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.
Okay... place your faith... blue wave? I hate to be an jerk but its "false equivalence" not false equivalency...lets at least set that straight!
^^^ I hear ya man. I've been called a propagandist on here by a pretty prominent poster. I still don't know what propaganda means in that context.
I've attached the Merriam Webster definitions for you, since I know research is beneath you when you can just ask questions you know the answers to and wait for this community to bite.
From Merriam Webster:
Definition of propaganda
capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
Nobody bothered reading this when I was kind enough to post it back in Aug of 2017. Please read it and compare it to the 400 pages posted in the Trump thread!
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.
Okay... place your faith... blue wave? I hate to be an jerk but its "false equivalence" not false equivalency...lets at least set that straight!
The only thing worse than a "jerk" is an uninformed one.
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.
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.
Okay... place your faith... blue wave? I hate to be an jerk but its "false equivalence" not false equivalency...lets at least set that straight!
The only thing worse than a "jerk" is an uninformed one.
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.
Okay... place your faith... blue wave? I hate to be an jerk but its "false equivalence" not false equivalency...lets at least set that straight!
The only thing worse than a "jerk" is an uninformed one.
e·quiv·a·len·cy
əˈkwivələnsē/
noun
another term for equivalence.
CARPET CALL- BLUE WAVE?
Seems odd to be gloating about a CNN poll when you don't believe in polls, or in CNN. I'd look at actual election results and their trend; seems wiser.
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.
Okay... place your faith... blue wave? I hate to be an jerk but its "false equivalence" not false equivalency...lets at least set that straight!
The only thing worse than a "jerk" is an uninformed one.
Yup but I won’t bothering wagering with you seeing how you don’t honor your challenges and bets. After all, it’s the 3D putin on the ritz way. Or is it the Team Trumpian Treason way?
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.
Okay... place your faith... blue wave? I hate to be an jerk but its "false equivalence" not false equivalency...lets at least set that straight!
The only thing worse than a "jerk" is an uninformed one.
e·quiv·a·len·cy
əˈkwivələnsē/
noun
another term for equivalence.
CARPET CALL- BLUE WAVE?
Seems odd to be gloating about a CNN poll when you don't believe in polls, or in CNN. I'd look at actual election results and their trend; seems wiser.
Nothing to do with any polls just want you on record>>> Blue Wave???
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.
Okay... place your faith... blue wave? I hate to be an jerk but its "false equivalence" not false equivalency...lets at least set that straight!
The only thing worse than a "jerk" is an uninformed one.
Yup but I won’t bothering wagering with you seeing how you don’t honor your challenges and bets. After all, it’s the 3D putin on the ritz way. Or is it the Team Trumpian Treason way?
#morelrissotto
PTape, In peach mints, Emulents? >>> BLUE WAVE??? dont be scared?
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.
Okay... place your faith... blue wave? I hate to be an jerk but its "false equivalence" not false equivalency...lets at least set that straight!
The only thing worse than a "jerk" is an uninformed one.
e·quiv·a·len·cy
əˈkwivələnsē/
noun
another term for equivalence.
CARPET CALL- BLUE WAVE?
Seems odd to be gloating about a CNN poll when you don't believe in polls, or in CNN. I'd look at actual election results and their trend; seems wiser.
Nothing to do with any polls just want you on record>>> Blue Wave???
I think you're looking for Larry Sabato. He's an hour away in Charlottesville. All I can do is my part, and I did when the D's swept the executive seats and gained 13 delegate seats here in VA. THAT was s blue wave.
Ill check back later... its open mic night at applebys! $6 APPS $1 BLUE WAVE CURACAO u call its and of course FOLLA THE DOLLA MOSCOW MUELLERS! BTW- how those indictments trickling thru the courts? Intelligentsia
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.
Okay... place your faith... blue wave? I hate to be an jerk but its "false equivalence" not false equivalency...lets at least set that straight!
