should I make my predictions on the responses from the Hill-bot email list'ers? For now Ill quote the democratic leader Pelosi:
“I don’t know that a person can tape a person without the person’s consent and then release it to the press,” Pelosi told reporters today. “In terms of candidates and campaigns I
don’t see anything inappropriate in what Mr. Hoyer was engaged in — a
conversation about the realities of life in the race as to who can make
the general election.”
Here is the Democrats strategy to WINNING (worked so well over the past 10 years or so!) We're openly and admitting to rigging the "democratic primaries" (against progressives) because that's the best chance for "us" to "win". wait what? The proof and the reason why democratic voters should "trust their process"? 1000 SEATS AND HILLIARY CLINTON! Now I see why Hilliary email list is worth so much money! I should try to buy some or all of that list, I too have a few things to sell them
should I make my predictions on the responses from the Hill-bot email list'ers? For now Ill quote the democratic leader Pelosi:
“I don’t know that a person can tape a person without the person’s consent and then release it to the press,” Pelosi told reporters today. “In terms of candidates and campaigns I
don’t see anything inappropriate in what Mr. Hoyer was engaged in — a
conversation about the realities of life in the race as to who can make
the general election.”
Here is the Democrats strategy to WINNING (worked so well over the past 10 years or so!) We're openly and admitting to rigging the "democratic primaries" (against progressives) because that's the best chance for "us" to "win". wait what? The proof and the reason why democratic voters should "trust their process"? 1000 SEATS AND HILLIARY CLINTON! Now I see why Hilliary email list is worth so much money! I should try to buy some or all of that list, I too have a few things to sell them
You clearly don’t understand internal party politics of either party.
should I make my predictions on the responses from the Hill-bot email list'ers? For now Ill quote the democratic leader Pelosi:
“I don’t know that a person can tape a person without the person’s consent and then release it to the press,” Pelosi told reporters today. “In terms of candidates and campaigns I
don’t see anything inappropriate in what Mr. Hoyer was engaged in — a
conversation about the realities of life in the race as to who can make
the general election.”
Here is the Democrats strategy to WINNING (worked so well over the past 10 years or so!) We're openly and admitting to rigging the "democratic primaries" (against progressives) because that's the best chance for "us" to "win". wait what? The proof and the reason why democratic voters should "trust their process"? 1000 SEATS AND HILLIARY CLINTON! Now I see why Hilliary email list is worth so much money! I should try to buy some or all of that list, I too have a few things to sell them
You clearly don’t understand internal party politics of either party.
should I make my predictions on the responses from the Hill-bot email list'ers? For now Ill quote the democratic leader Pelosi:
“I don’t know that a person can tape a person without the person’s consent and then release it to the press,” Pelosi told reporters today. “In terms of candidates and campaigns I
don’t see anything inappropriate in what Mr. Hoyer was engaged in — a
conversation about the realities of life in the race as to who can make
the general election.”
Here is the Democrats strategy to WINNING (worked so well over the past 10 years or so!) We're openly and admitting to rigging the "democratic primaries" (against progressives) because that's the best chance for "us" to "win". wait what? The proof and the reason why democratic voters should "trust their process"? 1000 SEATS AND HILLIARY CLINTON! Now I see why Hilliary email list is worth so much money! I should try to buy some or all of that list, I too have a few things to sell them
You clearly don’t understand internal party politics of either party.
should I make my predictions on the responses from the Hill-bot email list'ers? For now Ill quote the democratic leader Pelosi:
“I don’t know that a person can tape a person without the person’s consent and then release it to the press,” Pelosi told reporters today. “In terms of candidates and campaigns I
don’t see anything inappropriate in what Mr. Hoyer was engaged in — a
conversation about the realities of life in the race as to who can make
the general election.”
Here is the Democrats strategy to WINNING (worked so well over the past 10 years or so!) We're openly and admitting to rigging the "democratic primaries" (against progressives) because that's the best chance for "us" to "win". wait what? The proof and the reason why democratic voters should "trust their process"? 1000 SEATS AND HILLIARY CLINTON! Now I see why Hilliary email list is worth so much money! I should try to buy some or all of that list, I too have a few things to sell them
You clearly don’t understand internal party politics of either party.
I understand this!
Love the poor English. You need to step up your ESL classes, comrade.
should I make my predictions on the responses from the Hill-bot email list'ers? For now Ill quote the democratic leader Pelosi:
“I don’t know that a person can tape a person without the person’s consent and then release it to the press,” Pelosi told reporters today. “In terms of candidates and campaigns I
don’t see anything inappropriate in what Mr. Hoyer was engaged in — a
conversation about the realities of life in the race as to who can make
the general election.”
