The statistics don't say, but I suspect enough that the dems would have won if they'd either nominated him or adopted his policies instead of ratfucking him in the primary and telling the people suffering who liked his policies they're doing just fine.

Primary them, but also make it as clear as possible, before, during, and after the primary, that republican-lite is not electable because the DCCC has shown time and time again they will put as much weight as they can on primaries to make sure the left doesn't win, from blackballing any companies and staffers that support a primary against an incumbent (this is never applied to primarying progressives or companies that help elect republicans) to defunding state party's funds and quitting if the progressives take control of the state party.

If the left candidate doesn't win, I am not voting for a republican-lite and giving them further power to the guys we see rolling over for fascism right now.

That is what the tea-party did, and it scared the republican party in line, and the ones who didn't toe the line, but still managed to win primaries, lost general elections.

most of his supporters absolutely hate Hillary Clinton so they didn’t vote for her and then Trump won his first election.

6-12% of Sanders supporters voted Trump. ~82-83% of that 6-12% were conservatives. Bernie had broader appeal with everyone except the "vote blue no matter who" crowd because policies that immediately improve people's material conditions are popular. Telling someone who is struggling to make ends meet "America is already great" is not popular.

For comparison, 15% of Clinton primary voters voted republican in 2008

That's the thing, left policy is overwhelmingly popular when you don't attach it to a democrat and you don't complicate it with means testing or market solutions or anything else.

Even republican voters like the idea of "free healthcare". But you say "free healthcare, for people who meet X Y Z requirements" and 90% of people will assume that this program won't apply to them.

You say "tax credits for people with children, after you fill out 5 forms and prove you make more than X but less than Y, applied to this scale", and even people who meet that criteria children will assume it won't help them. You just tell them "every working family with a kid under 18 gets a $3,600 check", they'll support it.

The democrats are miles to the right of their voters. This situation is further enforced by the media, who push the narrative of the "median voter" or "moderate republican", who is half way between democrat and republican; who will vote for "up to 40K college loan forgiveness for people with STEM degrees who were born on a prime numbered day and operated a business in an underserved neighborhood for 3 years" (Kamala's 2020 policy) but thinks that "free college" would be a step too far.

Assembly is a way of writing machine code, but with words and hexideci numbers instead of 1s and 0s and comments/white space, it's barely a language, from the 40s.

COBOL is a compiled language from the 60s. The compiler turns the somewhat human-readable code into assembly the computer can read.

Also assembly is even older than COBOL.

Lemmy is full of "vote blue no matter who" libs who think the party cannot fail, it can only be failed.

It was failed by its voters in 2010, when it failed to make a meaningful impact in peoples lives despite having the executive, 60 senators, and the house.

And then voters failed it again in 2016 when they didn't turn out for "America is already great" while paychecks remained stagnant and rent continued to increase.

And again in 2022 after Joe "nothing will fundamentally change" Biden failed to use his power to change anything.

And again in 2024 after Kamala "How would my administration be different from Biden's? I would have a republican in my cabinet" Harris ate shit.

These people understand at a deep level that the democratic party would rather lose than embrace left policy and cannot be pressured by its voters, so the only lever they feel they have to influence outcome is to silence any criticism.

And they got the number of fingers correct.

as far as I am aware.

The reason you aren't aware of dissent is that Zelenskyy banned rival parties, took control of media outlets, and passed a law that makes opposing the war or supporting any territorial concessions imprisonable offense, which has been used against political activists.

To be clear, Russia does the same things. The point isn't to support the Russian or Ukrainian government, only that the US's actions are opposed to the interests of the Ukrainian people.

Yes, when they're actually fighting for their own future instead of which bourgeoisie faction will exploit them. Revolutionary and anti-colonial wars tend to be extremely popular with the populace.

Do you think average Ukrainians wanted to be drafted to fight America's war?

Do I think it is better for a nation or a people to be freed from being ruled by a dictator

Except the US has no interest in freeing the people, hence why we give most dictators the weapons they use to keep their people down. We have interest in their resources and labor being cheap, which dictates our foreign policy.

The US doesn't want a Ukraine that serves the needs of the people, we want a Ukraine with low wages, no social programs, whose assets and resources are owned by western billionaires, and whose people can be sacrificed to further imperialist goals.

You can look at any other country we've "freed" in the last 50 years for comparison.

The prisoner appears to be hooked up to mains power in the high res version of that photo.

Lets examine the evidence of history:

Do you think the people of Palestine are better off because of the US's actions? Do you think the people of Syria are better off because of the US's actions? Do you think the people of Libya are better off because of the US's actions? Do you think the people of Yemen are better off because of the US's actions? Do you think the people of Somalia are better off because of the US's actions? Do you think the people of Afghanistan are better off because of the US's actions? Do you think the people of Iraq are better off because of the US's actions?

And that's just in the last decade, and I know I missed a few. Do you really think Lucy is going to let Charlie Brown kick the football this time?

America is not acting to help the people of Ukraine, we supported the right-wing throughout the coup so we could have a hostile state on Russia's border so the vultures can eat their fill as both countries are bled dry. Hence why Ukraine was required to sell off state assets to foreigners for pennies on the dollar, accept massive loans, give up mineral rights, lower the draft age, etc. Russia aren't the good guys, but the US's actions have resulted in a scenario infinitely worse for the Ukrainian people.

So is there any particular military history in the last 50 years you want to talk about? The invasion of Panama? Granada? Bombing Yugoslavia? Targeting Iraq's infrastructure during the gulf war, then imposing sanctions estimated to have caused a million excess deaths, mostly of children? Bombing a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan? Iraq II? Arming the groups that would become ISIS and Al Nusra?

He (and Biden) didn't care when the 100% tariffs on Chinese cars kept the average electric car price at like $60K, why would they care when Americans are paying $100,000 for an average car?

The kicker? They're German.

The US is not NATO

It kinda is tho. It was set up by the US to counter the Warsaw pact and prey upon neutral countries, as Blinken put it "If you're not at the table, you're on the menu". This is evidenced by every single NATO action being in the US's interest.

Especially now with Trump in daddy Putins pocket.

As funny as it would be for Trump to dismantle NATO, his only issue with it is that it doesn't do enough imperialism.

In OP are images of what NATO, an organization that has never fought a defensive war in its entire existence, calls defense.