Bernie Sanders is a fiscal capitalistic opportunist

I repeat, Bernie Sanders is a fiscal capitalistic opportunist... who masquerades as a socialist or green or some extreme devout liberal when he functionally appears as a chaos agent no other than SChrumpft in effectiveness.

from PBS
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/nobody-likes-him-hillary-clinton-says-of-presidential-candidate-bernie-sanders

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Clinton says “nobody likes” her former presidential rival Bernie Sanders, even as the Vermont senator remains entrenched among the front-runners in the Democratic race, with the Iowa caucus beginning in less than two weeks. In an interview with “The Hollywood Reporter” published Tuesday, Clinton was asked about a comment she makes in an upcoming documentary where she says Sanders was “in Congress for years” but, “Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done.” Clinton replied that the criticism still holds and refused to say she’d endorse him this cycle if he wins the party’s nomination, adding: “It’s not only him, it’s the culture around him. It’s his leadership team. It’s his prominent supporters.” Sanders’ campaign said Tuesday it didn’t have a comment about Clinton’s remarks. Her comments may ultimately energize Sanders loyalists who believed the Democratic establishment rigged the 2016 primary in her favor. That could be especially helpful with this cycle’s Iowa caucuses looming on Feb. 3. Many polls show Sanders among the leaders with former Vice President Joe Biden, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana. But Clinton also blamed Sanders’ supporters for fostering a culture of sexism in politics — a charge that is especially sensitive now, given that Sanders’ top progressive rival in the 2020 race, Warren, has accused him of suggesting a woman couldn’t win the White House during a private meeting between the two in 2018. Sanders has denied that, but Warren refused to shake his outstretched hand after a debate last week in Iowa and both candidates accused the other of calling them “a liar.” Warren has steadfastly denied to comment further, but the 78-year-old Sanders said Sunday that while sexism was a problem for candidates, so were other factors, like advanced age — touching off another online firestorm. In the interview, Clinton attacked a cadre of online Sanders supporters known generally as the “Bernie Bros,” many of whom were sharply critical of Clinton’s 2016 campaign for their “relentless attacks on lots of his competitors, particularly the women. And I really hope people are paying attention to that because it should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture.” Clinton further suggested that Sanders was “very much supporting it” and said, “I don’t think we want to go down that road again where you campaign by insult and attack and maybe you try to get some distance from it, but you either don’t know what your campaign and supporters are doing or you’re just giving them a wink.” “I think that that’s a pattern that people should take into account when they make their decisions,” Clinton said. His feud with Warren has overshadowed a series of clashes between Sanders and another 2020 rival, Biden, for an op-ed penned by one of the senator’s supporters suggesting that the former vice president was corrupt. “It is absolutely not my view that Joe is corrupt in any way. And I’m sorry that that op-ed appeared,” Sanders told CBS. The op-ed, published in “The Guardian” newspaper by Fordham University law professor Zephyr Teachout, claims Biden “has perfected the art of taking big contributions, then representing his corporate donors at the cost of middle- and working-class Americans.”

It is a sad truth from Robert f Kennedy jr, an excerpt
"Mitch McConnell & Bernie Sanders built careers in DC while America got sicker, fatter, and more dependent on Big Pharma. 
The longest-serving senators are also the biggest failures. "
https://x.com/RobertKennedyJc/status/1965156222979784823

IN AMENDMENT
I repeat what I said elsewhere about Mandela... Bernie Sanders talks a good talk to the masses of fiscally poor people who have time or are angry enough to listen. But, his results are not good, and when I look at Mamdani , Ocasio Cortez... so many legislators are simply not good at leading or improving legislative bodies. That on the reverse side said legislatures only seem to really hurt the executive branch. No one may want to hear it but Bernie Sanders cost Hillary CLinton the election and I can't see how he thought he would beat her. At the end of the day, Sanders has nothing to show for his time in Congress except being the far left rant guy. It is Mr. Smith lives in Washington. Every session, for the past fifty years,  he makes a sweaty tear eyed speech but it never leads to any legislation. 
IN AMENDMENT
https://x.com/FranksBlueHot/status/1965050848633053363 referring to a trveor jackson article

I remember when Obama ran and won and I thought , if he won, he would have to succeed, get results, because if he didn't no one after him could play the hope card and that is all the donkeys[party of Andrew Jackson ] have done since Obama. Biden was a hope president. Old PApa Joe, remember. Biden didn't offer a plan. Biden offered the hope that he damage of the past, some spurred by Schrumpt would begone. Instead it got worse. Schrumpts presidencies were made by Obama + Biden, and it is funny how both in various ways, alongside Bernie Sanders blocked Hillary Clinton, who tried twice and never got the chance I think she should had. I still think what I said in the past was true. Clinton president, Obama vice president , gets eight years and then Obama , maybe biden vice president, gets eight years. The donkeys gambled Obama first and messed it up. 
 

Trevor Jackson article 

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2025/09/25/how-to-blow-up-a-planet-abundance-klein-thompson/

excerpt

What happened to the future? When did we lose it, and what has taken its place? Political scientists have found a continual decline in visions of a shared transformative future since the early 1980s. Around the world, in party manifestos, inaugural speeches, and programmatic policy documents, principled statements about an open-ended future have given way to numerical targets like GDP growth achieved, emissions reduced, or people deported. The political right has been more interested in returning to an imaginary glorious past; consequently, the change has been most pronounced on the left, where the politics of an alternative liberatory future have ceded to the policies of technocratic governance and market discipline. This story fits the interregnum of the 1990s and 2000s, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the slide of social democratic parties into neoliberalism. When Francis Fukuyama declared the “end of history,” he was looking ahead to a melancholy time when we would be “jaded by the experience of history.” The conflict over the best way to organize human society had ended, and liberal capitalist democracy would remain triumphant, but the future appeared to be an empty stretch, without passion, without struggle. The financial crisis of 2008 did not recover the future so much as reveal that its absence was an ideological project. Writing in the aftermath of the crash, the radical cultural critic Mark Fisher diagnosed a phenomenon he called “capitalist realism,” meaning “the widespread sense that not only is capitalism the only viable political and economic system, but also that it is now impossible even to imagine a coherent alternative to it.” Elsewhere he wrote that the future had been “foreclosed,” and the metaphor was apt: we had been evicted from it, and now it belonged to the banks. But nothing has depleted the future quite like climate change. As target after target has been passed and promise after promise broken, the time remaining to avert global catastrophe has been squandered. There is no noncatastrophic future left, and in fact it’s already here. How, in conditions of runaway climatic disaster, can the future be recovered? What visions of a shared transformative future are possible, and what happens to emancipatory politics, and to democracy itself, without them? Abundance, by two American journalists, provides one answer. American liberals in positions of governance should commit to deregulation, which the authors believe will unleash the power of the market and of technology to provide cheap and plentiful housing, energy, and medicine. They define the “abundance” they seek as a “state in which there is enough of what we need to create lives better than what we have had,” and they believe it is “important to imagine a just—even a delightful—future and work backward to the technological advances that would hasten its arrival.”

...