Here is the Democrats strategy to WINNING (worked so well over the past 10 years or so!) We're openly and admitting to rigging the "democratic primaries" (against progressives) because that's the best chance for "us" to "win". wait what? The proof and the reason why democratic voters should "trust their process"? 1000 SEATS AND HILLIARY CLINTON! Now I see why Hilliary email list is worth so much money! I should try to buy some or all of that list, I too have a few things to sell them
In determining candidates, if I had to choose between a self-serving select few and the largely uneducated and/or ignorant population - I don't know which is less bad. Why do you feel the population is the lesser of two evils?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
should I make my predictions on the responses from the Hill-bot email list'ers? For now Ill quote the democratic leader Pelosi:
“I don’t know that a person can tape a person without the person’s consent and then release it to the press,” Pelosi told reporters today. “In terms of candidates and campaigns I
don’t see anything inappropriate in what Mr. Hoyer was engaged in — a
conversation about the realities of life in the race as to who can make
the general election.”
Here is the Democrats strategy to WINNING (worked so well over the past 10 years or so!) We're openly and admitting to rigging the "democratic primaries" (against progressives) because that's the best chance for "us" to "win". wait what? The proof and the reason why democratic voters should "trust their process"? 1000 SEATS AND HILLIARY CLINTON! Now I see why Hilliary email list is worth so much money! I should try to buy some or all of that list, I too have a few things to sell them
In determining candidates, if I had to choose between a self-serving select few and the largely uneducated and/or ignorant population - I don't know which is less bad. Why do you feel the population is the lesser of two evils?
Aren't you ignoring the point that the Democratic party leadership is shutting out progressive voices? Or do you think it is just coincidental that the progressives are rarely if ever backed (I posted a few examples, see Ironstache vs Myers, the guardian did an entire piece). I don't feel the population is the lesser of two evils, what make you assume that?
If you want a "system" whereby the primary candidates are chosen by a select few, for example a board, then describe how it would work and we can discuss it. I'm addressing the current system in place, whereby candidates run in a primary and the winner as determined by the voters runs against the "opposing" party(s) in the general.
If voters are too uneducated and ignorant for a thriving democracy, then have the Democratic party become a public company, that way shareholders have their say and the board of directors can choose the primary candidate (on behalf of their shareholders). This will do away with the charade of holding "democratic" primary elections and better yet save money on the primary elections while raising capital (publicly traded) for the party.
should I make my predictions on the responses from the Hill-bot email list'ers? For now Ill quote the democratic leader Pelosi:
“I don’t know that a person can tape a person without the person’s consent and then release it to the press,” Pelosi told reporters today. “In terms of candidates and campaigns I
don’t see anything inappropriate in what Mr. Hoyer was engaged in — a
conversation about the realities of life in the race as to who can make
the general election.”
Here is the Democrats strategy to WINNING (worked so well over the past 10 years or so!) We're openly and admitting to rigging the "democratic primaries" (against progressives) because that's the best chance for "us" to "win". wait what? The proof and the reason why democratic voters should "trust their process"? 1000 SEATS AND HILLIARY CLINTON! Now I see why Hilliary email list is worth so much money! I should try to buy some or all of that list, I too have a few things to sell them
In determining candidates, if I had to choose between a self-serving select few and the largely uneducated and/or ignorant population - I don't know which is less bad. Why do you feel the population is the lesser of two evils?
Aren't you ignoring the point that the Democratic party leadership is shutting out progressive voices? Or do you think it is just coincidental that the progressives are rarely if ever backed (I posted a few examples, see Ironstache vs Myers, the guardian did an entire piece). I don't feel the population is the lesser of two evils, what make you assume that?
If you want a "system" whereby the primary candidates are chosen by a select few, for example a board, then describe how it would work and we can discuss it. I'm addressing the current system in place, whereby candidates run in a primary and the winner as determined by the voters runs against the "opposing" party(s) in the general.
If voters are too uneducated and ignorant for a thriving democracy, then have the Democratic party become a public company, that way shareholders have their say and the board of directors can choose the primary candidate (on behalf of their shareholders). This will do away with the charade of holding "democratic" primary elections and better yet save money on the primary elections while raising capital (publicly traded) for the party.
should I make my predictions on the responses from the Hill-bot email list'ers? For now Ill quote the democratic leader Pelosi:
“I don’t know that a person can tape a person without the person’s consent and then release it to the press,” Pelosi told reporters today. “In terms of candidates and campaigns I
don’t see anything inappropriate in what Mr. Hoyer was engaged in — a
conversation about the realities of life in the race as to who can make
the general election.”
Here is the Democrats strategy to WINNING (worked so well over the past 10 years or so!) We're openly and admitting to rigging the "democratic primaries" (against progressives) because that's the best chance for "us" to "win". wait what? The proof and the reason why democratic voters should "trust their process"? 1000 SEATS AND HILLIARY CLINTON! Now I see why Hilliary email list is worth so much money! I should try to buy some or all of that list, I too have a few things to sell them
In determining candidates, if I had to choose between a self-serving select few and the largely uneducated and/or ignorant population - I don't know which is less bad. Why do you feel the population is the lesser of two evils?
