The Sandernistas Clear Hypocrisy

FieldTheorist said:

It's amazing how each of you thinks that giving a complete non-sequitur statement --always loosely related to the idea that if Clinton cheated but might have won anyway then it wasn't really cheating-- constitutes a valid reply.

I proudly voted against her in the primary, I voted for her in the general, and the thing I regret the most was that I actually had to vote for her in the general because she ran such a terrible campaign she was going to need my vote if she was to win. It was physically revolting. Knowing what I know now, it makes me ill all over again that I actually had to vote for her.

Click to expand...

Did you just insult vomit? How could you?

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

FieldTheorist said:

It's amazing how each of you thinks that giving a complete non-sequitur statement --always loosely related to the idea that if Clinton cheated but might have won anyway then it wasn't really cheating-- constitutes a valid reply.

I proudly voted against her in the primary, I voted for her in the general, and the thing I regret the most was that I actually had to vote for her in the general because she ran such a terrible campaign she was going to need my vote if she was to win. It was physically revolting. Knowing what I know now, it makes me ill all over again that I actually had to vote for her.

Click to expand...

WTF? You voted for Clinton!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA What type of lame excuse is that? You do know you can write in your own candidate right? If it was that physically revolting to you to vote for Clinton, you should have done what I did in Trump's case.

Democrats overwhelmingly wanted to vote for Clinton. Just like how Republicans overwhelmingly wanted to vote for Trump. That's why they won the primaries. That much is clear. She had the name brand, the connections, the money, the women vote. Bernie Sanders only had pissed off liberal idiots or other people who are so pissed off that they cannot even call themselves liberals.

Dirt Sands said:

I get your suggestion about voting for another party. I know Gary Johnson because I lived in Albuquerque when he was governor. They have a sales tax on groceries which is considered a regressive tax. I sense you voted for him out of frustration. Libratarian leaning candidates are typically republican as is he. I prefer a weak republican for manipulation purposes only. They were never serious. That's one of the problems when a candidate polls around 5%. The way to change the two parties is to do just that; change the parties. Parties aren't in the Constitution. That could be changed. But I absolutely believe in the two party system. The reason it's failing us is because they're not getting a plurality of the vote. So the answer to that is to support them even more.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

My idea of an elected official is one that represents his district, his state and the country as a whole. Not a political party first. I don't care if it is a Republican or Democrat that is my congressman as long as my congressman listens to the people of his district and acts accordingly. Same for my senators, do what the people of Georgia want, not what your political party wants.

The founders and framers were against political parties, they called them factions. They were afraid that after awhile those elected via political party would show loyalty to party and not the nation, it would be for the good of the party and not the country. That is exactly what I see today, political party above country.

I can remember a time when there weren't such a thing as straight party line votes. But that was back in an era where both parties had their conservative and liberal wings. That not the case today. As both parties were shedding their unwanted wing, they took it ever further. Getting rid of moderates, those in the center, center right and left. That also shows up in those who identify with the two major parties. Over time we have have seen that political identification with the two major parties fall from 80% of the electorate at the end of WWII to 70% during Vietnam to 60% after the turn into the 21st century to 55% today if Gallup is to be believed.

I would say the two party system work very good when 80% of all Americans affiliated themselves with the major parties. I would say not so good today when just over half of all Americans identify with the two major parties. We get elections like last year when 60% of all Americans view the candidates offered in a very negative light. We get candidates where only 36% and 38% have a favorable or positive view of them. How is the winner expected to govern effectively when he enters office with approximately 60% of Americans against him or at least disliking him?

Frustrated, yes, I guess one could say that. How in the Hades in a country of 320 million people are the baggage laden disliked Hillary Clinton and the disliked, egotistical, obnoxious Donald Trump the best our two major parties can come up with? If this is the best two candidates this nation has to offer its people, my friend, we are all in a world of hurt.

NeverTrumpGOP said:

WTF? You voted for Clinton!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA What type of lame excuse is that? You do know you can write in your own candidate right? If it was that physically revolting to you to vote for Clinton, you should have done what I did in Trump's case. Democrats overwhelmingly wanted to vote for Clinton. Just like how Republicans overwhelmingly wanted to vote for Trump. That's why they won the primaries.

Click to expand...

