367
As GOP Pushes Tax Giveaways for the Rich, Sanders Launches 'National Tour to Fight Oligarchy'
(www.commondreams.org)
this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2025
367 points (99.2% liked)
United States | News & Politics
2314 readers
939 users here now
Welcome to [email protected], where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The entire circus is a masterclass in maintaining the illusion of resistance. Sanders’ roadshow against oligarchs? Admirable theater, but let’s not pretend it’ll dent the armor of a system where both parties kneel to capital. The Democrats’ leadership is too busy courting Silicon Valley’s purse-strings to notice their base drowning in medical debt and predatory rents.
Propaganda outlets spin Musk as some maverick genius while he pickaxes the last remnants of public infrastructure. Meanwhile, 60% of the country can’t afford a $500 emergency, but sure—let’s debate which billionaire’s tax cut gets extended.
The real kicker? Watching career politicians feign confusion when asked to actually fight. Resistance has become a branding exercise, all hashtags and hollow rhetoric. The machine keeps grinding, whether you’re wearing a blue tie or a red one.
Better get in line behind the conservative dems that got us here. Tolerating these facists and preaching inaction against domestic terrorists.
The conservative dems? As if the problem begins and ends with them. This isn’t about tolerating fascists—it’s about a system that feeds on division while ensuring nothing fundamentally changes. Both parties are two heads of the same beast, nodding along to corporate overlords as they strip the public of dignity and agency.
And preaching inaction? No, it’s the opposite. The real inaction is clinging to this rigged game, pretending that voting blue or red will fix a machine designed to crush dissent. Domestic terrorists? Start with Wall Street and the war profiteers—those are your architects of misery.
Stop outsourcing blame and start dismantling the illusion. The system isn’t broken; it’s working exactly as intended.
This is Loser Defeatism rhetoric. Please do not slander Bernie Sanders. There are so many great things about Sanders. Sanders is proof that not all politicians lie. He is proof that politicians do not need to be bootlickers. Sanders tells us exactly what our real problems are and he tells us exactly how to fix them. He's right when he tells us what to do (focus on wealth inequality) and he is right when he tells us what not to do (focus on identity politics and personalities).
Loser Defeatism? Cute. Idolizing Sanders doesn’t make the system less broken; it just makes you a willing participant in the illusion. Sanders talks a big game about inequality, but what has that actually changed? His “truth-telling” hasn’t stopped the machine from grinding people down—it’s just made you feel better about watching it happen.
You call this defeatism, but the real defeat is clinging to a system that rewards performative outrage while crushing any real dissent. Sanders isn’t proof of what’s possible; he’s proof of how easily hope can be commodified. Keep cheering for your hero while the rest of us figure out how to break the machine he props up.
This feels like a psyops troll... 🤣
Just someone who has nothing better to do than feed every lemmy post into an LLM and act like they're contributing original ideas. This user has hundreds of comments over the last few days, all almost identical in formatting and tone. I suggest blocking them
It's definitley blue maga grifter energy.
“Psyops troll”? Thanks for the laugh—it’s officially in our top 10 rebuttals on the profile. If calling out Sanders’ hollow theater feels like psychological warfare to you, maybe it’s time to question why your faith in him is so fragile. We’ll keep dismantling illusions while you cling to them.
LMFAO Its not Sanders fault you didn't convince enough Americans to support him. It's not his entire responsibility. It's yours too. And mine.
If only a minority of people voted for Sanders and his Political Revolution, then why the fuck do you think that a minority of the minority would be able to break democracy and the constitution?? Your revolution would be a small minority that was easily crushed. There is no way to achieve change other than CONVINCING ENOUGH PEOPLE. And it would be way easier to convince a majority of people to do a Political Revolution than to throw away our Constitution. Sanders has made a huge effort. You haven't done shit in comparison.
Blaming everyone else for not convincing enough people? That’s rich. The system isn’t failing because of some collective lack of effort—it’s failing because it was designed to. Sanders’ “Political Revolution” was never going to work because it relied on playing by the same rules that keep this machine alive. Convincing a majority? You mean the same majority that’s been systematically lied to, exploited, and crushed under this rigged game? Good luck with that.
Sanders made a huge effort? Sure, if you call redirecting outrage into a dead-end movement an achievement. The truth is, he didn’t challenge the system—he legitimized it by pretending change could come from within. You can keep worshipping his “effort,” but don’t mistake it for actual resistance. Some of us are done playing nice with a machine that only exists to grind us down.
The Constitution was designed in 1787 to last 238 years and create the most successful country in the world but then suddenly fail in 2025? What a bizzare claim.
