Dem Party

13435363840

Comments

  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWestPosts: 12,207
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    The super delegates went with Clinton long before the voters chose her.

    Don't blame Bernie's supporters for HRC's inability to win people over. For years we heard how electable she was. It was bullshit all along and the people who peddled that bullshit should look in a mirror and accept the role they played in bringing Donald Trump to power. Scapegoating Bernie supporters is just denial and avoidance.
    Super delegates committed to HRC in 2008, but then pulled back and voted for Obama.  Super delegates also committed to Obama well before the convention.  I'm not arguing that Hillary was the best candidate for the general (Biden was), but what I am saying is that the process was set and played out, and it was respected in 2008.  It was not in 2012.

    Are you arguing that the super delegates should have voted for Sanders even though he won 11 fewer states and received 3 million few votes?  Is THAT your argument?  
    My argument is that super delegates going with Clinton had nothing at all to do with voters. HRC was their choice early, often and throughout. It has nothing at all to do with Bernie.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,517
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    The super delegates went with Clinton long before the voters chose her.

    Don't blame Bernie's supporters for HRC's inability to win people over. For years we heard how electable she was. It was bullshit all along and the people who peddled that bullshit should look in a mirror and accept the role they played in bringing Donald Trump to power. Scapegoating Bernie supporters is just denial and avoidance.
    Super delegates committed to HRC in 2008, but then pulled back and voted for Obama.  Super delegates also committed to Obama well before the convention.  I'm not arguing that Hillary was the best candidate for the general (Biden was), but what I am saying is that the process was set and played out, and it was respected in 2008.  It was not in 2012.

    Are you arguing that the super delegates should have voted for Sanders even though he won 11 fewer states and received 3 million few votes?  Is THAT your argument?  
    My argument is that super delegates going with Clinton had nothing at all to do with voters. HRC was their choice early, often and throughout. It has nothing at all to do with Bernie.
    Fuck the supers.  That's a false argument here.  Hillary won 3 million more voters and 11 more states.  Bernie competed in every contest until the end.  He didn't concede.  If there were no supers, Hillary wins still.  The only argument is that somehow the super delegates that committed somehow convinced voters that would otherwise vote for Bernie, to vote for Hillary.  And not only is that un-provable, but it also stretches credulity.  
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWestPosts: 12,207
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    The super delegates went with Clinton long before the voters chose her.

    Don't blame Bernie's supporters for HRC's inability to win people over. For years we heard how electable she was. It was bullshit all along and the people who peddled that bullshit should look in a mirror and accept the role they played in bringing Donald Trump to power. Scapegoating Bernie supporters is just denial and avoidance.
    Super delegates committed to HRC in 2008, but then pulled back and voted for Obama.  Super delegates also committed to Obama well before the convention.  I'm not arguing that Hillary was the best candidate for the general (Biden was), but what I am saying is that the process was set and played out, and it was respected in 2008.  It was not in 2012.

    Are you arguing that the super delegates should have voted for Sanders even though he won 11 fewer states and received 3 million few votes?  Is THAT your argument?  
    My argument is that super delegates going with Clinton had nothing at all to do with voters. HRC was their choice early, often and throughout. It has nothing at all to do with Bernie.
    Fuck the supers.  That's a false argument here.  Hillary won 3 million more voters and 11 more states.  Bernie competed in every contest until the end.  He didn't concede.  If there were no supers, Hillary wins still.  The only argument is that somehow the super delegates that committed somehow convinced voters that would otherwise vote for Bernie, to vote for Hillary.  And not only is that un-provable, but it also stretches credulity.  
    What stretches credulity is to pretend, as you did, that the super delegates in 2016 were simply reflecting the will of the voters.

    "The voters chose Obama and then the super delegates went with them.  The voters also chose HRC and the super delegates went with them."

    Clinton was the party's choice long before you or I cast our primary vote. That has nothing to do with Bernie Sanders.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    What is this process that your refer to? I would love to learn more about it.
     