The only thing worse than a "jerk" is an uninformed one.
Yup but I won’t bothering wagering with you seeing how you don’t honor your challenges and bets. After all, it’s the 3D putin on the ritz way. Or is it the Team Trumpian Treason way?
#morelrissotto
PTape, In peach mints, Emulents? >>> BLUE WAVE??? dont be scared?
Your English comprehension needs work. See the “yup?” Thats affirmative. Slang for yes. Opposite of nyet.
Ill check back later... its open mic night at applebys! $6 APPS $1 BLUE WAVE CURACAO u call its and of course FOLLA THE DOLLA MOSCOW MUELLERS! BTW- how those indictments trickling thru the courts? Intelligentsia
Ill check back later... its open mic night at applebys! $6 APPS $1 BLUE WAVE CURACAO u call its and of course FOLLA THE DOLLA MOSCOW MUELLERS! BTW- how those indictments trickling thru the courts? Intelligentsia
Ill check back later... its open mic night at applebys! $6 APPS $1 BLUE WAVE CURACAO u call its and of course FOLLA THE DOLLA MOSCOW MUELLERS! BTW- how those indictments trickling thru the courts? Intelligentsia
Let’s see, 13 Russian nationals afraid to step foot in the US. Pappalopadous and Flynn plead guilty and are cooperating witnesses. Manafort is still under house arrest and awaiting trial, tentatively set for early July and Cohen had his home, office and hotel room raided, extraordinary move by Mueller, wouldn’t you say? So, all in all they’re trickling through quite nicely. I suspect that Team Mueller is saving the best flavors, the big banana boat with 5 scoops for last. Can you name the flavors 3D? Would you like nuts with that?
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.
BJs I just got home to the greatest greeting ever.... 49 pit-bulls(mixed) and 12 adoptees, my flesh and blood to which I literally delivered never bother to wake! I'm unloved! anyway , its likey i wont respond but i do respect and await your response... we have things to do ,.... onward (Not sure how or why it italicized?)
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.
BJs I just got home to the greatest greeting ever.... 49 pit-bulls(mixed) and 12 adoptees, my flesh and blood to which I literally delivered never bother to wake! I'm unloved! anyway , its likey i wont respond but i do respect and await your response... we have things to do ,.... onward (Not sure how or why it italicized?)
Care to respond to your challenge met? Nah, 3D, D'ing, Bernie bro still butt hurt feeling the bern, wondering how or if it'll ever stop. Pull yourself up by the bern strapps, can't you?
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.
I expected some pushing forward back from the anti-electoral college crowd, not even a single post. Hmm what do I know?
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.
I expected some pushing forward back from the anti-electoral college crowd, not even a single post. Hmm what do I know?
I’ll admit I’m not as informative or informed as you on the subject of politics but but you sound like your shouting into an echo chamber... but but Bernie got robbed he got robbed I fo feel for you at least I admit that I voted for a horrible candidate but I’ve come to terms with it and now it’s time to pay attention to what this idiot is doing to our nation ...
Instead, the Democrats have plunged into a bizarre decade-long slide, losing both houses of Congress and upwards of 1,000 state legislative seats
since the beginning of the Obama era. The shocking loss of seeming
presidential shoo-in Hillary Clinton in 2016 spoke to something gone
horribly awry in the "permanent Democratic majority" narrative, making
2018 a vital test of the party's ability to stop the mysterious
bleeding.
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.
Obviously there's an inverse relationship between the strength of the democracy (from a purely etymological perspective) and the proportion of voters. I'm not questioning which is more democratic - I'm literally questioning which is better. What I am saying is that your 'United' States are far from that - your citizens are divisive, destructively proud, in many cases ignorant/misinformed/uneducated, easily swayed with short-sighted and unrealistic promises, and astonishingly affected by confirmation bias. I'm sure you're right that my opinion is in a very, very small minority - I'm stating on here that until American citizens value the pursuit of knowledge and the logic of decisions over their immediate needs, their desire to scapegoat, and their just-under-the-surface prejudices, making the society more influenced by the decisions of the masses (or, to use your term, more "democratic") comes with the risk that that influence yields the results of those same people. And yes, I'm even including the alternative of persons in charge who are self-serving.