1.) Get your facts straight: No they didn't. More people voted in the Republican primary than the Democratic primary, but Bernie Sanders still got more votes than Donald Trump did, and Bernie lost. Millions of Independents were sidelined in their states from voting in Democratic primaries, and Bernie got 44-47% of the vote, depending on how you count caucuses. So firstly, nope, Democrats did not "overwhelmingly" vote for Clinton unless a plurality of votes has been redefined to mean "overwhelming." and secondly, nope again, Republicans did not overwhelmingly vote for Trump. You're confusing the massive delegate boost Trump had after everyone else dropped out with actual votes and widespread enthusiasm for Trump. Trump won because had the most enthusiastic supporters who wouldn't give in, but mainly because of the egos of Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich who refused to be the one to get out of the way.

2.) Hillary Clinton was a terrible piece of ****. Donald Trump was a monstrously worse piece of ****. I could have written in Bernie (a waste of time, it's not even counted), I could have voted for Stein (didn't really love Stein), I could have voted Johnson (no interest whatsoever). So the best thing I could do was try to stop Trump. I have no regrets about this, and let this year be a testament to the wisdom of that choice.

That much is clear. She had the name brand, the connections, the money, the women vote. Bernie Sanders only had pissed off liberal idiots or other people who are so pissed off that they cannot even call themselves liberals.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why Sanders is fluctuating around a 57-69% approval rating and is the most favorably viewed sitting politician. Because he only appeals to pissed off liberal idiots. Right, yeah that must be it.

NeverTrumpGOP said:

WTF? You voted for Clinton!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA What type of lame excuse is that? You do know you can write in your own candidate right?

Click to expand...

Whatever you say, "Never Trump" GOP...

Perotista said:

My idea of an elected official is one that represents his district, his state and the country as a whole. Not a political party first. I don't care if it is a Republican or Democrat that is my congressman as long as my congressman listens to the people of his district and acts accordingly. Same for my senators, do what the people of Georgia want, not what your political party wants.

Click to expand...

Federal politicos now represent donors, not even party ideology really. At best, party ideology has been made to dovetail with donor interests.

I can remember a time when there weren't such a thing as straight party line votes. But that was back in an era where both parties had their conservative and liberal wings. That not the case today. As both parties were shedding their unwanted wing, they took it ever further. Getting rid of moderates, those in the center, center right and left. That also shows up in those who identify with the two major parties. Over time we have have seen that political identification with the two major parties fall from 80% of the electorate at the end of WWII to 70% during Vietnam to 60% after the turn into the 21st century to 55% today if Gallup is to be believed.

Click to expand...

It's the left that was cast off from the Dem party, not the so-called 'moderates/centrists', or what America's thoroughly distorted frame of reference considers moderates/centrists, which are really right wingers per any other first world country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats

Dirt Sands said:

I get your suggestion about voting for another party. I know Gary Johnson because I lived in Albuquerque when he was governor. They have a sales tax on groceries which is considered a regressive tax. I sense you voted for him out of frustration. Libratarian leaning candidates are typically republican as is he. I prefer a weak republican for manipulation purposes only. They were never serious. That's one of the problems when a candidate polls around 5%. The way to change the two parties is to do just that; change the parties. Parties aren't in the Constitution. That could be changed. But I absolutely believe in the two party system. The reason it's failing us is because they're not getting a plurality of the vote. So the answer to that is to support them even more.

Click to expand...

The two party system is broken and failing because both major parties have been captured by the ultra-rich and are hopelessly beholden to them due to a lack of meaningful campaign finance and lobbying limits:

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Since Buckley v Valeo, and later and much less importantly Citizens United, this political capture has progressed such that as of today the US is essentially a de facto plutocracy where the wealthy and their special interests rule and the average citizen is a largely powerless plebeian; per the study:

Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page: Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites said:

But the picture changes markedly when all three independent variables are included in the multivariate Model 4 and are tested against each other. The estimated impact of average citizens’ preferences drops precipitously, to a non-significant, near-zero level. Clearly the median citizen or “median voter” at the heart of theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy does not do well when put up against economic elites and organized interest groups. The chief predictions of pure theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy can be decisively rejected. Not only do ordinary citizens not have uniquely substantial power over policy decisions; they have little or no independent influence on policy at all.

Click to expand...

Mind that this was in 2014; the situation has clearly and indisputably gotten worse since.

FieldTheorist said:

I gave you financial dealings, I gave you closing polling stations, using the DNC mouthpieces, and so forth. What more do you want? Will you only be satisfied if Hillary Clinton personally signs a document that says, "I colluded with the DNC to get 130x the money I was supposed to from my donors and manipulate the rules to favor my candidacy, my media contacts to ignore Sander's existence (except when insulting him) and promote Trump because I thought he'd be easier to defeat in the general, and used my political contacts to remove polling stations and/or remove voters and/or obfuscate rules for Independents."?

