• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Sandernistas Clear Hypocrisy

iguanaman said:
What makes you think that a hostile takeover will result in anything different except for the people in power?
Click to expand...

At some point that question stops mattering after you prove that you lose 50-70% of the time.

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?
Click to expand...

Do you follow anything that goes on inside of the DNC? There already has been a revolution, the corporate donors and consulting firms have taken over the Democratic party for 12 years, and the people who were loyal or supportive of my wing have been, in near unison, wiped out of the DNC and literally been replaced (almost exclusively) by Hillary campaign staffers. You keep on acting like my side is trying to sabotage the Democratic party and throwing people out on their asses for trying to work with Tom Perez. But the only people who've been purged from the Democratic party --for working with Tom Perez and trying to reform the party-- are the people in my wing and they've been purged by Perez. It's not like I just decided that the DNC needed to have a hostile takeover; I was more than willing to help Ellison get elected to the Chair position and work with the DNC, a majority of which were Hillary backers, and wait to see how the Unity Reform Commission is going. But then Tom Perez and his ilk keep on inserting themselves into DNC processes and making sure that everyone from my wing has zero representation and zero power. Unity is awfully hard when you are unwilling to accept that the people you're defending are the actual ones who are sowing disunity and trying to mitigate reform wherever possible.
 
FieldTheorist said:
At some point that question stops mattering after you prove that you lose 50-70% of the time.



Do you follow anything that goes on inside of the DNC? There already has been a revolution, the corporate donors and consulting firms have taken over the Democratic party for 12 years, and the people who were loyal or supportive of my wing have been, in near unison, wiped out of the DNC and literally been replaced (almost exclusively) by Hillary campaign staffers. You keep on acting like my side is trying to sabotage the Democratic party and throwing people out on their asses for trying to work with Tom Perez. But the only people who've been purged from the Democratic party --for working with Tom Perez and trying to reform the party-- are the people in my wing and they've been purged by Perez. It's not like I just decided that the DNC needed to have a hostile takeover; I was more than willing to help Ellison get elected to the Chair position and work with the DNC, a majority of which were Hillary backers, and wait to see how the Unity Reform Commission is going. But then Tom Perez and his ilk keep on inserting themselves into DNC processes and making sure that everyone from my wing has zero representation and zero power. Unity is awfully hard when you are unwilling to accept that the people you're defending are the actual ones who are sowing disunity and trying to mitigate reform wherever possible.
Click to expand...

Victory in 2018 is the primary goal right now.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Victory in 2018 is the primary goal right now.
Click to expand...

Victory in 2018 is the goal. The issue is how we get there. Pretending like problems that exist don't exist is not the way to get 2018 to be different than 2016.
 
FieldTheorist said:
Victory in 2018 is the goal. The issue is how we get there. Pretending like problems that exist don't exist is not the way to get 2018 to be different than 2016.
Click to expand...

Pretending that the Russian trolls were right and Hillary is a crook who hijacked the DNC is not the way to gain votes for Democrats in 2018. Quite the opposite. No one wants to see how the sausage is made, either gain acceptance from within or bite your tongue. Your problem is that the opposition has already taken your stance. We need to beat them not join them. Is that clear enough for you?
 
iguanaman said:
Pretending that the Russian trolls were right and Hillary is a crook who hijacked the DNC is not the way to gain votes for Democrats in 2018. Quite the opposite.
Your problem is that the opposition has already taken your stance. We need to beat them not join them. Is that clear enough for you?
Click to expand...

Arguing that everyone who disagrees with you is a Russian troll, or has been deluded by Russian trolls, or will destroy the 2018 chances, or is sour grapes is dishonest and intellectually lazy. The fact that you cannot even stick to one argument for longer than a reply, largely because your arguments are factually errant and/or illogical, is telling.