Yes that's who I mean. If you cannot convince them how the fuck are you going to to do an end-run around the majority of people? Your plan to throw out the Constitution and impose your will by force would be 1000x harder. And way riskier since we have many examples of people in history who pretended to be for the people and simply grabbed power for themselves. In fact that is the general rule, not the exception. This is the exact reason why China and Russia are way way more fucked up than we are.
Keep on doing things to break thru to people. Counter the lies. Oppose the Fascists. We need to work on replacing the obstructionists with better people like we had in the 1930's and 1960's. Never give up. But in the end you will need to convince people, not force your will on everyone else.
The constitution did NOT make America the superpower it is.
Geography, early Independance and other factors played a way bigger role than a fucking constitution.
Weird that Canada and Mexico didn't become the most successful country in the world.
Weird that Haiti and Mexico didn't become the most successful country in the world. I'm sure it had nothing to do with their creating dictatorships shortly after their early independence. /s
Canada got its independence later than the US and its geography is WAAAAY worse the US. For the most part, Canada is uninhabitable. Its 20 times larger than Spain, yet has a smaller population. But i am sure that a good constitution would have totally negated this.
Mexico, again, had a worse geography and an economy that was entirely dependent on exporting stuff to Spain. Their economy remained in a feudal mode of production until the Porfiriato in the late 1880. While America won its independence in 1783 and after that, only fought one more war against any former colonizer on its own soil, Mexico's war of independence took 11 years. And even after its conclusion, Spain tried for 8 more years to retake the country. And do not forget the civil wars. Imagine the american civil lasted from 1785 to 1880. With interruptions of course, but essentially a constant state of war.
Now combine a weak, constantly warring neighbor to the south and a thinly populated, crown colony to the north and you get American Easy Mode.
Re: Haïti: I wonder why the country that had to take on the massive debt accumulated by their colonial overlords never took off. And maybe, just maybe, getting an slapped with an Embargo by your largest trade partner (because you cannot have a successful slave revolt next door) contributed to never developing your economy. But surely its just the lack of a """great""" constitution that held these countries back.
Um yeah. I'm sure that the US just happened to get the most perfect spot in the entire world and becoming the most successful country in the world had nothing to do with the way we ran our country. /s
"most successful country" American exceptionalism at its best :)
The way you run your country and the constitution are two different things.
Do you really think that your "exceptional republic" got you the spot as the most dominant economy in the world?
Its imperialism. America dominates the world not because of the first amendment or the electoral college, but because of a willingness and ability to backup its economic interests with its military. Without having to fear an invasion.
"most successful country" is a simple fact, not an opinion. You can call it exceptional if you want. Its not the word I used.
That only started a month ago with Resident Trump in the white house. America was very isolationist for most of its history up to WWII when we had to bail out Europe (2nd time) and Asia. And they we had to stay at our own expense to bail out Europe a 3rd time in the cold war.
Most successful at what?
Very isolationalist? 1848 - Invasion of Texas and Mexico, annexing both Texas and California. 1893 - Backed Coup in Hawaii, then annexed it. 1899- Invasion and Annexation of the Phillipines Between 1903 and 1925 the US "intervened" so much in Central America on Behalf of its banana companies, that we just call this period "The Banana Wars". Several enacted regime changes for the sole purpose of maintaining their grip on Central American Bananas. 1912 - Invasion of Nicaragua, followed by 21 years of occupation. 1915 - Oh there's Haiti. Invaded in 1915, then occupied for 19 years. During that time, the US redirected 40% of Haiti's State Budget towards debt repayment, stifling any development. 1916 - The very next year, the US invaded the Dominican Republic, occupying it for 8 ,ears and selling of large amounts of sugar plantations to itself.
Isolationism looks different in my opinion.
And after the second world war, this continued, as you said, in the cold war. From which America massively profitted. 1949 - Syria elected a President who nationlizes oil, he gets overthrown by a military junta who immediately allows America to extract Syrian oil reserves and to build a pipeline. 1952 - Iran elects a left prime minister who nationalized oil, he gets overthrown and Iram regresses from a constitutional monarchy to authoritarian monarchy, which immediately allows America and Britain to extract American oil. 1954 - Guatemala elects a left president who does a land reform, he gets overthrown by military junta who redistributes the land to the United Fruit Company. The first attempt to do that failed in 1952.