Aren't you ignoring the point that the Democratic party leadership is shutting out progressive voices? Or do you think it is just coincidental that the progressives are rarely if ever backed (I posted a few examples, see Ironstache vs Myers, the guardian did an entire piece). I don't feel the population is the lesser of two evils, what make you assume that?
If you want a "system" whereby the primary candidates are chosen by a select few, for example a board, then describe how it would work and we can discuss it. I'm addressing the current system in place, whereby candidates run in a primary and the winner as determined by the voters runs against the "opposing" party(s) in the general.
If voters are too uneducated and ignorant for a thriving democracy, then have the Democratic party become a public company, that way shareholders have their say and the board of directors can choose the primary candidate (on behalf of their shareholders). This will do away with the charade of holding "democratic" primary elections and better yet save money on the primary elections while raising capital (publicly traded) for the party.
That would take us back to the "originalist" intent. The Founding Fathers had no faith in the people and only slightly more faith in the HOR (the "rabble"). Direct democracies and open "primaries (a word never seen in the document) was never the intent. The party, whether it be Democratic or Republican, has always been a club, one that has its own rules and procedures on how it selects the candidates that bear its letter (D/R) next to the name for an election. You act as if the Republicans are any different in how they run their club. In fact, their process at convention has its own set of rules to allow it to torpedo a candidate that it doesn't want.
should I make my predictions on the responses from the Hill-bot email list'ers? For now Ill quote the democratic leader Pelosi:
“I don’t know that a person can tape a person without the person’s consent and then release it to the press,” Pelosi told reporters today. “In terms of candidates and campaigns I
don’t see anything inappropriate in what Mr. Hoyer was engaged in — a
conversation about the realities of life in the race as to who can make
the general election.”
Here is the Democrats strategy to WINNING (worked so well over the past 10 years or so!) We're openly and admitting to rigging the "democratic primaries" (against progressives) because that's the best chance for "us" to "win". wait what? The proof and the reason why democratic voters should "trust their process"? 1000 SEATS AND HILLIARY CLINTON! Now I see why Hilliary email list is worth so much money! I should try to buy some or all of that list, I too have a few things to sell them
In determining candidates, if I had to choose between a self-serving select few and the largely uneducated and/or ignorant population - I don't know which is less bad. Why do you feel the population is the lesser of two evils?
Aren't you ignoring the point that the Democratic party leadership is shutting out progressive voices? Or do you think it is just coincidental that the progressives are rarely if ever backed (I posted a few examples, see Ironstache vs Myers, the guardian did an entire piece). I don't feel the population is the lesser of two evils, what make you assume that?
If you want a "system" whereby the primary candidates are chosen by a select few, for example a board, then describe how it would work and we can discuss it. I'm addressing the current system in place, whereby candidates run in a primary and the winner as determined by the voters runs against the "opposing" party(s) in the general.
If voters are too uneducated and ignorant for a thriving democracy, then have the Democratic party become a public company, that way shareholders have their say and the board of directors can choose the primary candidate (on behalf of their shareholders). This will do away with the charade of holding "democratic" primary elections and better yet save money on the primary elections while raising capital (publicly traded) for the party.
That would take us back to the "originalist" intent. The Founding Fathers had no faith in the people and only slightly more faith in the HOR (the "rabble"). Direct democracies and open "primaries (a word never seen in the document) was never the intent. The party, whether it be Democratic or Republican, has always been a club, one that has its own rules and procedures on how it selects the candidates that bear its letter (D/R) next to the name for an election. You act as if the Republicans are any different in how they run their club. In fact, their process at convention has its own set of rules to allow it to torpedo a candidate that it doesn't want.
Our comrade in arms has no clue how party politics work and the role the parties play at the local, state and national level. It appears 3D has gone back to being a butt hurt Bernie bro. Connecting dots lost it’s appeal a long time ago. Ever since Comet Pizza and spirited child sex slaves from Haiti didn’t “speak for themselves.”
should I make my predictions on the responses from the Hill-bot email list'ers? For now Ill quote the democratic leader Pelosi:
“I don’t know that a person can tape a person without the person’s consent and then release it to the press,” Pelosi told reporters today. “In terms of candidates and campaigns I
don’t see anything inappropriate in what Mr. Hoyer was engaged in — a
conversation about the realities of life in the race as to who can make
the general election.”
Here is the Democrats strategy to WINNING (worked so well over the past 10 years or so!) We're openly and admitting to rigging the "democratic primaries" (against progressives) because that's the best chance for "us" to "win". wait what? The proof and the reason why democratic voters should "trust their process"? 1000 SEATS AND HILLIARY CLINTON! Now I see why Hilliary email list is worth so much money! I should try to buy some or all of that list, I too have a few things to sell them
In determining candidates, if I had to choose between a self-serving select few and the largely uneducated and/or ignorant population - I don't know which is less bad. Why do you feel the population is the lesser of two evils?