The idea that the onus is on me to prove that Sanders would have won if Hillary hadn't done these things is honestly the most telling part. You can't even deny that these things happened, so your best argument is to say that since I can't prove it didn't cause Sanders to lose (like anyone could), then it doesn't matter and Hillary didn't cheat. But again, same question as before: Does this abrogate Russia's responsibility for Hillary losing the election in your mind? After all, no one can know if James Comey or the Russians were the most influential in Hillary losing. If James Comey was more damaging, does that mean that Russians are off the hook and therefore they didn't tilt the election against Hillary?



Yes, it turns out that if both parties squeeze a real turd out during the nominations, and Americans are forced to vote against the other side rather than for their side, then chaos ensues.



This dispute exists because a debater claimed that Sanders supporters are hypocrites. You defended his claim. Now you're claiming that I'm the one sabotaging 2018 by bringing up disputes. So let me start responding to you first with a question: Are you being serious right now?

No matter what standard you want to judge me by for discussing this topic, you're at best as guilty in causing party disunity as I am by arguing with me. Period.

Click to expand...

Why is it that you can't stop comparing Hillary to Trump? Guilt? Either Sanders is a dirty liar or Hillary would have been a fantastic President compared to Trump. What the party needs right now is to move on and not rehash old news while we take our eye off the prize. Only a troll would see things otherwise IMO. Trump has given us a massive opportunity to mobilize our majority and take back D.C. but not if we are seen as a bunch of whiny bickering babies.

PS. And NO we are NOT going to put Hillary in jail.

iguanaman said:

Vladimir Putin Is Richer Than Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates Combined | Fortune

Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I read the written statement Browder submitted to congress before testifying. That's an eye-opening document about Putin's autocracy, for sure. I was surprised that it got little/no media traction.

Surrealistik said:

Federal politicos now represent donors, not even party ideology really. At best, party ideology has been made to dovetail with donor interests.



It's the left that was cast off from the Dem party, not the so-called 'moderates/centrists', or what America's thoroughly distorted frame of reference considers moderates/centrists, which are really right wingers per any other first world country: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats




The two party system is broken and failing because both major parties have been captured by the ultra-rich and are hopelessly beholden to them due to a lack of meaningful campaign finance and lobbying limits:

https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Since Buckley v Valeo, and later and much less importantly Citizens United, this political capture has progressed such that as of today the US is essentially a de facto plutocracy where the wealthy and their special interests rule and the average citizen is a largely powerless plebeian; per the study:



Mind that this was in 2014; the situation has clearly and indisputably gotten worse since.

Click to expand...

So both parties are beholden to the rich? That's sounds fair to me. I don't think my party has been taken over though. It's all fair. And it's still fair. I'm not pulling for the rich to take over my party, but everything is fair in politics. The fact that rich people have taken over both parties, to me, sounds pretty OK. Corporations still don't vote. Politics is about way more than [emoji383]. Money is only part of it.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

iguanaman said:

Why is it that you can't stop comparing Hillary to Trump? Guilt? Either Sanders is a dirty liar or Hillary would have been a fantastic President compared to Trump. What the party needs right now is to move on and not rehash old news while we take our eye off the prize. Only a troll would see things otherwise IMO. Trump has given us a massive opportunity to mobilize our majority and take back D.C. but not if we are seen as a bunch of whiny bickering babies.

Click to expand...

You're the one who keeps on insisting that cheating did not occur --and your continued inability to defend or maintain a single position between two posts pretty much should tell the audience that you have no case-- while trying to argue that I'm the one rehashing things. You shouldn't need it explained to you why an organization that could be quite important in defeating Trump has approvals (of their own making) that are worse than Trump, they're running out of funding, and can't seem to remove the corruption from within the party.

If me sitting here and pointing out the problems is bad, then what does that make pretending they don't exist in the first place? Do you think that's healthy for the overall movement against Trump? What happens if the DNC decides to keep on making news doing unscrupulous and unethical actions? Do you think that's good for defeating Trump? Sooner or later, you all are going to need to acknowledge that the people pointing out the corruption aren't the problem, it's the people who're promoting the corruption. And the fact that you're defending the corrupt actors makes you, distinctly and definitely, a part of the problem.

PS. And NO we are NOT going to put Hillary in jail.

Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about? You keep on acting like if you call me a Kremlin stooge, imply that I'm a closeted right-winger or that I cultishly follow Sanders' every word, etc, then I'll just shut up and accept your incorrect, evidence-less assertions like they are legitimate opinions. But they aren't and I won't, and you continuing to try to make this about me or trying to change the conversation is not helping you make your case.