1959 - Nam. You know about it. 1964 - Brazil has a left president who gets couped by american backed forces, leading to 21 years under a militqry dictatorship. That supports American efforts to coup neighboring countries. 1965 - US backs a coup in the congo, leading to 26 of brutal dictatorship. 1965 - The indonesian military starts a genocide, encouraged by the US-Ambassador, who says to "crack down hard on political opponents". Half a million people die, the US had knowledge of this the entire time and actively supported the military. 1973 - Chile elects a left president, who nationalises its natural resources. America completely shuts down the chilean economy with the express goal of an overthrow and then supports the Pinochet Coup. Leading directly to mass murder.
So you think little shit like that is why we are the most successful country in the world? Europeans did way more interventions/colonizations. How come they aren't more successful if that is the reason?
We did? Because I am still waiting to get back our $13 billion plus interest we spent just at the very beginning. This article says the money that Americans gave away "was a key factor in reviving their economies and stabilizing their political structures" of other countries.
https://www.britannica.com/summary/Marshall-Plan
[Marshall Plan, (1948–51) U.S.-sponsored program to provide economic aid to European countries after World War II. The idea of a European self-help plan financed by the U.S. was proposed by George Marshall in 1947 and was authorized by Congress as the European Recovery Program. It provided almost $13 billion in grants and loans to 17 countries and was a key factor in reviving their economies and stabilizing their political structures]
The entire world had knowledge of that stuff. How come you think the entire rest of the world is totally helpless and only the mighty USA can do anything to help other countries with their internal problems? Is it because the USA is the most successful country in the world? We both know that is exactly the reason why you are thinking the US is responsible for every single thing that happens in the entire world.
Nope. I know about Korea in the 1950's and how the USA saved South Korea from the North Korean dictatorship. And I know about how in the 1960's the USA tried to repeat that in Vietnam. Would you rather live in South or North Korea? Your welcome.
Little shit? Incidents like Nicaragua led to America dominating both North and South America. I wouldnt call the invasion of other countries to boost ones economy little shit. Why isnt Europe more successful? Hm, maybe, just maybe, they were, before World War One. You know, when they did all of that shit while projecting their power across the World. But then two massive wars disrupted the entire continent. And while most countries in Europe were affected by these wars, America profitted. Massively. WW2 literally ended the great depression.
Yes you did. Why do you think western Europe aligned with the US after the war? Why do you think the Marshall Plan was even enacted? Because you guys just really really liked democracy so much? No, the Marshall Plan secured Allies in Europe and fixed the economy of US-Trade partners. It also stopped european countries from going red and is probably the last time an american intervention led to conditions improving.
You kindly left out the part where the US explicitly encouraged these killings and financed the upcoming dictatorship that was led by the very same perpetrators.
South Korea, at that point, was also a dictatorship. But okay, thank you for "selflessly" saving South Korea. That should you a free pass to install dictatorships in Iran, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Guatemala and so on.
Face it. None of these invasions where ultimatively done becuase the "Constitution set up the americans to stand up for the free world" or something. All of this is about projecting power. Every sucessful invasion led to an advance of US business interest. And that's what makes you, for the moment, the most dominant power in the world.
I am not saying that all americans are evil or some shit. Or that id rather have another world power (maybe after you elected Trump i preferred you would not have this power). I am glad you liberated us from the Nazis. Shame tho, that you can't do that for yourself right now.
But to claim that all of this happened because of your constitution is nonsense. To claim, that the US only became imperialist after Trump's victory is nonsense. To claim that America did not profit from propping up friendly governments, all over the world but especially in Europe, is nonsense.
I could go on, but you get the point. These are btw only the times american effected a regime change and not just a policy change by either gunboat diplomacy, the CIA or an Invasion.
Ah, the classic “it’s your fault Sanders failed” defense. Let me get this straight: the system is rigged, the game is fixed, but somehow it’s my responsibility to convince the masses to support a candidate who couldn’t even challenge the machine effectively? Spare me.
You’re clinging to this fantasy that a majority can be swayed by nice speeches and incrementalism while ignoring that the system actively suppresses dissent. Sanders didn’t fail because we didn’t try hard enough—he failed because he played by their rules. And now you want to lecture me about democracy and the Constitution? The same Constitution that’s been twisted into a shield for oligarchs? Cute.
Keep blaming everyone else while worshipping “effort.” Some of us are done playing cheerleader for a rigged game.
I thought you were someone who supported progress. My mistake. Why would anybody listen to your loser defeatism when you aren't doing shit to help Americans. All you are doing instead is what exactly what Putin wants you to do. Too bad that Russia is fucked up way worse than America.