Aren't you ignoring the point that the Democratic party leadership is shutting out progressive voices? Or do you think it is just coincidental that the progressives are rarely if ever backed (I posted a few examples, see Ironstache vs Myers, the guardian did an entire piece). I don't feel the population is the lesser of two evils, what make you assume that?
If you want a "system" whereby the primary candidates are chosen by a select few, for example a board, then describe how it would work and we can discuss it. I'm addressing the current system in place, whereby candidates run in a primary and the winner as determined by the voters runs against the "opposing" party(s) in the general.
If voters are too uneducated and ignorant for a thriving democracy, then have the Democratic party become a public company, that way shareholders have their say and the board of directors can choose the primary candidate (on behalf of their shareholders). This will do away with the charade of holding "democratic" primary elections and better yet save money on the primary elections while raising capital (publicly traded) for the party.
That would take us back to the "originalist" intent. The Founding Fathers had no faith in the people and only slightly more faith in the HOR (the "rabble"). Direct democracies and open "primaries (a word never seen in the document) was never the intent. The party, whether it be Democratic or Republican, has always been a club, one that has its own rules and procedures on how it selects the candidates that bear its letter (D/R) next to the name for an election. You act as if the Republicans are any different in how they run their club. In fact, their process at convention has its own set of rules to allow it to torpedo a candidate that it doesn't want.
Our comrade in arms has no clue how party politics work and the role the parties play at the local, state and national level. It appears 3D has gone back to being a butt hurt Bernie bro. Connecting dots lost it’s appeal a long time ago. Ever since Comet Pizza and spirited child sex slaves from Haiti didn’t “speak for themselves.”
Has our progressive Bernie bro criticized Trump once?
should I make my predictions on the responses from the Hill-bot email list'ers? For now Ill quote the democratic leader Pelosi:
“I don’t know that a person can tape a person without the person’s consent and then release it to the press,” Pelosi told reporters today. “In terms of candidates and campaigns I
don’t see anything inappropriate in what Mr. Hoyer was engaged in — a
conversation about the realities of life in the race as to who can make
the general election.”
Here is the Democrats strategy to WINNING (worked so well over the past 10 years or so!) We're openly and admitting to rigging the "democratic primaries" (against progressives) because that's the best chance for "us" to "win". wait what? The proof and the reason why democratic voters should "trust their process"? 1000 SEATS AND HILLIARY CLINTON! Now I see why Hilliary email list is worth so much money! I should try to buy some or all of that list, I too have a few things to sell them
In determining candidates, if I had to choose between a self-serving select few and the largely uneducated and/or ignorant population - I don't know which is less bad. Why do you feel the population is the lesser of two evils?
Aren't you ignoring the point that the Democratic party leadership is shutting out progressive voices? Or do you think it is just coincidental that the progressives are rarely if ever backed (I posted a few examples, see Ironstache vs Myers, the guardian did an entire piece). I don't feel the population is the lesser of two evils, what make you assume that?
If you want a "system" whereby the primary candidates are chosen by a select few, for example a board, then describe how it would work and we can discuss it. I'm addressing the current system in place, whereby candidates run in a primary and the winner as determined by the voters runs against the "opposing" party(s) in the general.
If voters are too uneducated and ignorant for a thriving democracy, then have the Democratic party become a public company, that way shareholders have their say and the board of directors can choose the primary candidate (on behalf of their shareholders). This will do away with the charade of holding "democratic" primary elections and better yet save money on the primary elections while raising capital (publicly traded) for the party.
That would take us back to the "originalist" intent. The Founding Fathers had no faith in the people and only slightly more faith in the HOR (the "rabble"). Direct democracies and open "primaries (a word never seen in the document) was never the intent. The party, whether it be Democratic or Republican, has always been a club, one that has its own rules and procedures on how it selects the candidates that bear its letter (D/R) next to the name for an election. You act as if the Republicans are any different in how they run their club. In fact, their process at convention has its own set of rules to allow it to torpedo a candidate that it doesn't want.
Our comrade in arms has no clue how party politics work and the role the parties play at the local, state and national level. It appears 3D has gone back to being a butt hurt Bernie bro. Connecting dots lost it’s appeal a long time ago. Ever since Comet Pizza and spirited child sex slaves from Haiti didn’t “speak for themselves.”
Has our progressive Bernie bro criticized Trump once?
should I make my predictions on the responses from the Hill-bot email list'ers? For now Ill quote the democratic leader Pelosi:
“I don’t know that a person can tape a person without the person’s consent and then release it to the press,” Pelosi told reporters today. “In terms of candidates and campaigns I
don’t see anything inappropriate in what Mr. Hoyer was engaged in — a
conversation about the realities of life in the race as to who can make
the general election.”
Here is the Democrats strategy to WINNING (worked so well over the past 10 years or so!) We're openly and admitting to rigging the "democratic primaries" (against progressives) because that's the best chance for "us" to "win". wait what? The proof and the reason why democratic voters should "trust their process"? 1000 SEATS AND HILLIARY CLINTON! Now I see why Hilliary email list is worth so much money! I should try to buy some or all of that list, I too have a few things to sell them
In determining candidates, if I had to choose between a self-serving select few and the largely uneducated and/or ignorant population - I don't know which is less bad. Why do you feel the population is the lesser of two evils?