    Anyone who thinks that:
    1. Hilliary wasn't "the chosen one" back in 2007
    2. The Supers follow voters (many of which pledge before a vote is cast!)
    3. That "the process" was NOT the very reason voters were disenfranchised
    is
    1. lying to themselves
    2. knows it to be true but is "dishonest"
    3. A Hill-bot/Brock-bot
    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,517
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    The super delegates went with Clinton long before the voters chose her.

    Don't blame Bernie's supporters for HRC's inability to win people over. For years we heard how electable she was. It was bullshit all along and the people who peddled that bullshit should look in a mirror and accept the role they played in bringing Donald Trump to power. Scapegoating Bernie supporters is just denial and avoidance.
    Super delegates committed to HRC in 2008, but then pulled back and voted for Obama.  Super delegates also committed to Obama well before the convention.  I'm not arguing that Hillary was the best candidate for the general (Biden was), but what I am saying is that the process was set and played out, and it was respected in 2008.  It was not in 2012.

    Are you arguing that the super delegates should have voted for Sanders even though he won 11 fewer states and received 3 million few votes?  Is THAT your argument?  
    My argument is that super delegates going with Clinton had nothing at all to do with voters. HRC was their choice early, often and throughout. It has nothing at all to do with Bernie.
    Fuck the supers.  That's a false argument here.  Hillary won 3 million more voters and 11 more states.  Bernie competed in every contest until the end.  He didn't concede.  If there were no supers, Hillary wins still.  The only argument is that somehow the super delegates that committed somehow convinced voters that would otherwise vote for Bernie, to vote for Hillary.  And not only is that un-provable, but it also stretches credulity.  
    What stretches credulity is to pretend, as you did, that the super delegates in 2016 were simply reflecting the will of the voters.

    "The voters chose Obama and then the super delegates went with them.  The voters also chose HRC and the super delegates went with them."

    Clinton was the party's choice long before you or I cast our primary vote. That has nothing to do with Bernie Sanders.
    It also has nothing to do with Hillary being the candidate.  The SD's were created, wisely, to avoid another McGovern disaster.  Using 2008 as an easy reference, when Obama started winning the primaries, the SD's flowed over to him.  Had Sanders been winning primaries at the same clip, there's no reason to believe they would not have moved to Sanders.  We have evidence and a historical precedent.  None of what you say changes the fact that the majority of states and actual voters went with HRC.  


  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,517
    edited May 10
    The irony, of course, is the SD's were the only way Sanders could possibly win.  Yet, if they SD's went with Sanders (despite the the popular vote and majority of victories), that would be very anti-Democratic process that is being decried.  
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWestPosts: 12,207
    Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

    As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

    If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,517
    JimmyV said:
    Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

    As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

    If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.
    It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite.  I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process.  I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.  
    There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.  
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWestPosts: 12,207
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

    As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

    If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.
    It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite.  I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process.  I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.  
    There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.  
    For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,517
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

    As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

    If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.
    It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite.  I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process.  I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.  
    There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.  
    For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.
    Then what, precisely is it about?  What are you advocating for here?
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWestPosts: 12,207
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

    As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

    If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.
    It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite.  I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process.  I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.  
    There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.  
    For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.
    Then what, precisely is it about?  What are you advocating for here?
    A robust crop of candidates. Not one "inevitable" choice.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,517
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

    As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

    If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.
    It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite.  I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process.  I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.  
    There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.  
    For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.
    Then what, precisely is it about?  What are you advocating for here?
    A robust crop of candidates. Not one "inevitable" choice.
    Sure, okay.  I don't think anyone is against that.  But Sanders was a pretty powerful candidate for a non-Democrat and he still didn't win.  But yea, I'm for it.  I'm also for keeping SD's, in the event that the alter-ego to Trump rises from the left.  
  • pjhawkspjhawks Posts: 8,790
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

    As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

    If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.
    It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite.  I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process.  I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.  
    There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.  
    For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.
    Then what, precisely is it about?  What are you advocating for here?
    A robust crop of candidates. Not one "inevitable" choice.
    if the Republicans had done this we wouldn't be stuck with President FuckTard.  An inevitable choice by the republicans would look a shit load better than what we got now.
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,517
    pjhawks said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