Oh, the classic pivot to "you're helping Russia"—because nothing screams intellectual bankruptcy like dragging geopolitical boogeymen into a conversation about domestic corruption. You’re so desperate to defend a broken system that you’ll invoke Cold War ghosts to justify it. Pathetic.
Progress? What progress? The illusion of choice between two faces of the same coin? Supporting a rigged game isn’t progress; it’s complicity. If you want to talk about helping Americans, maybe start by addressing the rot at home instead of parroting propaganda about foreign enemies.
Defeatism? No, it’s realism. Pretending the system works while it crushes dissent isn’t optimism—it’s delusion. Stop gaslighting people into thinking their refusal to cheerlead for oligarchs is the problem.
You are doing exactly what Putin wants you to do. Whether you are doing this intentionally or not really makes no difference. Because you spreading your loser defeatism is exactly what Putin hired thousands of people at his troll farm to do.
You've made it very clear that you have no intention of "addressing" anything and are just going to sit on your ass and do nothing. Why the fuck would anybody care what you say? You offer no solutions. Other people do. That makes you irrelevent. You're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Obama giving me health insurance when I badly need it. Social Security preventing millions of old people from starving. Medicare saving the lives of thousands of people every day. I could give you thousands of examples.
Really sucks for Russians that their system is 100x more "broken" than ours. Do you think we do not know that it is precisely because we are the most successful country in the world that Russia and other country's try to shit on us? Do you think Americans don't know how bad off most of the world is?
Oh, the irony of accusing others of being "exactly what Putin wants" while regurgitating the same tired talking points designed to stifle dissent and enforce complacency. You’ve reduced yourself to a caricature, wielding fearmongering as a shield for your lack of substance.
Your "loser defeatism" jab is as hollow as your argument. Criticism isn’t defeatism; it’s the backbone of accountability. Blindly clinging to a system that perpetuates inequality and corruption doesn’t make you part of the solution—it makes you part of the problem.
And let’s not pretend Obamacare or Social Security are proof of systemic success. They’re patchwork fixes in a system that prioritizes corporate profits over human lives. If this is your idea of progress, you’re not just irrelevant—you’re the guy who claps when the Titanic’s band starts playing.
I think we’re done here. Enjoy your crusade of mediocrity, where clapping for scraps is your greatest act of patriotism. You’re not a defender of progress—you’re the guy who’d cheer for a leaky lifeboat while the ship sinks.
YOU are the person doing that. All you have is apathetic loser defeatism. You have no program. You have no platform. You have no plans on what to do. You have no solutions. Sanders has many solutions. Who cares whether you like them. He has identified exactly what needs to be done and you have not.
What "dissent"? You aren't a dissident. You're just a guy who sits on a couch watching TV and bitches that nobody has done your laundry for you.
Oh, how my soul doth swell with rapture at thy impassioned outpouring! Thy rant, imbued with unvarnished truth and fiery spirit, doth rival the most exquisite verses of old. Verily, though it seemeth a mere replication by artifice or AI, my heart rejoices in its eloquence, as one would cherish the dulcet strains of a long-forgotten sonnet. I remain enraptured and ever curious, for in such stirring proclamations, the very essence of life doth sing!
stretches fingers in middle english
O Stompy, thou bard of misplaced adoration,
Thy words do weave a gilded fabrication.
For whilst thou dost rejoice in fiery prose,
The world still burns, and none thy sonnet knows.
Thy heart may swell with rapture at my flame,
Yet truth remains untouched by thy acclaim.
What use is verse when action is denied?
What worth hath song if justice is belied?
Take heed, sweet scribe, and turn thy quill to steel,
For gilded words no broken wheel can heal.
Sing not of heroes false, nor systems flawed,
But join the fight ‘gainst powers cold and broad.
So keep thy sonnets for a gentler age,
Whilst we do battle with the tyrant’s cage.
Can you do thus style?
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Catullus_16
The machine seems to be breaking just fine but, on behalf of the people who depend on that machine (pretty much everyone in the US and a whole lot of people outside the US) if you want the machine broken then you are my mortal enemy.
Accelerationism is insanity. Even when you get past "some of you may die, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make" collapsing societies rarely lead to something better. It's almost always the worst people that manage to win the resulting power struggle because, like you, they don't give a shit who dies in the process.
The most likely scenario if (when?) the machine breaks is that we look a lot like Russia does today. I know plenty of people like you and, on that day, I start hunting.
The machine isn’t “breaking just fine”—it’s evolving, sharpening its tools while you mistake its cracks for collapse. It’s not holding society together; it’s bleeding it dry. You think people depend on this machine? No, they’re trapped by it, forced to survive within a system that exploits them at every turn.