Aren't you ignoring the point that the Democratic party leadership is shutting out progressive voices? Or do you think it is just coincidental that the progressives are rarely if ever backed (I posted a few examples, see Ironstache vs Myers, the guardian did an entire piece). I don't feel the population is the lesser of two evils, what make you assume that?
If you want a "system" whereby the primary candidates are chosen by a select few, for example a board, then describe how it would work and we can discuss it. I'm addressing the current system in place, whereby candidates run in a primary and the winner as determined by the voters runs against the "opposing" party(s) in the general.
If voters are too uneducated and ignorant for a thriving democracy, then have the Democratic party become a public company, that way shareholders have their say and the board of directors can choose the primary candidate (on behalf of their shareholders). This will do away with the charade of holding "democratic" primary elections and better yet save money on the primary elections while raising capital (publicly traded) for the party.
That would take us back to the "originalist" intent. The Founding Fathers had no faith in the people and only slightly more faith in the HOR (the "rabble"). Direct democracies and open "primaries (a word never seen in the document) was never the intent. The party, whether it be Democratic or Republican, has always been a club, one that has its own rules and procedures on how it selects the candidates that bear its letter (D/R) next to the name for an election. You act as if the Republicans are any different in how they run their club. In fact, their process at convention has its own set of rules to allow it to torpedo a candidate that it doesn't want.
Our comrade in arms has no clue how party politics work and the role the parties play at the local, state and national level. It appears 3D has gone back to being a butt hurt Bernie bro. Connecting dots lost it’s appeal a long time ago. Ever since Comet Pizza and spirited child sex slaves from Haiti didn’t “speak for themselves.”
Has our progressive Bernie bro criticized Trump once?
I think twice, when it was pointed out there was an overlap of sins with that foulest of demons known as HRC.
should I make my predictions on the responses from the Hill-bot email list'ers? For now Ill quote the democratic leader Pelosi:
“I don’t know that a person can tape a person without the person’s consent and then release it to the press,” Pelosi told reporters today. “In terms of candidates and campaigns I
don’t see anything inappropriate in what Mr. Hoyer was engaged in — a
conversation about the realities of life in the race as to who can make
the general election.”
Here is the Democrats strategy to WINNING (worked so well over the past 10 years or so!) We're openly and admitting to rigging the "democratic primaries" (against progressives) because that's the best chance for "us" to "win". wait what? The proof and the reason why democratic voters should "trust their process"? 1000 SEATS AND HILLIARY CLINTON! Now I see why Hilliary email list is worth so much money! I should try to buy some or all of that list, I too have a few things to sell them
In determining candidates, if I had to choose between a self-serving select few and the largely uneducated and/or ignorant population - I don't know which is less bad. Why do you feel the population is the lesser of two evils?
Aren't you ignoring the point that the Democratic party leadership is shutting out progressive voices? Or do you think it is just coincidental that the progressives are rarely if ever backed (I posted a few examples, see Ironstache vs Myers, the guardian did an entire piece). I don't feel the population is the lesser of two evils, what make you assume that?
If you want a "system" whereby the primary candidates are chosen by a select few, for example a board, then describe how it would work and we can discuss it. I'm addressing the current system in place, whereby candidates run in a primary and the winner as determined by the voters runs against the "opposing" party(s) in the general.
If voters are too uneducated and ignorant for a thriving democracy, then have the Democratic party become a public company, that way shareholders have their say and the board of directors can choose the primary candidate (on behalf of their shareholders). This will do away with the charade of holding "democratic" primary elections and better yet save money on the primary elections while raising capital (publicly traded) for the party.
That would take us back to the "originalist" intent. The Founding Fathers had no faith in the people and only slightly more faith in the HOR (the "rabble"). Direct democracies and open "primaries (a word never seen in the document) was never the intent. The party, whether it be Democratic or Republican, has always been a club, one that has its own rules and procedures on how it selects the candidates that bear its letter (D/R) next to the name for an election. You act as if the Republicans are any different in how they run their club. In fact, their process at convention has its own set of rules to allow it to torpedo a candidate that it doesn't want.
Our comrade in arms has no clue how party politics work and the role the parties play at the local, state and national level. It appears 3D has gone back to being a butt hurt Bernie bro. Connecting dots lost it’s appeal a long time ago. Ever since Comet Pizza and spirited child sex slaves from Haiti didn’t “speak for themselves.”
Has our progressive Bernie bro criticized Trump once?
I think twice, when it was pointed out there was an overlap of sins with that foulest of demons known as HRC.
"From the depths of hell and the blackest of hates..." - shout at the devil..
should I make my predictions on the responses from the Hill-bot email list'ers? For now Ill quote the democratic leader Pelosi:
“I don’t know that a person can tape a person without the person’s consent and then release it to the press,” Pelosi told reporters today. “In terms of candidates and campaigns I
don’t see anything inappropriate in what Mr. Hoyer was engaged in — a
conversation about the realities of life in the race as to who can make
the general election.”