    As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

    If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.
    It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite.  I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process.  I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.  
    There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.  
    For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.
    Then what, precisely is it about?  What are you advocating for here?
    A robust crop of candidates. Not one "inevitable" choice.
    if the Republicans had done this we wouldn't be stuck with President FuckTard.  An inevitable choice by the republicans would look a shit load better than what we got now.
    The GOP actually had a big field of very different candidates.  Unfortunately the decades of appealing to the least common denominator manifested into Trump.  Having super delegates may have saved us from this mess..  
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,517
    I would have been fine waking up to President Kasich every morning on Fox and Friends.  I may not agree with much of what he does, but it's rational, thoughtful and he possesses empathy.  
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 11,249
    mrussel1 said:
    I would have been fine waking up to President Kasich every morning on Fox and Friends.  I may not agree with much of what he does, but it's rational, thoughtful and he possesses empathy.  
    One can only dream.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWestPosts: 12,207
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

    As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

    If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.
    It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite.  I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process.  I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.  
    There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.  
    For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.
    Then what, precisely is it about?  What are you advocating for here?
    A robust crop of candidates. Not one "inevitable" choice.
    Sure, okay.  I don't think anyone is against that.  But Sanders was a pretty powerful candidate for a non-Democrat and he still didn't win.  But yea, I'm for it.  I'm also for keeping SD's, in the event that the alter-ego to Trump rises from the left.  
    We live in a far more polarized country today than we did in 1972 or 1984. A disasterous candidate today wouldn't produce an electoral map like we saw then. Turn Colorado and Virginia red but otherwise it would look a lot like it did in 2016. I don't think superdelegates are saving us from much of anything. Quite the opposite actually.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWestPosts: 12,207
    pjhawks said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

    As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

    If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.
    It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite.  I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process.  I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.  
    There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.  
    For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.
    Then what, precisely is it about?  What are you advocating for here?
    A robust crop of candidates. Not one "inevitable" choice.
    if the Republicans had done this we wouldn't be stuck with President FuckTard.  An inevitable choice by the republicans would look a shit load better than what we got now.
    And if the Democrats had done this we might be able to say the same.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,517
    JimmyV said:
    pjhawks said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

    As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

    If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.
    It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite.  I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process.  I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.  
    There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.  
    For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.
    Then what, precisely is it about?  What are you advocating for here?
    A robust crop of candidates. Not one "inevitable" choice.
    if the Republicans had done this we wouldn't be stuck with President FuckTard.  An inevitable choice by the republicans would look a shit load better than what we got now.
    And if the Democrats had done this we might be able to say the same.
    You call them "Democrats".  They are also called "voters". 
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWestPosts: 12,207
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    pjhawks said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

    As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

    If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.
    It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite.  I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process.  I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.  
    There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.  
    For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.
    Then what, precisely is it about?  What are you advocating for here?
    A robust crop of candidates. Not one "inevitable" choice.
    if the Republicans had done this we wouldn't be stuck with President FuckTard.  An inevitable choice by the republicans would look a shit load better than what we got now.
    And if the Democrats had done this we might be able to say the same.
    You call them "Democrats".  They are also called "voters". 
    Really? "Voters" decided who was and was not part of the Democratic field? That doesn't even make sense. The Clinton machine swallowed up the donors and the power brokers months before anyone voted. There was no path for a Biden or a Warren or an anyone else.
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,517
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    pjhawks said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

    As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

    If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.
    It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite.  I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process.  I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.  
    There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.  
    For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.
    Then what, precisely is it about?  What are you advocating for here?
    A robust crop of candidates. Not one "inevitable" choice.
    if the Republicans had done this we wouldn't be stuck with President FuckTard.  An inevitable choice by the republicans would look a shit load better than what we got now.
    And if the Democrats had done this we might be able to say the same.
    You call them "Democrats".  They are also called "voters". 
    Really? "Voters" decided who was and was not part of the Democratic field? That doesn't even make sense. The Clinton machine swallowed up the donors and the power brokers months before anyone voted. There was no path for a Biden or a Warren or an anyone else.
    That's a cop out.  Donors hedge their bets and spread their money.  Warren and Biden decided on their own that they were not going to run.  Biden ran against Clinton and Obama in 2008.  Either of them could have drummed up support to make a move.  
  • JimmyVJimmyV Boston's MetroWestPosts: 12,207
    edited May 10
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    pjhawks said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

