• aeshna_cyanea@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    He would not have won the presidency, the system is rigged to be two party only and he would have utterly destroyed his career. Knowing the man he will always go for the harm reduction option.

    I wonder if you can compare what happened to teddy Roosevelt and Bernie’s case

    • 7oo7@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      the system is rigged to be two party only

      If the system is rigged, why not protest for fix the thing that is rigged and not after the fact when the rigged thing isn’t in your favor?

      Your complacency is what’s perpetuating this rigged system, yet you all think your “party” is going to fix it when they’re both only looking out for themselves.

    • SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Well it sure is good we went for harm reduction so Hillary won instead…

      Oh wait

      Also Teddy didn’t get elected, he was VP when McKinley was assisnated, and he would have never gotten elected for a second term if he wasn’t already in power.

      This is why the DNC won’t even let a progressive be VP.

      • aeshna_cyanea@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        Ok I must be rusty in my history, afaik teddy was fairly popular toward the end of his first term and won reelection easily

        and i meant specifically the time he wanted to run for a third, lost the nom and formed a third party. It didn’t go great for him and it would not have gone great for bernie