Here is the Democrats strategy to WINNING (worked so well over the past 10 years or so!) We're openly and admitting to rigging the "democratic primaries" (against progressives) because that's the best chance for "us" to "win". wait what? The proof and the reason why democratic voters should "trust their process"? 1000 SEATS AND HILLIARY CLINTON! Now I see why Hilliary email list is worth so much money! I should try to buy some or all of that list, I too have a few things to sell them
In determining candidates, if I had to choose between a self-serving select few and the largely uneducated and/or ignorant population - I don't know which is less bad. Why do you feel the population is the lesser of two evils?
Aren't you ignoring the point that the Democratic party leadership is shutting out progressive voices? Or do you think it is just coincidental that the progressives are rarely if ever backed (I posted a few examples, see Ironstache vs Myers, the guardian did an entire piece). I don't feel the population is the lesser of two evils, what make you assume that?
If you want a "system" whereby the primary candidates are chosen by a select few, for example a board, then describe how it would work and we can discuss it. I'm addressing the current system in place, whereby candidates run in a primary and the winner as determined by the voters runs against the "opposing" party(s) in the general.
If voters are too uneducated and ignorant for a thriving democracy, then have the Democratic party become a public company, that way shareholders have their say and the board of directors can choose the primary candidate (on behalf of their shareholders). This will do away with the charade of holding "democratic" primary elections and better yet save money on the primary elections while raising capital (publicly traded) for the party.
I don't think I'm ignoring anything. With the current government structure in the US government, within the context of the federal republic, the democratic-ness of the system is defined by how much gatekeeping is done by the parties. As the gatekeeping functions of the parties are reduced (and please don't make it sound like ignoring progressive voices to assure a singular voice is an exclusively DNC affair), the democratic impact is heightened, and vice-versa.
The "Board of Directors" model you're referring to effectively is the DNC with its superdelegates (arguably your biggest problem with the system), so I'm not sure why you think that'd be preferable.
On the other side of the coin, the absence of the "Board of Directors" model is closer to the GOP with their lack of superdelegates.
Model A produced Hillary Clinton as a candidate. Model B produced Donald Trump as a candidate.
I'm not sure how anyone would read your lines and your disproportionate criticism of the DNC and its members, when compared to your hard-to-find GOP criticism, and disagree with my conclusion that you feel that the population is the lesser of two evils.
In my opinion, all roads lead to destruction.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I'm more concerned that the white house is shutting out sane voices. I think jc should be more concerned about that. Although I really do appreciate his ongoing concern with how progressives feel.
should I make my predictions on the responses from the Hill-bot email list'ers? For now Ill quote the democratic leader Pelosi:
“I don’t know that a person can tape a person without the person’s consent and then release it to the press,” Pelosi told reporters today. “In terms of candidates and campaigns I
don’t see anything inappropriate in what Mr. Hoyer was engaged in — a
conversation about the realities of life in the race as to who can make
the general election.”
Here is the Democrats strategy to WINNING (worked so well over the past 10 years or so!) We're openly and admitting to rigging the "democratic primaries" (against progressives) because that's the best chance for "us" to "win". wait what? The proof and the reason why democratic voters should "trust their process"? 1000 SEATS AND HILLIARY CLINTON! Now I see why Hilliary email list is worth so much money! I should try to buy some or all of that list, I too have a few things to sell them
In determining candidates, if I had to choose between a self-serving select few and the largely uneducated and/or ignorant population - I don't know which is less bad. Why do you feel the population is the lesser of two evils?
Aren't you ignoring the point that the Democratic party leadership is shutting out progressive voices? Or do you think it is just coincidental that the progressives are rarely if ever backed (I posted a few examples, see Ironstache vs Myers, the guardian did an entire piece). I don't feel the population is the lesser of two evils, what make you assume that?
If you want a "system" whereby the primary candidates are chosen by a select few, for example a board, then describe how it would work and we can discuss it. I'm addressing the current system in place, whereby candidates run in a primary and the winner as determined by the voters runs against the "opposing" party(s) in the general.
If voters are too uneducated and ignorant for a thriving democracy, then have the Democratic party become a public company, that way shareholders have their say and the board of directors can choose the primary candidate (on behalf of their shareholders). This will do away with the charade of holding "democratic" primary elections and better yet save money on the primary elections while raising capital (publicly traded) for the party.
I don't think I'm ignoring anything. With the current government structure in the US government, within the context of the federal republic, the democratic-ness of the system is defined by how much gatekeeping is done by the parties. As the gatekeeping functions of the parties are reduced (and please don't make it sound like ignoring progressive voices to assure a singular voice is an exclusively DNC affair), the democratic impact is heightened, and vice-versa.