Dirt Sands said:

So both parties are beholden to the rich? That's sounds fair to me. I don't think my party has been taken over though. It's all fair. And it's still fair. I'm not pulling for the rich to take over my party, but everything is fair in politics. The fact that rich people have taken over both parties, to me, sounds pretty OK. Corporations still don't vote. Politics is about way more than [emoji383]. Money is only part of it.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Both parties, including the Democratic party, are not just beholden to the rich, but domineered by the rich; the rich decide on policy, and determine overwhelmingly what gets passed and signed into law while the desires of the average person have essentially no impact or influence when in conflict with them.

To be abundantly clear, the US has entered a state of de facto plutocracy or rule of the rich at the federal level. If you believe in democracy or the democratic character of the United States, this should terrify and outrage you since the US was intended to be a democratic republic by the people, and for the people, not the richest 0.01% of them.

FieldTheorist said:

You're the one who keeps on insisting that cheating did not occur --and your continued inability to defend or maintain a single position between two posts pretty much should tell the audience that you have no case-- while trying to argue that I'm the one rehashing things. You shouldn't need it explained to you why an organization that could be quite important in defeating Trump has approvals (of their own making) that are worse than Trump, they're running out of funding, and can't seem to remove the corruption from within the party.

If me sitting here and pointing out the problems is bad, then what does that make pretending they don't exist in the first place? Do you think that's healthy for the overall movement against Trump? What happens if the DNC decides to keep on making news doing unscrupulous and unethical actions? Do you think that's good for defeating Trump? Sooner or later, you all are going to need to acknowledge that the people pointing out the corruption aren't the problem, it's the people who're promoting the corruption. And the fact that you're defending the corrupt actors makes you, distinctly and definitely, a part of the problem.



What the hell are you talking about? You keep on acting like if you call me a Kremlin stooge, imply that I'm a closeted right-winger or that I cultishly follow Sanders' every word, etc, then I'll just shut up and accept your incorrect, evidence-less assertions like they are legitimate opinions. But they aren't and I won't, and you continuing to try to make this about me or trying to change the conversation is not helping you make your case.

Click to expand...

All I know is there isn't much difference between your rhetoric demonizing Hillary and the DNC and the fake news of the Russian trolls so what does really matter whether you are one or not? The results are the same. This rhetoric does not reflect Sanders opinion in any way either. Sanders endorsed Hillary and both him and Warren said they looked forward to working with her. Your problem with the DNC is they are not caving to pressures from the extreme left wing and that is a good thing. Extreme views on either side is not where the American people are or ever will be.

Surrealistik said:

Both parties, including the Democratic party, are not just beholden to the rich, but domineered by the rich; the rich decide on policy, and determine overwhelmingly what gets passed and signed into law while the desires of the average person have essentially no impact or influence when in conflict with them.

To be abundantly clear, the US has entered a state of de facto plutocracy or rule of the rich at the federal level. If you believe in democracy or the democratic character of the United States, this should terrify and outrage you since the US was intended to be a democratic republic by the people, and for the people, not the richest 0.01% of them.

Click to expand...

I liked your post, but let me say this... I'm an idealist similar to the Bernie's. I would agree with most of the reforms that make the playground fair. If politics were a baseball game, politics would be the actual field. Underneath the grass is the soil. The soil is made up of manipulation, and all that makes a political campaign. In the stands are all the lobbyists paying big bucks to watch. It doesn't matter how much the tickets cost, it's the same game. The game hasn't changed. So wether the tickets are ten dollars or a hundred, it's still the same game.

Trump cheated better than Hillary. I'll accept that.

I believe that my side can win no matter what. So I would not stand in the way of the system getting fixed. Why? Because to me it makes no difference.

Somebody's going to have to fix it. You don't think the party in power that fixes it isn't going to rig it for themselves? There never will be a fixed system. The new system will always favor somebody. That would be the party in power. So any fixed system is just another system favoring somebody else.

In the world politics none of that matters. You should win in any system.

That's why I'm an idealist.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

Dirt Sands said:

I liked your post, but let me say this... I'm an idealist similar to the Bernie's. I would agree with most of the reforms that make the playground fair. If politics were a baseball game, politics would be the actual field. Underneath the grass is the soil. The soil is made up of manipulation, and all that makes a political campaign. In the stands are all the lobbyists paying big bucks to watch. It doesn't matter how much the tickets cost, it's the same game. The game hasn't changed. So wether the tickets are ten dollars or a hundred, it's still the same game.