    As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

    If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.
    It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite.  I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process.  I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.  
    There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.  
    For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.
    Then what, precisely is it about?  What are you advocating for here?
    A robust crop of candidates. Not one "inevitable" choice.
    if the Republicans had done this we wouldn't be stuck with President FuckTard.  An inevitable choice by the republicans would look a shit load better than what we got now.
    And if the Democrats had done this we might be able to say the same.
    You call them "Democrats".  They are also called "voters". 
    Really? "Voters" decided who was and was not part of the Democratic field? That doesn't even make sense. The Clinton machine swallowed up the donors and the power brokers months before anyone voted. There was no path for a Biden or a Warren or an anyone else.
    That's a cop out.  Donors hedge their bets and spread their money.  Warren and Biden decided on their own that they were not going to run.  Biden ran against Clinton and Obama in 2008.  Either of them could have drummed up support to make a move.  
    It's hardly a cop out. 2016 was not 2008 or 2004 or 1992 or any other year in which the Democrats had a wide open field.  
    Post edited by JimmyV on
    ___________________________________________

    "...I changed by not changing at all..."
  • pjhawkspjhawks Posts: 8,790
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    pjhawks said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

    As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

    If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.
    It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite.  I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process.  I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.  
    There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.  
    For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.
    Then what, precisely is it about?  What are you advocating for here?
    A robust crop of candidates. Not one "inevitable" choice.
    if the Republicans had done this we wouldn't be stuck with President FuckTard.  An inevitable choice by the republicans would look a shit load better than what we got now.
    And if the Democrats had done this we might be able to say the same.
    You call them "Democrats".  They are also called "voters". 
    Really? "Voters" decided who was and was not part of the Democratic field? That doesn't even make sense. The Clinton machine swallowed up the donors and the power brokers months before anyone voted. There was no path for a Biden or a Warren or an anyone else.
    Biden didn't run because his son died. 
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    pjhawks said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    pjhawks said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

    As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

    If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.
    It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite.  I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process.  I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.  
    There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.  
    For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.
    Then what, precisely is it about?  What are you advocating for here?
    A robust crop of candidates. Not one "inevitable" choice.
    if the Republicans had done this we wouldn't be stuck with President FuckTard.  An inevitable choice by the republicans would look a shit load better than what we got now.
    And if the Democrats had done this we might be able to say the same.
    You call them "Democrats".  They are also called "voters". 
    Really? "Voters" decided who was and was not part of the Democratic field? That doesn't even make sense. The Clinton machine swallowed up the donors and the power brokers months before anyone voted. There was no path for a Biden or a Warren or an anyone else.
    Biden didn't run because his son died. 
    i really do believe it! i really do!
    She was great last night. Thanks for inviting me into the campaign, and for sticking with me during the Biden anxiety. You are a great friend and a great leader. It's been a little hard for me to play such a role in the Biden demise - and I am definitely dead to them -- but I'm glad to be on Team HRC, and glad that she had a great debate last night. Thanks John.
    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5690




    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    pjhawks said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

