Dem Party

JC29856

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

Halifax2TheMax

JC29856 said:

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.

JC29856

Halifax2TheMax said:

JC29856 said:

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!

Halifax2TheMax

JC29856 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

JC29856 said:

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!

At least we get a vote, comrade.

cincybearcat

Obama looks white on the poster.....what happened?

Halifax2TheMax

cincybearcat said:

Obama looks white on the poster.....what happened?

Revisionist history or alternative facts.

rgambs

It's always good to hear what Russia wants us to think on the topic.

Halifax2TheMax

JC29856 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

JC29856 said:

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.

JimmyV

Halifax2TheMax said:

cincybearcat said:

Obama looks white on the poster.....what happened?

Revisionist history or alternative facts.

They had to lighten all the faces so that Trump didn't blend into the background.

benjs

JC29856 said:

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?

JC29856

benjs said:

JC29856 said:

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.

Halifax2TheMax

JC29856 said:

benjs said:

JC29856 said:

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.

Source?

mrussel1

JC29856 said:

benjs said:

JC29856 said:

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.  

Halifax2TheMax

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

benjs said:

JC29856 said:

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.”

mrussel1

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

benjs said:

JC29856 said:

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?

Halifax2TheMax

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

benjs said:

JC29856 said:

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?

Team Trump Treason voters don’t do that.

rgambs

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

benjs said:

JC29856 said:

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.

mrussel1

rgambs said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

benjs said:

JC29856 said:

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..

benjs

JC29856 said:

benjs said:

JC29856 said:

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. 

mrussel1

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.