for sure. it would have indicated a future of possibilities, including gentler transitions, and a signal that elite control over our electoral system wasn't absolute or at least not controlled by people who are committed to full imperialist barbarism.

I'm getting older. my lower back isn't what it was. I'd prefer to spend my sunset years gardening, painting, reading, and attending community theater and if they let me have a believable pathway to that which wasn't soaked in blood or achieved by ignoring and stepping over the bones of friends and kind strangers being tortured, I would be so relieved.

but it seems this barrier to the all encompassing motives of capital cannot be allowed.

Bernie was and forever will be a compromise candidate. He wasn't actually radical. At all. He was offering a previous era's Keynesian treats for the imperial core and, most crucially, a more marked divergence from the standard foreign policy line than either party is comfortable acknowledging.

The fact they had a meltdown over that really should get printed out on business cards and any liberal who bleats about "radical marxism" should be forced to read and eat one of those cards before continuing.

I have to remind people that Bernie was not even my preferred 2020 candidate, that was Gravel

He definitely would have won in both 2016 and 2020 in the general. Most voters wanted something different in both elections, which was Trump in 16 and Biden in 20.

Of course we'd all be complaining about all the sucdem things he'd do, but like... I don't think he would have tore up the Iran deal, did the Abraham accords, moved the Israeli embassy to Jerusalem, and so on.

jim clyburn the fuckwad who said there are no black communists while in his office with a bust of fucking WEB DuBois and he probably met a bunch of black maoists back in the day too.