Trump cheated better than Hillary. I'll accept that.

I believe that my side can win no matter what. So I would not stand in the way of the system getting fixed. Why? Because to me it makes no difference.

Somebody's going to have to fix it. You don't think the party in power that fixes it isn't going to rig it for themselves? There never will be a fixed system. The new system will always favor somebody. That would be the party in power. So any fixed system is just another system favoring somebody else.

In the world politics none of that matters. You should win in any system.

That's why I'm an idealist.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

The game has changed, because the lobbyists and donors don't just watch and spectate, they control; for example, this millionaire who wants to control and direct the Democrat narrative/agenda/framing, and threatens to take his ball and go home if he doesn't his way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nys3xZqEo3w

And yes, if we have the right politicians we can get an honest answer to this problem.

However it's pretty intractable and difficult to resolve; at this point a constitutional amendment is required so as to clarify that money is not speech per the 1st Amendment.

Lastly, it's possible to win in this system, but increasingly difficult for honest actors to do so and retain their integrity.

iguanaman said:

All I know is there isn't much difference between your rhetoric demonizing Hillary and the DNC and the fake news of the Russian trolls so what does really matter whether you are one or not? The results are the same. This rhetoric does not reflect Sanders opinion in any way either. Sanders endorsed Hillary and both him and Warren said they looked forward to working with her. Your problem with the DNC is they are not caving to pressures from the extreme left wing and that is a good thing. Extreme views on either side is not where the American people are or ever will be.

Click to expand...

No one has done more damage to the Democratic brand than establishment/New Dems, straight up, including and most recently Perez' counterproductive leadership. For his part, Fieldtheorist isn't demonizing anyone; he's speaking the truth which you apparently have a problem with because it's inconvenient for your political faction within the party.

In order for the Democratic party to truly mature, unify and become stronger, it needs to recognize and address its own issues rather than pretend they don't exist while keeping on with the same failed approach that got us into this situation to begin with.

Surrealistik said:

The game has changed, because the lobbyists and donors don't just watch and spectate, they control; for example, this millionaire who wants to control and direct the Democrat narrative/agenda/framing, and threatens to take his ball and go home if he doesn't his way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nys3xZqEo3w

And yes, if we have the right politicians we can get an honest answer to this problem.

However it's pretty intractable and difficult to resolve; at this point a constitutional amendment is required so as to clarify that money is not speech per the 1st Amendment.

Lastly, it's possible to win in this system, but increasingly difficult for honest actors to do so and retain their integrity.



No one has done more damage to the Democratic brand than establishment/New Dems, straight up, including and most recently Perez' counterproductive leadership. For his part, Fieldtheorist isn't demonizing anyone; he's speaking the truth which you apparently have a problem with because it's inconvenient for your political faction within the party.

In order for the Democratic party to truly mature, unify and become stronger, it needs to recognize and address its own issues rather than pretend they don't exist while keeping on with the same failed approach that got us into this situation to begin with.

Click to expand...

LOL What issues? That Trump was right and Hillary is a crook? That seems so stupidly counterproductive and wrong that it isn't even funny. Your are truly fools and no wonder you fell for the trolls propaganda. We need to oppose Trump not our own party. Trump is the clear and current danger not Hillary.

iguanaman said:

LOL What issues? That Trump was right and Hillary is a crook? That seems so stupidly counterproductive and wrong that it isn't even funny. Your are truly fools and no wonder you fell for the trolls propaganda. We need to oppose Trump not our own party. Trump is the clear and current danger not Hillary.

Click to expand...

Are you serious?

Do you legitimately believe there are no issues facing the Democratic party? That every its every problem is wholly some baseless fabrication of Russian propaganda and not one has any basis in reality like Perez' purge? The de facto buyout of the party? The rigging/skewing (whatever word/semantics you want to use) of the primaries? The suppression and omission of the FDR/progressive wing from virtually all material positions of leadership despite it now comprising more than half the party? The fruitless insistence on pursuing unpopular New Dem policy/ideas over those polling at majoritarian levels? These are all real and factual issues, not inventions of Fox News or the Kremlin, whether or not you want to believe it, and they're facing the party in the present.