Sorry about the delay on responding by the way - I was travelling from the 13th until this past Thursday.
'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.
Don't you register to a party, and couldn't you unregister from it? Is that not having your say? You think service-offering companies don't scramble to change strategies when throngs of people unsubscribe from mailing lists, etc? You don't think they'd scramble even more when a purchase cycle only comes once every four years for most people? You're ignoring the reality that people do have ways to influence parties (just like public companies), they just choose not to. Also, your logic is so incredibly flawed here. Whether 300 million elect 30 who elect 1, or 300 million elect 1, the impact of an uneducated and ignorant democracy is the same.
Also - no one is shut out, just some people are better at influencing/persuading the masses than others. You might blame disparities in advertising dollars - I say your system is FUBAR until your people can stop being so damn easily manipulated by mediocre advertisements that say that Hillary Clinton was up to no good in pizza parlours, etc. You know what people should care about? Fucking policy, and what fucking results they will produce. But too many don't.
'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
Comments
I hate to be an jerk but its "false equivalence" not false equivalency...lets at least set that straight!
Good God
any names stand out!
Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, BUSH, Paul, Christie, Santorum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
"VERSUS" (picture a Llama)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
CLINTON, Sanders and dont forget OMalley!
CARPET CALL- BLUE WAVE?
#morelrissotto
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
$1 BLUE WAVE CURACAO u call its and of course FOLLA THE DOLLA MOSCOW MUELLERS!
BTW- how those indictments trickling thru the courts?
Intelligentsia
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
I just got home to the greatest greeting ever.... 49 pit-bulls(mixed) and 12 adoptees, my flesh and blood to which I literally delivered never bother to wake!
I'm unloved!
anyway , its likey i wont respond but i do respect and await your response... we have things to do ,.... onward (Not sure how or why it italicized?)
Care to respond to your challenge met? Nah, 3D, D'ing, Bernie bro still butt hurt feeling the bern, wondering how or if it'll ever stop. Pull yourself up by the bern strapps, can't you?
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/politics/hillary-clinton-ed-rendell-bloomberg/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/politics/hillary-clinton-ed-rendell-bloomberg/index.html
4/26/2016 State and presidential primary
but but Bernie got robbed he got robbed I fo feel for you at least I admit that I voted for a horrible candidate but I’ve come to terms with it and now it’s time to pay attention to what this idiot is doing to our nation ...
false-equivalency
The Battle of Woodstock
What does it mean when the biggest threat to upstart Democrats is the national Democratic Party?
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/jeff-beals-new-york-midterms-w520302
3. The Candidate agrees to have a campaign budget completed six months prior to the primary and to focus on preserving at least 75% of funds for paid communications.
Instead, the Democrats have plunged into a bizarre decade-long slide, losing both houses of Congress and upwards of 1,000 state legislative seats since the beginning of the Obama era. The shocking loss of seeming presidential shoo-in Hillary Clinton in 2016 spoke to something gone horribly awry in the "permanent Democratic majority" narrative, making 2018 a vital test of the party's ability to stop the mysterious bleeding.
I'm starting to believe you're on the payroll, comrade lol
Sorry about the delay on responding by the way - I was travelling from the 13th until this past Thursday.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Also - no one is shut out, just some people are better at influencing/persuading the masses than others. You might blame disparities in advertising dollars - I say your system is FUBAR until your people can stop being so damn easily manipulated by mediocre advertisements that say that Hillary Clinton was up to no good in pizza parlours, etc. You know what people should care about? Fucking policy, and what fucking results they will produce. But too many don't.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1