SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
(Photo: Gage Skidmore/flickr/cc)
Bring It On
No wonder Trump is afraid — a debate with Bernie Sanders would show who’s really on the side of working people.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/05/trump-sanders-debate-populism-kimmel/
May 29, 2016
Last week, Donald Trump told late-night television host Jimmy Kimmel that he would debate Bernie Sanders, so long as ABC agreed to make a hefty donation to charity. It was a joke, but the Sanders campaign responded seriously -- bring it on.
Less than a full day after Sanders accepted his challenge, Trump announced he wouldn't take part. I don't debate losers, Trump explained.
The prospect of a Trump-Sanders debate slipped away, at least for the time being. But in the twenty-four hours when it seemed a possibility, people of all political stripes understood that pitting the two anti-establishment candidates against one another would be a significant political event.
Granted, some liberal commentators were quick to dismiss the proposed debate as nothing more than a distraction. Of course, this objection fits their pattern of painting Sanders's continued participation in the Democratic race as a irresponsible breach of party etiquette, potentially destructive to Hillary Clinton's chances in the general election.
But the country needs a Trump-Sanders debate, if only to show the increasingly out-of-touch punditry what most ordinary voters already know -- the two candidates may rail against the same broken system, but they're not "making the same pitch," as the Washington Post claims. A huge chasm separates Trump's politics from Sanders's.
Read the full article at Jacobin.
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
© 2023 Jacobin
Last week, Donald Trump told late-night television host Jimmy Kimmel that he would debate Bernie Sanders, so long as ABC agreed to make a hefty donation to charity. It was a joke, but the Sanders campaign responded seriously -- bring it on.
Less than a full day after Sanders accepted his challenge, Trump announced he wouldn't take part. I don't debate losers, Trump explained.
The prospect of a Trump-Sanders debate slipped away, at least for the time being. But in the twenty-four hours when it seemed a possibility, people of all political stripes understood that pitting the two anti-establishment candidates against one another would be a significant political event.
Granted, some liberal commentators were quick to dismiss the proposed debate as nothing more than a distraction. Of course, this objection fits their pattern of painting Sanders's continued participation in the Democratic race as a irresponsible breach of party etiquette, potentially destructive to Hillary Clinton's chances in the general election.
But the country needs a Trump-Sanders debate, if only to show the increasingly out-of-touch punditry what most ordinary voters already know -- the two candidates may rail against the same broken system, but they're not "making the same pitch," as the Washington Post claims. A huge chasm separates Trump's politics from Sanders's.
Read the full article at Jacobin.
Last week, Donald Trump told late-night television host Jimmy Kimmel that he would debate Bernie Sanders, so long as ABC agreed to make a hefty donation to charity. It was a joke, but the Sanders campaign responded seriously -- bring it on.
Less than a full day after Sanders accepted his challenge, Trump announced he wouldn't take part. I don't debate losers, Trump explained.
The prospect of a Trump-Sanders debate slipped away, at least for the time being. But in the twenty-four hours when it seemed a possibility, people of all political stripes understood that pitting the two anti-establishment candidates against one another would be a significant political event.
Granted, some liberal commentators were quick to dismiss the proposed debate as nothing more than a distraction. Of course, this objection fits their pattern of painting Sanders's continued participation in the Democratic race as a irresponsible breach of party etiquette, potentially destructive to Hillary Clinton's chances in the general election.
But the country needs a Trump-Sanders debate, if only to show the increasingly out-of-touch punditry what most ordinary voters already know -- the two candidates may rail against the same broken system, but they're not "making the same pitch," as the Washington Post claims. A huge chasm separates Trump's politics from Sanders's.
Read the full article at Jacobin.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.