Yes, the focus should be on defeating Republicans, but in order to do that best, we first need to get our house in order, and pretending that real problems which need to be resolved don't exist is absolutely not how we accomplish this. Moreover, if we do not, the party is going to be in serious trouble when Trump is gone, and there's no unthinkable bogey man around to conscript a rally and the independent vote out of fear.

iguanaman said:

All I know is there isn't much difference between your rhetoric demonizing Hillary and the DNC and the fake news of the Russian trolls so what does really matter whether you are one or not? The results are the same. This rhetoric does not reflect Sanders opinion in any way either. Sanders endorsed Hillary and both him and Warren said they looked forward to working with her. Your problem with the DNC is they are not caving to pressures from the extreme left wing and that is a good thing. Extreme views on either side is not where the American people are or ever will be.

Click to expand...

How many times does this need to be explained to you, I publicly said I would vote for Hillary Clinton and I voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. That's literally what Sanders did, too. Now, I also commented that her decisions running the 2016 general election campaign were laughably stupid in many instances, but I argued against voting Stein, particularly in swing states, and loudly argued with Trump voters. Your attempt to paint me as being the same thing as a Russian bot is just absurd.

As far as the "extreme Left", once again you really need to actually ask yourself how nearly half of Democratic voters are "extremists" and if it's really a tenable position --particularly if you want to argue that you are acting in the interest of party unity-- to ignore and call the other half of your party names. You can engage in this behavior; you can call for party unity. You cannot do both.

Surrealistik said:

Are you serious?

Do you legitimately believe there are no issues facing the Democratic party? That every its every problem is wholly some baseless fabrication of Russian propaganda and not one has any basis in reality like Perez' purge? The de facto buyout of the party? The rigging/skewing (whatever word/semantics you want to use) of the primaries? The suppression and omission of the FDR/progressive wing from virtually all material positions of leadership despite it now comprising more than half the party? The fruitless insistence on pursuing unpopular New Dem policy/ideas over those polling at majoritarian levels? These are all real and factual issues, not inventions of Fox News or the Kremlin, whether or not you want to believe it, and they're facing the party in the present.

Yes, the focus should be on defeating Republicans, but in order to do that best, we first need to get our house in order, and pretending that real problems which need to be resolved don't exist is absolutely not how we accomplish this.

Click to expand...

Do you pretend that Bernie is not responsible for his own campaign? He's not a Democrat. Screw him. If it's a revolution, the revolution would have taken place regardless of everything. He didn't have enough support, period. And it's his fault. If it were fair, would he have won? No. He won't win in 2020, no matter what the changes are. Let him hold his own primary and see how many votes he gets. He ran as a Democrat to gain votes or he would do his own thing. It didn't work out that way. Sorry

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

FieldTheorist said:

How many times does this need to be explained to you, I publicly said I would vote for Hillary Clinton and I voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. That's literally what Sanders did, too. Now, I also commented that her decisions running the 2016 general election campaign were laughably stupid in many instances, but I argued against voting Stein, particularly in swing states, and loudly argued with Trump voters. Your attempt to paint me as being the same thing as a Russian bot is just absurd.

As far as the "extreme Left", once again you really need to actually ask yourself how nearly half of Democratic voters are "extremists" and if it's really a tenable position --particularly if you want to argue that you are acting in the interest of party unity-- to ignore and call the other half of your party names. You can engage in this behavior; you can call for party unity. You cannot do both.

Click to expand...

So you believe half of Democrats want the DNC and Hillary carved up for dinner? If that is the case than all is lost because that will not happen without a hostile takeover and it is going to be ugly....it will also be a huge advantage for Trump and the GOP. I must say your timing is impeccable.

iguanaman said:

So you believe half of Democrats want the DNC and Hillary carved up for dinner? If that is the case than all is lost because that will not happen without a hostile takeover and it is going to be ugly....it will also be a huge advantage for Trump and the GOP. I must say your timing is impeccable.

Click to expand...

I don't know what the specific breakdown is for Democratic voters, but when, as of today, 50% of people dislike the DNC and only 38% like the DNC, Democrats should probably take stock of why their image is so bad and how that will impact their candidates' electability and their current funding crisis. I also didn't say carve up Hillary; I don't care about Hillary, the less I hear about her and what she's doing the better.

But yes, I'm team hostile-takeover of the DNC, or at least a tactical takeover of it. You keep on acting like if this Democratic party --the one that's lost 1,200 state seats, represents only 33% of state legislatures, 30% of governorships, 43% of the House and 46% of the Senate, and lost the presidency 60% of time in the last 20 years-- is this glorious party whose only real threat to gaining total control over the US government are these pesky goddamn left-wing extremists who confoundingly have all of this energy and a leader who's the most popular sitting politician in America.