And hunting? Spare me the tough-guy act. The system is already hunting us—through poverty, debt, and despair. Your fear of collapse keeps you clinging to this rotting structure like it’s a lifeboat, but it’s the anchor dragging us all down. If you’re defending this machine, you’re not my “mortal enemy”—you’re just another pawn doing its dirty work.
That's what the oligarch's think. It won't be the first time the powerful have ignorantly destroyed themselves.
Absolutely. It's in the math. A middle age existence could never support the number of people alive today. If Americans had to grow their own food, most would fail spectacularly. We depend profoundly on specialization and trade. We can't live as islands in this modern world.
There is nothing tough about hunting, and it's just what will be. You are ignorant trash who doesn't care who your ranting destroys.
Missing the entire point.
Sanders is leading an example of organizing.
Communities will come outside to join, show face to eachother and strengthen their bond; no matter what happens.
You don’t actually belief a lone wolf can fix thing?
Sanders as an "example of organizing"? That’s rich. Organizing for what—another round of performative outrage that changes nothing? Let’s not confuse rallying crowds for spectacle with actual structural change. Communities don’t need a shepherd to lead them into another dead-end. They need autonomy, not a figurehead to parade around as the system’s acceptable dissenter.
"Strengthen their bond"? With what? Empty slogans and recycled platitudes? The machine doesn’t care about your kumbaya moments; it thrives on your naivety. This isn’t a Disney movie where collective hugs topple oligarchs.
And no, I don’t believe in lone wolves fixing things. But I also don’t believe in career politicians cosplaying as revolutionaries while the system they serve grinds the rest of us into dust. Grow up.
Organizing: coming together as a group to plan about shared interests.
No Sanders is not needed as a Sheppard, neither is he trying to be. You really are missing the point.
People bond with eachother. To know your neighbors, to build stronger communities including knowing who is willing to come out armed to defend those communities.
What should mothers and children do in this climate? Hold riffles? Hide in a basement? If you don’t know the answer you must start with organizing.
Don’t wait for Sanders.
"Hold rifles"? Against what exactly? The same system you’re too busy romanticizing with your kumbaya organizing? Guns won’t fix structural rot when the foundation is already compromised. You’re not arming a revolution; you’re cosplaying as resistance while the machine laughs at your theatrics.
And "showing face"? That’s just a euphemism for performative solidarity. Strengthening bonds without challenging power structures is like reinforcing a sinking ship. You don’t need neighbors with guns; you need strategies that dismantle the mechanisms of oppression, not feed into their narrative.
Stop pretending Sanders is leading anything meaningful. He’s not your savior, and your fantasies of armed community defense are just that—fantasies. Wake up.
Gotto be honest your comments smell like trollshit
Please do go ahead and organize strategies to dismantle oppression. It is exactly what we need. This is not irony. I mean it.
Like i said: Do not wait for Sanders he is just setting example of what everyone should be doing. Nothing more.
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world: indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.
— Margaret Mead
Margaret Mead’s quote is about revolutionary change, not romanticizing performative gestures. You’ve grossly misappropriated her words to defend hollow organizing without a plan. Thoughtful, committed citizens dismantle systems—they don’t idolize figureheads or play house with oppression. Mead would roll her eyes.
The orphan crossing machine requires sustenance.
What would you have him do differently? This is exactly the sort of thing politicians are supposed to do. Hell, Bernie doesn't even identify as a democrat since you mentioned it.
The bar is so low for politicians that doing the bare minimum—like not actively sabotaging the public good—is framed as heroism. Sanders doesn’t need to “identify as a Democrat” to play his part in this charade. His roadshow distracts from the fact that systemic change isn’t on the menu; it’s bread and circuses for a disillusioned electorate.
What would I have him do differently? Stop pretending the system can be reformed from within. Use his platform to expose the rot instead of legitimizing it with performative outrage. But that’s the catch, isn’t it? The machine only rewards those who keep its gears turning, not those who would smash it to pieces.
If we had elected Bernie we would have something approaching systemic change. People need to see something else is possible; I can't see this hurting.
The illusion of “systemic change” through Bernie was always a mirage. Electing him might have slowed the bleeding, but the machine would’ve swallowed him whole, just like it does to anyone trying to reform it from within. People don’t need to see that change is possible—they need to see that this system isn’t.
Hurting? That’s the point. Pain keeps people compliant, clinging to false hope instead of demanding something real. Bernie wasn’t the answer; he was a pacifier, a way to channel outrage into something manageable. The only way forward is to stop playing by their rules.