Also no, Clinton isn't a crook but she is a cheater. If you can't square that away or even have the ability to admit that this is possible, then you are hopelessly partisan. What's worse than that is that your hyper-partisanship basically precludes you from making arguments to major blocks of Independents who will be necessary for victory in 2018 (or let you even admit that the DNC having 50% disapprovals is worrisome), and your ham-fisted insistence that the politicians you support have done nothing wrong is both transparently off-putting and ridiculous. I have been yelled at, literally, by people on your side for two years now that I simply must get in line and shut up. I have to tell you, this behavior that has run rampant on your wing of the party is actively harmful, and is a great part of why 2016 happened the way that it did. One of the biggest reasons it took me until August of 2016 to agree to vote for Clinton was because it was impossible to forget the smug shouting, the dismissive snickering, and the constant personal attacks that the Clinton campaign and her supporters waged --it turned a lot of people away from voting for Hillary. Your blind loyalty to leaders --who have proven to be inept and divisive-- is dangerous, foolish, divisive, and if 2018 goes poorly, it will almost certainly be because people refused to challenge mismanagement and corruption when they had the chance.

The last thing we need in 2018 is a group of hyper-partisan Democrats running hundreds of campaigns insisting that everyone else needs to shut up and obey them, while denying the relevance of disapproval polling and that the American public is angry. What you're proposing is literally the same recipe that led to 2016.


Unitedwestand13 said:
But I thought that we don’t want to refight the issues of the 2016 primary?
Click to expand...

Read my response above.
 
Last edited:
FieldTheorist said:
Arguing that everyone who disagrees with you is a Russian troll, or has been deluded by Russian trolls, or will destroy the 2018 chances, or is sour grapes is dishonest and intellectually lazy. The fact that you cannot even stick to one argument for longer than a reply, largely because your arguments are factually errant and/or illogical, is telling.

Also no, Clinton isn't a crook but she is a cheater. If you can't square that away or even have the ability to admit that this is possible, then you are hopelessly partisan. What's worse than that is that your hyper-partisanship basically precludes you from making arguments to major blocks of Independents who will be necessary for victory in 2018 (or let you even admit that the DNC having 50% disapprovals is worrisome), and your ham-fisted insistence that the politicians you support have done nothing wrong is both transparently off-putting and ridiculous. I have been yelled at, literally, by people on your side for two years now that I simply must get in line and shut up. I have to tell you, this behavior that has run rampant on your wing of the party is actively harmful, and is a great part of why 2016 happened the way that it did. One of the biggest reasons it took me until August of 2016 to agree to vote for Clinton was because it was impossible to forget the smug shouting, the dismissive snickering, and the constant personal attacks that the Clinton campaign and her supporters waged --it turned a lot of people away from voting for Hillary. Your blind loyalty to leaders --who have proven to be inept and divisive-- is dangerous, foolish, divisive, and if 2018 goes poorly, it will almost certainly be because people refused to challenge mismanagement and corruption when they had the chance.

The last thing we need in 2018 is a group of hyper-partisan Democrats running hundreds of campaigns insisting that everyone else needs to shut up and obey them, while denying the relevance of disapproval polling and that the American public is angry. What you're proposing is literally the same recipe that led to 2016.




Read my response above.
Click to expand...

Threatening to take your ball and go home if you don't get everything you want seems to have worked well for your side in 2016. It got Hillary defeated so now you are going for 2 in a row? I just can't help myself thinking that way. This is not as one sided an issue as you seem to think. Both sides will need to admit their mistakes before there will be a resolution. It is time for some soul searching about the perfect being the enemy of the good.

P.S You do know that Sanders supporters were targeted by those Russian trolls and apparently their votes for Trump were more than enough to give Trump victories in the 3 blue States that gave him his victory. So yes I am sensitive when I hear you making the same accusations as those trolls.