The "Board of Directors" model you're referring to effectively is the DNC with its superdelegates (arguably your biggest problem with the system), so I'm not sure why you think that'd be preferable.
On the other side of the coin, the absence of the "Board of Directors" model is closer to the GOP with their lack of superdelegates.
Model A produced Hillary Clinton as a candidate. Model B produced Donald Trump as a candidate.
I'm not sure how anyone would read your lines and your disproportionate criticism of the DNC and its members, when compared to your hard-to-find GOP criticism, and disagree with my conclusion that you feel that the population is the lesser of two evils.
In my opinion, all roads lead to destruction.
My focus and discussion is specific to "primaries". Every post that I have made refers specifically to the DCCC and the Democratic party and their treatment of progressive voices/choices in the primaries.
Before I say anything else I must question your definition/opinion of the "democratic-ness" of US voting in primaries. Are you saying that gate-keeping by appointed party heads (not super-delegates) is more "democratic" than individuals with an equal vote in a system that represents all citizens? If so, your opinion is in a very very small minority.
I thought we didn't trust the crooked polls? Which is it?
Something about polls that is important.. it is using traditional turnout numbers as its baseline. So if either side turns out better or worse than traditionally, the actuals will move. That is why the state level 2016 numbers were wrong; the unlikely voters ended up voting. I wouldn't get too caught up in any polls this far out. The events of September and October will be more important than April and June. What we know so far is the Dem turnout numbers have been very strong in the elections (not primaries) that have taken place over the last several months.
should I make my predictions on the responses from the Hill-bot email list'ers? For now Ill quote the democratic leader Pelosi:
“I don’t know that a person can tape a person without the person’s consent and then release it to the press,” Pelosi told reporters today. “In terms of candidates and campaigns I
don’t see anything inappropriate in what Mr. Hoyer was engaged in — a
conversation about the realities of life in the race as to who can make
the general election.”
Here is the Democrats strategy to WINNING (worked so well over the past 10 years or so!) We're openly and admitting to rigging the "democratic primaries" (against progressives) because that's the best chance for "us" to "win". wait what? The proof and the reason why democratic voters should "trust their process"? 1000 SEATS AND HILLIARY CLINTON! Now I see why Hilliary email list is worth so much money! I should try to buy some or all of that list, I too have a few things to sell them
In determining candidates, if I had to choose between a self-serving select few and the largely uneducated and/or ignorant population - I don't know which is less bad. Why do you feel the population is the lesser of two evils?
Aren't you ignoring the point that the Democratic party leadership is shutting out progressive voices? Or do you think it is just coincidental that the progressives are rarely if ever backed (I posted a few examples, see Ironstache vs Myers, the guardian did an entire piece). I don't feel the population is the lesser of two evils, what make you assume that?
If you want a "system" whereby the primary candidates are chosen by a select few, for example a board, then describe how it would work and we can discuss it. I'm addressing the current system in place, whereby candidates run in a primary and the winner as determined by the voters runs against the "opposing" party(s) in the general.
If voters are too uneducated and ignorant for a thriving democracy, then have the Democratic party become a public company, that way shareholders have their say and the board of directors can choose the primary candidate (on behalf of their shareholders). This will do away with the charade of holding "democratic" primary elections and better yet save money on the primary elections while raising capital (publicly traded) for the party.
I don't think I'm ignoring anything. With the current government structure in the US government, within the context of the federal republic, the democratic-ness of the system is defined by how much gatekeeping is done by the parties. As the gatekeeping functions of the parties are reduced (and please don't make it sound like ignoring progressive voices to assure a singular voice is an exclusively DNC affair), the democratic impact is heightened, and vice-versa.
The "Board of Directors" model you're referring to effectively is the DNC with its superdelegates (arguably your biggest problem with the system), so I'm not sure why you think that'd be preferable.
On the other side of the coin, the absence of the "Board of Directors" model is closer to the GOP with their lack of superdelegates.
Model A produced Hillary Clinton as a candidate. Model B produced Donald Trump as a candidate.
I'm not sure how anyone would read your lines and your disproportionate criticism of the DNC and its members, when compared to your hard-to-find GOP criticism, and disagree with my conclusion that you feel that the population is the lesser of two evils.
In my opinion, all roads lead to destruction.
Just to clarify a few things: I don't prefer the Board of Director model, I beleive the voters should decide the candidate no matter how stupid or ignorant. Its simple, if the DNC is operating in that BOD fashion as described then change the structure/rules and do away with the charade of primary voting. Model A anointed Hillary the day she conceded to Obama, Model A also helped in producing Trump. Model B (the will of the voters) produced Trump. My criticism or lack of criticism of either party has nothing to do with systemic rot in the DNC that shuts down progressive voices and choices.
A better example then the one you gave (again were talking about primaries not generals) is to look at the previous primary with Obama and Hillary, where the VOTERS/THE PEOPLE chose Obama. With the will of the VOTERS/THE REPUBLIC at Obamas back he landslided McCain/Palin with record voter turnout. Party heads anointing Hillary only lead to a fractured party and disenfranchised voters where most in the general preferred to stay home vs bringing themselves to vote for Hilliary(take a look at voter turnout, I've posted them somewhere on here).
