Sanders says Trump reelection would be the ‘end of democracy’
Sanders says Trump reelection would be the ‘end of democracy’
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said the reelection of former President Trump would be the “end of democracy” in an interview released Saturday by The Guardian. “It will be the end of democracy, …
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said the reelection of former President Trump would be the “end of democracy” in an interview released Saturday by The Guardian.
“It will be the end of democracy, functional democracy,” Sanders said in the interview.
The Vermont senator also said in the interview that he thinks that another round of Trump as the president will be a lot more extreme than the first.
“He’s made that clear,” Sanders said. “There’s a lot of personal bitterness, he’s a bitter man, having gone through four indictments, humiliated, he’s going to take it out on his enemies. We’ve got to explain to the American people what that means to them — what the collapse of American democracy will mean to all of us.”
Sanders’s words echo those President Biden made in a recent campaign speech during which he said that Trump’s return to the presidency would risk American democracy. The president highlighted the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol in an attempt to cement a point about Trump and other Republicans espousing a kind of extremism that was seen by the world on that day.
You're viewing part of a thread.
I did not claim anyone will or even has a chance of winning.
And I do know he doesn't have a chance. I explained why.
You don't know he has a chance. You, again, have religious faith.
>And I do know he doesn’t have a chance. I explained why
you gave an analogy that you could have applied to just about anything you don't think has a good chance of happening. it's not proof that he can't win.
I do not have to prove you wrong. That is not how the burden of proof works. You have to prove yourself right.
you said that you know something. in order to know something you must have a justified true belief. justification is the proof. you don't know what you claim to know. q e d
You justify your faith first. Go for it.
just to be clear, you agreed that my claim is true, that it's possible. you even gave a scenario in which you think it's likely. you still have not justified your claim. and you can't, because you can't have proof about the future.
I gave a scenario which I think is basically impossible. I think you know that. And I'll justify my impossible claim when you justify your impossible claim. At least I admit mine is impossible.
when people run for president, it is possible they get elected. qed.
if you think there is a flaw there, let me know!
The flaw is that most people who run for president have no chance of getting elected. Including Cornel West and literally every other person who is not a Democrat or a Republican for over a century.
you say the have no chance, but that's not true, as illustrated in your own example. it may not be probable based on our current understanding, but it's not impossible, and the fact that he is running makes it more probable than if he weren't.
Dodge.
I do not have to prove you wrong. That is not how the burden of proof works. You have to prove yourself right.
You're the one disagreeing with him, you have to justify why you're disagreement is the correct answer.
You can't just say you're right and wave your hands around and expect people to believe it.
>You, again, have religious faith.
I don't. I'm the authority on what I believe so I'd appreciate it if you stop putting words in my mouth.
Fine. Provide evidence. Evidence-free claims are religious faith.