SANDERS PRIMARY VOTERS
SANDERS PRIMARY VOTERS SUPPORTING TRUMP
SANDERS-TRUMP VOTERS (EST.)
TRUMP'S 2016 MARGIN OF VICTORY
Michigan 598,943 8% 47,915 10,704
Pennsylvania 731,881 16% 117,100 44,292
Wisconsin 570,192 9% 51,317 22,748
Click to expand...

https://www.npr.org/2017/08/24/545812242/1-in-10-sanders-primary-voters-ended-up-supporting-trump-survey-finds
 
Last edited:
FieldTheorist said:
Arguing that everyone who disagrees with you is a Russian troll, or has been deluded by Russian trolls, or will destroy the 2018 chances, or is sour grapes is dishonest and intellectually lazy. The fact that you cannot even stick to one argument for longer than a reply, largely because your arguments are factually errant and/or illogical., is telling And no, Clinton isn't a crook but she is a cheater. If you can't square that away or even have the ability to admit that this is possible, then you are hopelessly partisan. What's worse than that is that your hyper-partisanship basically precludes you from making arguments to major blocks of Independents who will be necessary for victory in 2018 (or let you even admit that the DNC having 50% disapprovals is worrisome), and your ham-fisted insistence that the politicians you support have done nothing wrong is both transparently off-putting and ridiculous. I have been yelled at, literally, by people on your side for two years now that I simply must get in line and shut up. I have to tell you, this behavior that has run rampant on your wing of the party is actively harmful, and is a great part of why 2016 happened the way that it did. One of the biggest reasons it took me until August of 2016 to agree to vote for Clinton was because it was impossible to forget the smug shouting, the dismissive snickering, and the constant personal attacks that the Clinton campaign and her supporters waged --it turned a lot of people away from voting for Hillary. Your blind loyalty to leaders --who have proven to be inept and divisive-- is dangerous, foolish, divisive, and if 2018 goes poorly, it will almost certainly be because people refused to challenge mismanagement and corruption when they had the chance.

The last thing we need in 2018 is a group of hyper-partisan Democrats running hundreds of campaigns insisting that everyone else needs to shut up and obey them, while denying the relevance of disapproval polling and that the American public is angry.




Read my response above.
Click to expand...

One has to assume that the “invisible primary” was a form of cheating. Do you consider that?
 
iguanaman said:
Threatening to take your ball and go home if you don't get everything you want seems to have worked well for your side in 2016. It got Hillary defeated so now you are going for 2 in a row? I just can't help myself thinking that way. This is not as one sided an issue as you seem to think. Both sides will need to admit their mistakes before there will be a resolution.
Click to expand...

I said a hostile takeover of the Democratic party by primary'ing their politicians, running parallel organizations, refusing to fund them while they engage in corruption, etc. How is that "threatening to take my ball and go home"? I'm not threatening anything. I will vote against the DNC establishment-backed candidates in the 2018 primaries, and vote D down the ballot in the general.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
One has to assume that the “invisible primary” was a form of cheating. Do you consider that?
Click to expand...

No, because they were a part of the rules laid out by the DNC prior to the primary (and for three decades now). It's disgusting and repellent that they all backed Hillary because they thought she was a shoe-in and it could help their political careers, but it wasn't against the rules.

(That doesn't mean that having superdelegates is democratic, or that having them, let alone 700+ of them, is wise.)
 
FieldTheorist said:
I said a hostile takeover of the Democratic party by primary'ing their politicians, running parallel organizations, refusing to fund them while they engage in corruption, etc. How is that "threatening to take my ball and go home"? I'm not threatening anything. I will vote against the DNC establishment-backed candidates in the 2018 primaries, and vote D down the ballot in the general.
Click to expand...

If only all the Sanders voters were so pragmatic. We would not have Trump now. But voters never are and the "damage" you hope to do will spill over and help the GOP like it did in the last election. Is that a result you will be happy with? Let's bury the hatchet and move on instead, there is plenty of support for many progressive issues in the party and "pigs get slaughtered" does not only apply to investing.
 
Last edited:
Surrealistik said:
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.