Even if you were right and I really were a delusional conspiracy theorist, nothing I've said would come as close to the delusion that the current leadership and culture of the Democratic party is good, solid leadership in need of no critique, and that the best path to success is to call everyone who supported Sanders --nearly half of your own party-- as sour-grapes, Russian propagandists while demanding that they unify and fall in line behind your team. You keep on acting like everyone else is the problem, but who do you blame for 2004, 2010, 2014, and the lackluster congressional support in 2012? At this point, I'd blame it the hubris of the people on your side.

Surrealistik said:

Are you serious?

Do you legitimately believe there are no issues facing the Democratic party? That every its every problem is wholly some baseless fabrication of Russian propaganda and not one has any basis in reality like Perez' purge? The de facto buyout of the party? The rigging/skewing (whatever word/semantics you want to use) of the primaries? The suppression and omission of the FDR/progressive wing from virtually all material positions of leadership despite it now comprising more than half the party? The fruitless insistence on pursuing unpopular New Dem policy/ideas over those polling at majoritarian levels? These are all real and factual issues, not inventions of Fox News or the Kremlin, whether or not you want to believe it, and they're facing the party in the present.

Yes, the focus should be on defeating Republicans, but in order to do that best, we first need to get our house in order, and pretending that real problems which need to be resolved don't exist is absolutely not how we accomplish this. Moreover, if we do not, the party is going to be in serious trouble when Trump is gone, and there's no unthinkable bogey man around to conscript a rally and the independent vote out of fear.

Click to expand...

Using Hillary's defeat as a excuse to air every shred of dirty laundry in the DNC and institute a hostile takeover is not the answer to Trump. In fact it helps him greatly and will divide the party. This is not the time for civil war it is a time for unity. Working within the party to move it more left would have a much better outcome. Bernie succeeded in moving Hillary left didn't he?

FieldTheorist said:

I don't know what the specific breakdown is for Democratic voters, but when, as of today, 50% of people dislike the DNC and only 38% like the DNC, Democrats should probably take stock of why their image is so bad and how that will impact their candidates' electability and their current funding crisis. I also didn't say carve up Hillary; I don't care about Hillary, the less I hear about her and what she's doing the better.

But yes, I'm team hostile-takeover of the DNC, or at least a tactical takeover of it. You keep on acting like if this Democratic party --the one that's lost 1,200 state seats, represents only 33% of state legislatures, 30% of governorships, 43% of the House and 46% of the Senate, and lost the presidency 60% of time in the last 20 years-- is this glorious party whose only real threat to gaining total control over the US government are these pesky goddamn left-wing extremists who confoundingly have all of this energy and a leader who's the most popular sitting politician in America.

Even if you were right and I really were a delusional conspiracy theorist, nothing I've said would come as close to the delusion that the current leadership and culture of the Democratic party is good, solid leadership in need of no critique. You keep on acting like everyone else is the problem, but who do you blame for 2004, 2010, 2014, and the lackluster congressional support in 2012?

Click to expand...

I blame the election of a black President that our nation was not ready to accept for all the Democratic losses. Obama's race was used mercilessly to frighten and confuse voters into staying home or voting GOP. That "white power" theme is also what elected Trump obviously. So in a way the DNC was made to look out of touch but should we turn the guillotines on ourselves now because our nation is culturally backward and full of bigoted morons? This is starting to look like the French revolution to me.

Dirt Sands said:

Do you pretend that Bernie is not responsible for his own campaign? He's not a Democrat. Screw him. If it's a revolution, the revolution would have taken place regardless of everything. He didn't have enough support, period. And it's his fault. If it were fair, would he have won? No. He won't win in 2020, no matter what the changes are. Let him hold his own primary and see how many votes he gets. He ran as a Democrat to gain votes or he would do his own thing. It didn't work out that way. Sorry

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Bernie's responsible for his own campaign, yes, just as the DNC is responsible for running a fair and impartial primary per its own charter and rules. If it were fair, we can't possibly know the outcome given how much he depended on building momentum given he started at 3% to 60%, and the DNC's deliberate attempts to put a damper on it. Further, Bernie obviously didn't want to be a spoiler figure by running as a Dem, which is, besides it being the only viable avenue to the White House, a courtesy to the Democrats at least as much as it is self-serving. Meanwhile, what kind of precedent does it set for the Dem party to attack and ostracize its closest allies? Screw Bernie because he wishes to continue to identify as an independent, despite all the good he has done and continues to do for the party? Where are those same people who eagerly take credit for his actions by association when they eagerly claim he is a Dem? Ridiculous.

