, and I hate to be the one to break it to you, but it’s not pretty for other nations either. But guess what? If Bernie Sanders were president, or if Donald Trump were president, you know what would be different about America’s foreign policy position re Israel? Not a goddamned thing. Because this is as good as it gets. It’s a calculated diplomatic position. Not pretty, and not fun politically, but every alternative is as morally black or worse, and absolutely worse for US interests.
The US is an empire. It does empire things. Sometimes I don’t like those things. But I live here. So yeah, 1000 years sounds nice. Certainly beats trying to kill the whole experiment in less than four. That’s what the other guy wants. Personally, I’d rather keep it around to try to do some fixing.
But keep it coming with the hyperbole if it makes you feel righteous.
israel does everything you claim but worse.
Kids in cages? How about malnourished kids in cages but they’re actively beaten up and tear gassed by the IDF.
Assasinating political opponents? How about blowing up their entire neighborhood.
Dead women in hospitals? How about blowing up the entire hospital. How about having kids getting their legs sawn off without anesthetics because they need to get them amputated from being bombed.
If you have to choose between Hitler and Stalin, maybe wake up to reality and stop abiding this insanity.
You’re right. All of those things are happening, and they’re despicable. The Israeli people should be marching in the streets, and Netanyahu should be tried as a war criminal.
I don’t live in Israel. And in any event, we’re talking about American domestic policy. The Israel state is an evil institution–like a lot of states–but the US interest in that part of the world means that the US is going to continue to give Israel its full-throated support, and it doesn’t really matter which party is in control of the US government. That one party is using that support to attack the other is just political theater, and everyone who studies global politics knows it.
Godwin’s maxim notwithstanding, the mention of Hitler and Stalin is actually a decent example: You realize Stalin was the US’s ally in World War II, don’t you? Sometimes nations don’t get to choose desirable company. The US’s reasons for supporting Israel may not be noble, but they’re rational. More importantly, what’s the alternative you’d prefer? The US should carpet bomb Israeli cities? let Russia have the Middle East (e.g., Syria)? or maybe just send a strongly worded letter? There isn’t a more humanitarian alternative that doesn’t have worse geopolitical consequences.
The point is to illustrate how both of those leaders are not figures that you want to lead your country.
Stalin was not just an ally, he was the guy that won WW2 by just throwing Russian bodies at the Germans. He was not exactly known for his human rights views though. He has books about his genocides