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.
Click to expand...
Then we agree on two things. It is about winning and it's not about Bernie. This was the basis of my arguments. That's why when I attack the Bernie's I want them to know the same thing will happen if it's him driving the change vehicle. Politics doesn't like losers (only as far as the election goes, by no means personally). Do you remember when the demos went liberal back in the 80's with Walter Mondale. What a "disaster". Remember how we were dying to win the presidency? We didn't win untill we went more conservative with Bill. The exact same thing is happening now. After Trump, well be dying for a democratic president. And, without a doubt, he or she will have to be moderate.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
 
FieldTheorist said:
No, because they were a part of the rules laid out by the DNC prior to the primary (and for three decades now). It's disgusting and repellent that they all backed Hillary because they thought she was a shoe-in and it could help their political careers, but it wasn't against the rules.

(That doesn't mean that having superdelegates is democratic, or that having them, let alone 700+ of them, is wise.)
Click to expand...

So it could not have been that the DNC backed Hillary because of her very strong 2008 primary support and her subsequent behaviors as a supporter of the DNC and Democratic goals as well as her participation in the Obama administration? The idea that it was "corrupt" to get behind her as a candidate under those circumstances is what I find disgusting. If there ever was a "Heir apparent" in politics it was Hillary. That is the reality and you should at least admit that. She had 8 years to plan her run and that was her right. But still getting 3 million more votes than Sanders is what got her nominated.
 
Last edited:
Dirt Sands said:
Then we agree on two things. It is about winning and it's not about Bernie. This was the basis of my arguments. That's why when I attack the Bernie's I want them to know the same thing will happen if it's him driving the change vehicle. Politics doesn't like losers (only as far as the election goes, by no means personally). Do you remember when the demos went liberal back in the 80's with Walter Mondale. What a "disaster". Remember how we were dying to win the presidency? We didn't win untill we went more conservative with Bill. The exact same thing is happening now. After Trump, well be dying for a democratic president. And, without a doubt, he or she will have to be moderate.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well the truth is that a 'moderate' is evidently not the way forward because many aggregates of polls conclusively and consistently say that the general electorate predominantly favours progressive legislation and keystones of Bernie's policy ideas, and by numbers that continually and substantially exceed margins of error.

Moreover, Clinton was a moderate Dem; she got beaten by literally the worst candidate the GOP ever fielded. It's not that the pendulum is swinging back to moderates, it's that it's swinging back to progressives. This isn't the time of Walter Mondale or George McGovern; there is no Cold War, McCarthyism is dead, people are fed up of good cop/bad cop corporatism and socialism is barely a dirty word anymore.

If we're serious about winning we'll actually listen to what the electorate says, and what the electorate is saying is that it wants:

A: Honest, straight shooting politicos not beholden to special interests.

B: People who genuinely represent the interests of the electorate.

C: Policy and campaign platforms that reflect the interests of the electorate, and most conspicuously progressive ideas like universal college and healthcare and responsibly implemented ways of paying for those things that also aim to tackle historic inequality.

To this end, the Democratic party and its politicians need to get serious about cleaning its house, be more aggressive about courting many small donors over corporations and wealthy individuals, and embrace policies proven both popular, and highly successful in the rest of the developed world.
 
iguanaman said:
So it could not have been that the DNC backed Hillary because of her 2008 primary support and he subsequent behaviors as a supporter of the DNC and Democratic goals as well as her participation in the Obama administration? The idea that it was "corrupt" to get behind her as a candidate under those circumstances is what I find disgusting. If there ever was a "Heir apparent" in politics it was Hillary. But still getting 3 million more votes than Sanders is what got her nominated.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm glad to see this has brought about some progress, at least you're no longer denying that the DNC colluded with the Hillary campaign for Hillary's benefit in way that disadvantaged Sanders.

As to your question, the answer is pretty trivial. The DNC was required to be neutral by their own charter, and by agreements with the candidates. You can pretend like this isn't corruption and cheating, but that's just dishonest reasoning that you would never accept under any other circumstance. If the Democratic party doesn't want a democratic process, then it shouldn't pledge to be neutral, it shouldn't bother holding elections, and it shouldn't bother even accepting outside candidates to run against their candidates. But they want the pretense of caring about their base's input, so they do all of these things --and thus when they get caught breaking their own rules, it matters. If you don't agree with that, then you share the same sentiments towards democracy as fascists and communists do --see my signature.
 
