this post was submitted on 03 Jan 2026
764 points (98.7% liked)
NonCredibleDiplomacy
586 readers
5 users here now
Shitposting about geopolitics, diplomacy, and current events for shits and giggles
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
I don't think that's the correct take. Both times it was maintain status quo vs a disruptor. The status quo has been terrible for the majority of Americans so they were willing to take the risk on the disruptor. That's the same reason people split ticket voted for both Trump and AOC, they're both disruptors.
Oh yeah the status quo of green energy, massive infrastructure investments, supporting Ukraine, EVs, PACT act, drug price controls, marijuana pardons, student debt relief, etc. How dare they!!!!!
The pathetic support of Ukraine barely giving them enough to just hang in the fight. Drug prices for 4 drugs. Alleviating the symptom of student debt and ignoring the root problem. Ignoring housing affordability. Ignoring the growing wealth inequality. Add on to of that parading around Bush era conservatives... Yeah, the status quo that needs to be disrupted.
It's not surprising that the DNC picking someone who dropped even before Iowa during the previous primaries was not a good strategy.
Oh yeah supplying Ukraine with weapons and rallying all the allies to do the same is soooo much worse than Trump's "just surrender" policy. B-B-B both sides same!!!
4 drugs? Just going off memory it was in the range of 10 or 12. So this is the point where I stop reading your lies.
I'm not both siding anything. One side is significantly better as you have even shown. Biden only gave barely enough weapons at every stage of the war. He never gave enough for Ukraine to fight back, only enough to hold Russia off. Yes, far better than the just give up strategy, but not exactly something to be proud of. Which kind of sums up all of Biden's tenure.
Lol, you're right it was 10 drugs. So successful a whole 10 drugs! When they announced that "success" the entire countries response was, "and?"
Total coincidence it was a woman versus a wildly unfit man both times that the women lost!
Well, no. Both women were picked by the DNC and not by the voters.
A fucking ham sandwich should've won against Trump. A man did.
Biden only won because of how badly Trump fumbled his Covid response. Anyone would have won against Trump in that specific election. In 2016 and 2024 the political climate was very different and the DNC chose basically the only candidates that would lose to Trump. Bernie was/is a disruptor with a big supportive base that could have beat Trump. In 2024 the person who polled the worst against Trump was Biden, the second worst was Harris, yet "unnamed democrat" dominated the polls. Yes, be mad at the voters, but also be mad at the DNC who sacrificed everyone's future to push the status quo instead of embracing real change despite the voters clearly signaling that's what they want.
Bernie couldn't beat Hillary, he didn't stand a chance. The whole idea that Bernie stood a chance against either Hillary or Trump was actual literal Russian propaganda. The only people that like Bernie don't vote, and the ones that do voted for Hillary because she stood a much better chance against Trump. It was never even a little bit close with Bernie, and before you go blah blah DNC collusion (which is also largely ruspublican agitprop) Bernie still would have lost soundly, the Democratic party voters were not going to nominate someone that isn't in the goddamn party. This also ignores the majority of Dem voters are neoliberals and think socialism is a dirty word. Bernie never fucking stood a chance. At all. Whatsoever.
That's not how that works. The voters picked Hillary in 16 to run with the party nomination. The voters stuck with the incumbent, and when they dropped out due to health reasons the secondary stood in as is standard practice. If you've got an issue with it you should have fucking registered Dem and voted in the primaries like intelligent responsible civically engaged citizens do. Instead of bitching on the internet about shit you clearly don't understand.
You're ignoring how the DNC used super delegates to sway the primary votes in 16. They also provided Clinton with the debate questions ahead of time. They did everything in their power to tip the scales toward Clinton. In 2020 they changed the primary order to favor Biden, discouraged people from running against him, and even considered cutting the primaries early. Again they did everything in their power to pick Biden. Then when Biden dropped, they had time to at least hold a vote at the convention, but instead they appointed Harris. Btw, I did vote in those primaries, I donated to the Sanders campaign too.
Because Clinton was a member of the fucking party and Bernie wasn't. Like holy shit, of course they didn't want someone who isn't actually part of the party to be the party nominee. What the fuck are you all smoking that everyone ignores the fact Bernie was never going to win the Democratic nomination because he wasn't in the Democratic party. It's not complicated shit.
Lol, okay so you do understand that the process was rigged and resulted in bad candidates that lost. I accept your apology.
He lost because he wasn't a Democrat, why would Democrats vote for someone not in their party? If you wanted Bernie y'all should have registered and voted in the primary. There was no rigging, the lawsuits were dismissed, Bernie just overwhelmingly lost to Hillary because registered democratic party members voted overwhelmingly for Hillary. Bernie never stood a chance and the process was pretty well the same as it always was but idiots like you have a child's understanding of political processes. Did you even know the DNC is straight up a private non public organization? Because that's how political parties work.
Yeah, Hillary won the old fashioned way: having the right endorsements, spending lots of money, and being a normal Democrat.
If there was rigging it was in the 2020 Iowa Caucus. They wrecked the whole system to hand the win to a loser nobody.
Yep.
"The Democratic party endorses the Democratic party member for the Democratic party nominee instead of the guy that's not even part of our organization"
Democratic party members: votes for Hillary.
Idiots everywhere: "omg rigged"
Cuomo still got tons endorsements despite running as an independent against a Democrat, so it's not as simple as just party loyalism. There's a core of the Democratic party which hates socialism and socialists, and would rather lose than let socialism win. That's not rigging, though. That's just the party leadership (and donors) steering the party.
I fully expect a DSA candidate in 2028, so we'll see how the party reacts.
There was no rigging as long as you ignore the rigging that I already discussed. Just because you say these things doesn't make them true.
It's rigging in the same way that you're a genius, which is to say it isn't.
The difference is, nobody has ever claimed I'm a genius because there isn't evidence for it. Meanwhile there is evidence of the rigging.
What evidence? You can call it a ham sandwich but that won't make it fucking so. It wasn't rigging, it was standard dnc operating procedure. Lawsuits alleging rigging were dismissed as without cause because, and stay with me here, there wasn't rigging.
I think this is coming down to a difference in how we would define rigging. I've already said how it was rigged. You're either going to continue to ignore it, or you just don't think that's rigging. Obviously you're never going to be convinced even with the evidence right in front of you. Enjoy living your life like that.
Enjoy your ham sandwich.
To be fair, none of the voters had proof that Trump was retarded when he was first elected... they were warned, and many suspected, but who was to say that monster couldn't successfully run a country. I saw who he really was and voted accordingly, But im just one person. Also, the whole Hillary/Bernie primary shit that I dont remember the details of. Also, Hillary Clinton was a weird robot.
But for his second run, we had his whole first term as evidence of his incompetence. Despite the fact that Harris was a bummer of a candidate and a major misstep by the dems, we still had trumps first term as evidence of his inability to serve as president.
What the fuck.
If it truly is America wont vote for a woman (I honestly dont believe it, but i'm a dude so im probably blind to a lot of it)...and if it truly was the end of democracy for trump to win, why the fuck did they run Harris?
What the fuck.
I dont get it.
We had decades of proof going back into the 80s that he was a cheap con man and a racist and a rapist. None of that was remotely new information, just a bunch of dumb fucks were like hurdur guy from apprentice.
It is absolutely more correct than this disruptor bullshit, that's an excuse for stupid people to absolve themselves of the responsibility of being informed and engaged.
Only if you completely ignore the voting trends of modern history.
So you're acknowledging the voting trends are sexist. If anything voting trends overwhelmingly favor the status quo over "disruptors" because we knew better than to tolerate demagogues.