What a crock of shit and selective analysis. The voters chose Obama and then the super delegates went with them. The voters also chose HRC and the super delegates went with them. The difference between the two is that the Hillary voters in 2008 were mature enough to respect the decision of the AGREED UPON PROCESS.. you know, the one that has been in place for years. The Bernie voters at the convention, in particular, refused to accept the agreed upon process.
In fact, in 2008, HRC garnered MORE votes than Obama. In 2016, HRC had 3 MM votes more than Sanders. But again, HRC respected the process. Your analysis is complete bullshit.
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.
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?
Comments
For now Ill quote the democratic leader Pelosi:
“I don’t know that a person can tape a person without the person’s consent and then release it to the press,” Pelosi told reporters today. “In terms of candidates and campaigns I don’t see anything inappropriate in what Mr. Hoyer was engaged in — a conversation about the realities of life in the race as to who can make the general election.”
Here is the Democrats strategy to WINNING (worked so well over the past 10 years or so!)
We're openly and admitting to rigging the "democratic primaries" (against progressives) because that's the best chance for "us" to "win". wait what?
The proof and the reason why democratic voters should "trust their process"? 1000 SEATS AND HILLIARY CLINTON!
Now I see why Hilliary email list is worth so much money! I should try to buy some or all of that list, I too have a few things to sell them
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I don't feel the population is the lesser of two evils, what make you assume that?
If you want a "system" whereby the primary candidates are chosen by a select few, for example a board, then describe how it would work and we can discuss it. I'm addressing the current system in place, whereby candidates run in a primary and the winner as determined by the voters runs against the "opposing" party(s) in the general.
If voters are too uneducated and ignorant for a thriving democracy, then have the Democratic party become a public company, that way shareholders have their say and the board of directors can choose the primary candidate (on behalf of their shareholders).
This will do away with the charade of holding "democratic" primary elections and better yet save money on the primary elections while raising capital (publicly traded) for the party.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
The "Board of Directors" model you're referring to effectively is the DNC with its superdelegates (arguably your biggest problem with the system), so I'm not sure why you think that'd be preferable.
On the other side of the coin, the absence of the "Board of Directors" model is closer to the GOP with their lack of superdelegates.
Model A produced Hillary Clinton as a candidate. Model B produced Donald Trump as a candidate.
I'm not sure how anyone would read your lines and your disproportionate criticism of the DNC and its members, when compared to your hard-to-find GOP criticism, and disagree with my conclusion that you feel that the population is the lesser of two evils.
In my opinion, all roads lead to destruction.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
“What do you do if your abuser is the top law-enforcement official in the state?”
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/four-women-accuse-new-yorks-attorney-general-of-physical-abuse
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Before I say anything else I must question your definition/opinion of the "democratic-ness" of US voting in primaries. Are you saying that gate-keeping by appointed party heads (not super-delegates) is more "democratic" than individuals with an equal vote in a system that represents all citizens? If so, your opinion is in a very very small minority.
Its has been and is still working out so well (1,000 seats and Trump)
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/09/politics/cnn-poll-generic-ballot-narrows/index.html
Who said "its the economy stupid"?
http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/05/09/rel5d.-.2018.pdf
I thought we didn't trust the crooked polls? Which is it?
Something about polls that is important.. it is using traditional turnout numbers as its baseline. So if either side turns out better or worse than traditionally, the actuals will move. That is why the state level 2016 numbers were wrong; the unlikely voters ended up voting. I wouldn't get too caught up in any polls this far out. The events of September and October will be more important than April and June. What we know so far is the Dem turnout numbers have been very strong in the elections (not primaries) that have taken place over the last several months.
I don't prefer the Board of Director model, I beleive the voters should decide the candidate no matter how stupid or ignorant. Its simple, if the DNC is operating in that BOD fashion as described then change the structure/rules and do away with the charade of primary voting.
Model A anointed Hillary the day she conceded to Obama, Model A also helped in producing Trump.
Model B (the will of the voters) produced Trump.
My criticism or lack of criticism of either party has nothing to do with systemic rot in the DNC that shuts down progressive voices and choices.
A better example then the one you gave (again were talking about primaries not generals) is to look at the previous primary with Obama and Hillary, where the VOTERS/THE PEOPLE chose Obama. With the will of the VOTERS/THE REPUBLIC at Obamas back he landslided McCain/Palin with record voter turnout. Party heads anointing Hillary only lead to a fractured party and disenfranchised voters where most in the general preferred to stay home vs bringing themselves to vote for Hilliary(take a look at voter turnout, I've posted them somewhere on here).
In fact, in 2008, HRC garnered MORE votes than Obama. In 2016, HRC had 3 MM votes more than Sanders. But again, HRC respected the process. Your analysis is complete bullshit.
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.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
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?