Surrealistik said:
If we're serious about winning we'll actually listen to what the electorate says, and what the electorate is saying is that it wants:

A: Honest, straight shooting politicos not beholden to special interests.

B: People who genuinely represent the interests of the electorate.

C: Policy and campaign platforms that reflect the interests of the electorate, and most conspicuously progressive ideas like universal college and healthcare and responsibly implemented ways of paying for those things that also aim to tackle historic inequality.
Click to expand...

This is literally the entire problem with the "you Bernie Bros are all just sour grapes" mantra of the Perez/Clinton crowd. There is a clear path forward (admittedly, it's a leap of faith as all changes in direction are), but the notion that the Democratic party is going to function the way that it has for the past 20 years is as delusional as the position that Hillary could never lose to Trump. And the reality is, both of these ideas were cooked up in the same DC bubble. The Democratic party will continue to squander money, energy, resources, and public trust the longer it maintains that it does nothing wrong and deflects to how everyone else is a giant Russian stooge. Even if they were right that people were falling for Russian propaganda (and in some cases they are, but in certain very important cases they are not), it doesn't change the fact that Independents and the Left feel violated and betrayed by the DNC. Union members predominantly voted for Trump hoping to stop the TPP and get jobs back, Millennials voted against Hillary because she was standing in their way and talked down to them (and thus didn't turn for the general), minorities voted for Hillary in the primary enthusiastically but not in the general. Huge amounts of the middle of the country are being hollowed out and are susceptible to the worst propaganda against Democrats. Public opinion polling puts the DNC to the right of the US general populace on many major issues. The DNC is struggling to fund-raise amongst its usual corporate and high-power donor class in spite of Trump being elected. Everything is blowing up around them, and the only thing that they can do is just deny that there's anything wrong.

But somehow pointing out these systemic issues to Liberals means we're the bad guys and we're the ones who're impeding the Democratic party's chances. It's just so ass backwards.
 
Last edited:
FieldTheorist said:
Well, I'm glad to see this has brought about some progress, at least you're no longer denying that the DNC colluded with the Hillary campaign for Hillary's benefit in way that disadvantaged Sanders.

As to your question, the answer is pretty trivial. The DNC was required to be neutral by their own charter, and by agreements with the candidates. You can pretend like this isn't corruption and cheating, but that's just dishonest reasoning that you would never accept under any other circumstance. If the Democratic party doesn't want a democratic process, then it shouldn't pledge to be neutral, it shouldn't bother holding elections, and it shouldn't bother even accepting outside candidates to run against their candidates. But they want the pretense of caring about their base's input, so they do all of these things --and thus when they get caught breaking their own rules, it matters. If you don't agree with that, then you share the same sentiments towards democracy as fascists and communists do --see my signature.
Click to expand...

So when one individual does more work than another it is unfair to reward them for their efforts? That is basically what you are saying and it is not how things work in life or a democracy either. Bernie was free to become a Democrat, raise money for the DNC and push his candidacy for 8 years but he did not bother. In your mind you expected he would be handed the nomination based on the noise of his supporters alone? There would be no Democratic party if they acted that way and that is really what you want I'm afraid. So no the DNC is not totally oblivious to what it's members do to keep it alive and of course those that do the work reap the rewards. It is like the ants storing up food for the winter while the grasshopper watches. Bernie did not get the food because he did not help gather it. But like the grasshopper you just don't understand the concept so you scream CORRUPTION.
 
Last edited:
Surrealistik said:
Well the truth is that a 'moderate' is evidently not the way forward because many aggregates of polls conclusively and consistently say that the general electorate predominantly favours progressive legislation and keystones of Bernie's policy ideas, and by numbers that continually and substantially exceed margins of error.

Moreover, Clinton was a moderate Dem; she got beaten by literally the worst candidate the GOP ever fielded. It's not that the pendulum is swinging back to moderates, it's that it's swinging back to progressives. This isn't the time of Walter Mondale or George McGovern; there is no Cold War, McCarthyism is dead, people are fed up of good cop/bad cop corporatism and socialism is barely a dirty word anymore.