That said, Bernie's performance in the primary is utterly irrelevant to the necessity of resolving these issues in the present; as many establishment Dems say, I don't care to re-litigate the past. This isn't about Bernie, it's about winning, and doing what is best for the Dem party in the short, and long term.

iguanaman said:

Using Hillary's defeat as a excuse to air every shred of dirty laundry in the DNC and institute a hostile takeover is not the answer to Trump. In fact it helps him greatly and will divide the party. This is not the time for civil war it is a time for unity. Working within the party to move it more left would have a much better outcome. Bernie succeeded in moving Hillary left didn't he?

Click to expand...

The problem isn't merely just Hillary, and it's not solely about Hillary's defeat, much as that may have been a breaking point and call to action; as Fieldtheorist as stated, these unbearable losses have been ongoing for many years under the same incompetent, corrupt leadership and policy points. Taking decisive action to reform the party for the better isn't divisiveness, it's progress and we need to do it; we need to understand that the institution of the DNC and Democratic party are both deeply unpopular and rightly distrusted, and we must work to reform and improve such that the general electorate actually looks at us favourably. Trump may represent easy, even effortless wins in a lot of ridings for the short term, but we simply cannot rely on him to carry the day going forward, nor become complacent as Hillary as shown. Upholding the deeply unpopular status quo is an absolute guarantee of long term disaster, and a swing back to the GOP. The party is already divided, and staying the course ala Perez will only make things demonstrably worse; let me tell you, being at ground zero of the fallout, that this purge of his did not go down well at all; we need to take action now.

iguanaman said:

I blame the election black President that our nation was not ready to accept for all the Democratic losses. Obama's race was used mercilessly to frighten and confuse voters into staying home or voting GOP. That "white power" theme is also what elected Trump obviously.

Click to expand...

Racial resentment is a major issue in the Republican's rise to power (it has since 1965), but you really think that the massive swing of voters who voted for Obama and voted for Trump --a major piece of how Trump won, by the way-- were really just closeted racists? You don't think that Obama failing to continue working or engaging with his grassroots base had anything to do with it? Failing to join union workers when it was a campaign promise? Continuing to push trade deals throughout his presidency? Taking up huge debt on the DNC's side to run his campaign and then failing to help fund-raise for the DNC during off elections? You think that hiring a crony like DWS to mismanage the DNC was a wise plan, and then pulling away from firing her after her leadership was failing just because she called for having Obama be tarred as a misogynist and anti-semite if he removed her?

And I guess it goes without saying, but you see no issue whatsoever with spending hundreds of millions of dollars on campaign consultants during the campaigning seasons that are not winning Democrats races in a time when their is minimal funding for the DNC, the state Democratic parties, and down ballot candidates? Or letting these same consultants be voting members of the Democratic party, so they can argue for giving themselves more money?

In your mind then, none of that contributed to the fall of the Democratic party over the last 10-20 years?

So in a way the DNC was made to look out of touch but should we turn the guillotines on ourselves now? This is starting to loo like the French revolution to me.

Click to expand...

You really think firing people that aren't performing within an organization is the equivalent of literally severing people's heads off? If this is what your argumentation has come down to, then you're basically making my case for me.

FieldTheorist said:

Racial resentment is a major issue in the Republican's rise to power (it has since 1965), but you really think that the massive swing of voters who voted for Obama and voted for Trump --a major piece of how Trump won, by the way-- were really just closeted racists? You don't think that Obama failing to continue working or engaging with his grassroots base had anything to do with it? Failing to join union workers when it was a campaign promise? Continuing to push trade deals throughout his presidency? Taking up huge debt on the DNC's side to run his campaign and then failing to help fund-raise for the DNC during off elections? You think that hiring a crony like DWS to mismanage the DNC was a wise plan, and then pulling away from firing her after her leadership was failing just because she called for having Obama be tarred as a misogynist and anti-semite if he removed her?

And I guess it goes without saying, but you see no issue whatsoever with spending hundreds of millions of dollars on campaign consultants during the campaigning seasons that are not winning Democrats races in a time when their is minimal funding for the DNC, the state Democratic parties, and down ballot candidates? Or letting these same consultants be voting members of the Democratic party, so they can argue for giving themselves more money?

In your mind then, none of that contributed to the fall of the Democratic party over the last 10-20 years?



You really think firing people that aren't performing within an organization is the equivalent of literally severing people's heads off? If this is what your argumentation has come down to, then you're basically making my case for me.

Click to expand...

What makes you think that a hostile takeover will result in anything different except for the people in power? That is usually what happens if one side receives absolute power in a "revolution". No one is saying there isn't room for changes but it must come from within. Why is it that there is no effort to work that way?