    As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

    If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.
    It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite.  I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process.  I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.  
    There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.  
    For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.
    Then what, precisely is it about?  What are you advocating for here?
    A robust crop of candidates. Not one "inevitable" choice.
    if the Republicans had done this we wouldn't be stuck with President FuckTard.  An inevitable choice by the republicans would look a shit load better than what we got now.
    And if the Democrats had done this we might be able to say the same.
    You call them "Democrats".  They are also called "voters". 
    Really? "Voters" decided who was and was not part of the Democratic field? That doesn't even make sense. The Clinton machine swallowed up the donors and the power brokers months before anyone voted. There was no path for a Biden or a Warren or an anyone else.
    That's a cop out.  Donors hedge their bets and spread their money.  Warren and Biden decided on their own that they were not going to run.  Biden ran against Clinton and Obama in 2008.  Either of them could have drummed up support to make a mov"e.  
    "hedge bets"
    To the donor class its a no risk gamble, I lose, I win, you LOSE, I still win!
    Raise your hand if you are the donor class! (mruss schilling 4 tha donor class)
    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,517
    Truly horrible on John Podesta, particularly when compared to your guy,  Trump.  
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 15,951
    I’m sensing some Team “There was no collusion” Trump Treason news dropping soon. 3D being busy in da boiler room, yo!
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    mrussel1 said:
    Truly horrible on John Podesta, particularly when compared to your guy,  Trump.  
    Gish Gallop, Distort, Distract, Deflect
    Haven't I tried helping your hapless party for months on end, I couldn't convince you after 18 straight months revealing just how corrupt your Heiress was? In 6 short months Ill again explain why you and your party failed again...give me another chance. When will you realize I'm on your side?
    I'm betting that shorty after the mid-terms this thread will also be (perpetually) "closed for review"!
    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • JC29856JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    edited May 11
    JC29856 said:
    pjhawks said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    pjhawks said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    mrussel1 said:
    JimmyV said:
    Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

    As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

    If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.
    It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite.  I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process.  I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.  
    There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.  
    For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.
    Then what, precisely is it about?  What are you advocating for here?
    A robust crop of candidates. Not one "inevitable" choice.
    if the Republicans had done this we wouldn't be stuck with President FuckTard.  An inevitable choice by the republicans would look a shit load better than what we got now.
    And if the Democrats had done this we might be able to say the same.
    You call them "Democrats".  They are also called "voters". 
    Really? "Voters" decided who was and was not part of the Democratic field? That doesn't even make sense. The Clinton machine swallowed up the donors and the power brokers months before anyone voted. There was no path for a Biden or a Warren or an anyone else.
    Biden didn't run because his son died. 
    i really do believe it! i really do!
    She was great last night. Thanks for inviting me into the campaign, and for sticking with me during the Biden anxiety. You are a great friend and a great leader. It's been a little hard for me to play such a role in the Biden demise - and I am definitely dead to them -- but I'm glad to be on Team HRC, and glad that she had a great debate last night. Thanks John.
    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5690




    Raise your hand if you would enjoy a COCKtail or two while Skippy "plays" with your kid "in that pool"!

    https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/10052
    Why the ages? Its chilly!
    I am popping >> up again to share our excitement about the Reprise of Our Gang’s visit to >> the farm in Lovettsville. And I thought I’d share a couple more notes: >> We plan to heat the pool, so a swim is a possibility. Bonnie will be >> Uber Service to transport Ruby, Emerson, and Maeve Luzzatto (11, 9, and >> almost 7) so you’ll have some further entertainment, and they will be in >> that pool for sure. And with the forecast showing prospects of some sun, >> and a cooler temp of lower 60s, I suggest you bring sweaters of whatever >> attire will enable us to use our outdoor table with a pergola overhead so >> we dine al fresco (and ideally not al-CHILLo).


    Post edited by JC29856 on
    “I used to spend a lot of time in this room...back when it was a shit hole and I was a shit head.”
    big·otˈbiɡət/ noun: a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
    big·ot·ryˈbiɡətrē/ noun: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 9,517
    JC29856 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Truly horrible on John Podesta, particularly when compared to your guy,  Trump.  
    Gish Gallop, Distort, Distract, Deflect
    Haven't I tried helping your hapless party for months on end, I couldn't convince you after 18 straight months revealing just how corrupt your Heiress was? In 6 short months Ill again explain why you and your party failed again...give me another chance. When will you realize I'm on your side?
    I'm betting that shorty after the mid-terms this thread will also be (perpetually) "closed for review"!
    You traffic in lies,  distortions,  and false equivalency.  You are just doing your little part to try and create dissent in the progressives to advance your alt right agenda.  No one is fooled here.  Free may have been misguided and the epitome of a Bernie bro, but he wasn't duplicitous. 
Sign In or Register to comment.