If we're serious about winning we'll actually listen to what the electorate says, and what the electorate is saying is that it wants:

A: Honest, straight shooting politicos not beholden to special interests.

B: People who genuinely represent the interests of the electorate.

C: Policy and campaign platforms that reflect the interests of the electorate, and most conspicuously progressive ideas like universal college and healthcare and responsibly implemented ways of paying for those things that also aim to tackle historic inequality.

To this end, the Democratic party and its politicians need to get serious about cleaning its house, be more aggressive about courting many small donors over corporations and wealthy individuals, and embrace policies proven both popular, and highly successful in the rest of the developed world.
Click to expand...
Nobody cares about the rest of the developed world. That's why on capital Hill they order Freedom Fries instead of French Fries.

You talk about special interest as though You are not a special interest. Support from special interest is just that, support. You don't turn your back on support nor can you take some kind of moral high ground because somebody is supported by special interest. If special interest is bad, you have to get rid of all of it, not just the ones that agree with you. Say byby to Planned Parenthood, trial lawyers, say byby to all the special interest trying to prevent global warming.

You simply are doing what I said. Weighting and rigging the system in your favor. Honestly, fairness to you isn't fair to someone else. Whoever is in power gets to change the system. Thats why Bernie should have done everything to win. His supporters didn't get that.

It's all about winning. I hope the demos win so they can stack the deck in my favor. But the deck is still going to get stacked. 12% of Bernie's voted for Trump. It cost us North Carolina, Pennsylvania, atleast. They wanted no part of Hillary so we lost and got Trump. A little bit of something is a whole lot better than a lot of nothing.

Your polls are wrong. People did not support Bernie or his ideas. He lost. It's his fault and to the Bernie's who voted for Trump, YOU VOTED FOR TRUMP. Need I say more?


Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk
 
Lutherf said:
It's astounding that after all the years and all the effort Hillary Clinton has put into public service that anyone would attempt to paint her as corrupt. This woman has healed the sick, fed the poor, raised up the oppressed and stood, shield in hand, against the army of naysayers who said she couldn't do it. Hillary is the one who blazed the path for woman such as Brazile and Warren. Without Hillary the plight of women in this nation would still be where it was 150 years ago. She is the chief custodian of the earth, mother to all nations, and lady justice for the races.

Some people just have no appreciation for how wonderful Hillary is.
Click to expand...

You left out "Savior of the pantsuits"
 
FieldTheorist said:
This is literally the entire problem with the "you Bernie Bros are all just sour grapes" mantra of the Perez/Clinton crowd. There is a clear path forward (admittedly, it's a leap of faith as all changes in direction are), but the notion that the Democratic party is going to function the way that it has for the past 20 years is as delusional as the position that Hillary could never lose to Trump. And the reality is, both of these ideas were cooked up in the same DC bubble. The Democratic party will continue to squander money, energy, resources, and public trust the longer it maintains that it does nothing wrong and deflects to how everyone else is a giant Russian stooge. Even if they were right that people were falling for Russian propaganda (and in some cases they are, but in certain very important cases they are not), it doesn't change the fact that Independents and the Left feel violated and betrayed by the DNC. Union members predominantly voted for Trump hoping to stop the TPP and get jobs back, Millennials voted against Hillary because she was standing in their way and talked down to them (and thus didn't turn for the general), minorities voted for Hillary in the primary enthusiastically but not in the general. Huge amounts of the middle of the country are being hollowed out and are susceptible to the worst propaganda against Democrats. Public opinion polling puts the DNC to the right of the US general populace on many major issues. The DNC is struggling to fund-raise amongst its usual corporate and high-power donor class in spite of Trump being elected. Everything is blowing up around them, and the only thing that they can do is just deny that there's anything wrong.

But somehow pointing out these systemic issues to Liberals means we're the bad guys and we're the ones who're impeding the Democratic party's chances. It's just so ass backwards.
Click to expand...

It really isn't that you are the "bad guys" just that you are helping them at a time when the last thing we need is more confusion. This is not even a left/right issue anymore but one of survival. We have an administration now who's only aim is to tear down everything we stand for and all you can do is complain how the DNC is not lefty enough for you. It show a lack of understanding of the situation and perhaps some reactionary pipe dreaming added in for good measure. No this is not the time to push for major swings in policy because it is likely to backfire at the most inopportune time imaginable. History is full of such folly. Irrational exuberance is not limited to the stock market.
 
Last edited:
Risky Thicket said:
There is no conspiracy and thus there is no need for one. The DNC clearly rigged the nomination process.

We can't know with certainty that Bernie would have won. I believe that he would have. Hillary and her cabal of bold deceivers obviously felt that it was a real possibility otherwise the deception wouldn't have occurred.

In my opinion the DNC is so screwed up Bernie would be and is wise enough to stay out of the cluster****.
Click to expand...

The thing is, Clinton would have won the Dem. nomination without gaming the system. She was the chosen one, the anointed, the Queen of Democrats and she was going to win no matter what. All this crap that was done was incredibly stupid, since she was going to win anyway. Reminds me of Watergate, when Nixon had the election in the bag and didn't need to wiretap anyone.
 
iguanaman said:
So when one individual does more work than another it is unfair to reward them for their efforts?
Click to expand...

Yes. If Bernie Sanders made the DNC one hundred million dollars, he shouldn't get preferential treatment over Hillary's 61 million because that's wildly undemocratic.

Either you value and trust the democratic process, or you don't. Either you honor the pledges you make or you don't. This isn't that hard.

That is basically what you are saying and it is not how things work in life or a democracy either. Bernie was free to become a Democrat, raise money for the DNC and push his candidacy for 8 years but he did not bother. In your mind you expected he would be handed the nomination based on the noise of his supporters alone? There would be no Democratic party if they acted that way and that is really what you want I'm afraid. No the DNC is not totally oblivious to what it's members do to keep it alive and of course those that do the work reap the rewards. It is like the ants storing up food for the winter while the grasshopper watches. Bernie did not get the food because he did not help gather it.
Click to expand...

Bernie had raised money for the DNC over the years. Not at the level as Clinton, but I've already addressed the substance of this nonsense point. Feel free to respond to that.
 
iguanaman said:
It really isn't that you are the "bad guys" just that you are helping them at a time when the last thing we need is more confusion.
Click to expand...

Who are we confusing? What are we confusing? How does this repudiate anything that I said?
 
faithful_servant said:
The thing is, Clinton would have won the Dem. nomination without gaming the system. She was the chosen one, the anointed, the Queen of Democrats and she was going to win no matter what. All this crap that was done was incredibly stupid, since she was going to win anyway. Reminds me of Watergate, when Nixon had the election in the bag and didn't need to wiretap anyone.
Click to expand...

All the crap from Hillary to Debbie Wasserman Schultz highlighted glaring character flaws. It was incredibly stupid. Was I surprised? Hell, no. Were your surprised? It doesn't seem that you were.

We do not know, we will never know. But I'd put money on more people not voting for Hillary because they knew she'd turd on the Democratic Party than people who believed that she was the Second Coming. Would Bernie have won without Hillary and Debbie Wasserman Schultz putting the bamboozle on the Democratic Campaign? Yes, I believe Bernie would have won.

Has the Democratic Party changed since Hillary Clinton ****ed everybody and lost herself? No, it doesn't look like it has changed much at all.

The Democratic Party left the American people a while back just as the Republican Party left the American people a while back. Both parties sold their asses to the devil and never turned around to view the damage. America hardly matters to either ruling political party.

If you are expecting me to defend either party, you are talking to the wrong man.
 
Brazile is a self-serving hag and racist, but clearly she's also taken the role as whistleblower in a deeply corrupt party that she sees gave the election away due to the deep corruption.

I think she's probably also a Bernie loyalist who made discoveries that left her feeling deeply burned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom