Pete: "I believe in democratic capitalism". What the hell is that.
"Democratic Capitalism" sounds like a way to lure moderates and republicans? "DON'T MENTION "SOCIALISM"!. Is it to contrast other candidates like Bernie that is more outspoken progressive and who's not afraid to say that Europe (with its democratic socialistic tradition) does things differently for a good reason (health care etc)?
Thank god for the Social Democratic values that has run through and shaped this country for the last 100+ years.
I'M CLOSE TO JUMPING SHIP ON PETE!
Democratic capitalism -- what he was saying was, he's not against capitalism but we should not prioritize it over the well-being of our citizens. That's as close to a direct quote as I can muster without spending two hours poring over videos of interviews.
He also has discussed his use of a moderate tone -- to really get things done, you need to stop yelling and scaring people away. Meet them where they are, couch things in language they can understand.
For better or worse, we are not Europe. This is an enormous and enormously diverse country and, while we actually hear a lot about how Scandinavian countries are doing things better than we are, the idea of imposing that sort of radical change is going to scare away, dare I say, millions of people.
Pete's theme -- see his new campaign materials -- is, build bridges, not walls. The rifts in our society are large and growing. I believe we need a candidate who can:
1) defeat the current president
2) help mend those rifts -- that includes lowering the volume on national debates. There is SO MUCH YELLING, be it inter-party or intra-party. That needs to stop.
I think Pete can do both of those things. I don't think Bernie can do either of them.
I'll never, ever, ever vote for Agent Orange. But if Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee, I don't know if I can vote for him. I certainly couldn't watch the debates ( again, SO MUCH YELLING). I would easily, readily, happily, enthusiastically vote for anyone other than Sanders or Gabbard. I follow several conservatives who are vehemently opposed to the current president. Rick Wilson, a former GOP strategist, keeps saying: Democrats, if you nominate Bernie, you are forcing a lot of voters to make a choice between him and 45, and in so doing you are virtually guaranteeing another four years of this hell. Yes, I saw yesterday's stories saying Sanders could prevail, but, frankly, I'm not convinced of that. I'm deeply distressed by what we have now, but when i look at Sanders I just don't see anything I like (and I turn down the volume, because SO MUCH YELLING).
Be careful saying you won't vote for Bernie over trump.
Didn't say that. Nothing could make me vote for Agent Orange. Nothing. But voting for Bernie would be a tough pill for me to swallow. My point was more that there are a lot of swing voters, less motivated than I am, who will stick with what they have rather than vote for Bernie.
I said earlier in this thread that I couldn’t vote for Bernie (and never for trump) and would vote 3rd party. Watch out for the wolves!
I agree with you.
I'm sorry, you continue to play the martyr on this one. No one attacked you. You're teh one that told someone to fuck off after it was said to "go back to civics class". Get off the cross already.
Pete: "I believe in democratic capitalism". What the hell is that.
"Democratic Capitalism" sounds like a way to lure moderates and republicans? "DON'T MENTION "SOCIALISM"!. Is it to contrast other candidates like Bernie that is more outspoken progressive and who's not afraid to say that Europe (with its democratic socialistic tradition) does things differently for a good reason (health care etc)?
Thank god for the Social Democratic values that has run through and shaped this country for the last 100+ years.
I'M CLOSE TO JUMPING SHIP ON PETE!
Democratic capitalism -- what he was saying was, he's not against capitalism but we should not prioritize it over the well-being of our citizens. That's as close to a direct quote as I can muster without spending two hours poring over videos of interviews.
He also has discussed his use of a moderate tone -- to really get things done, you need to stop yelling and scaring people away. Meet them where they are, couch things in language they can understand.
For better or worse, we are not Europe. This is an enormous and enormously diverse country and, while we actually hear a lot about how Scandinavian countries are doing things better than we are, the idea of imposing that sort of radical change is going to scare away, dare I say, millions of people.
Pete's theme -- see his new campaign materials -- is, build bridges, not walls. The rifts in our society are large and growing. I believe we need a candidate who can:
1) defeat the current president
2) help mend those rifts -- that includes lowering the volume on national debates. There is SO MUCH YELLING, be it inter-party or intra-party. That needs to stop.
I think Pete can do both of those things. I don't think Bernie can do either of them.
I'll never, ever, ever vote for Agent Orange. But if Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee, I don't know if I can vote for him. I certainly couldn't watch the debates ( again, SO MUCH YELLING). I would easily, readily, happily, enthusiastically vote for anyone other than Sanders or Gabbard. I follow several conservatives who are vehemently opposed to the current president. Rick Wilson, a former GOP strategist, keeps saying: Democrats, if you nominate Bernie, you are forcing a lot of voters to make a choice between him and 45, and in so doing you are virtually guaranteeing another four years of this hell. Yes, I saw yesterday's stories saying Sanders could prevail, but, frankly, I'm not convinced of that. I'm deeply distressed by what we have now, but when i look at Sanders I just don't see anything I like (and I turn down the volume, because SO MUCH YELLING).
Be careful saying you won't vote for Bernie over trump.
Didn't say that. Nothing could make me vote for Agent Orange. Nothing. But voting for Bernie would be a tough pill for me to swallow. My point was more that there are a lot of swing voters, less motivated than I am, who will stick with what they have rather than vote for Bernie.
I said earlier in this thread that I couldn’t vote for Bernie (and never for trump) and would vote 3rd party. Watch out for the wolves!
I agree with you.
I'm sorry, you continue to play the martyr on this one. No one attacked you. You're teh one that told someone to fuck off after it was said to "go back to civics class". Get off the cross already.
Just warning the guy. Put down the hammer
this Easter... the Passion of Cincy Bear...
Plenty of choices for pompous pilot round here....er Pontius I meant of course
Pete: "I believe in democratic capitalism". What the hell is that.
"Democratic Capitalism" sounds like a way to lure moderates and republicans? "DON'T MENTION "SOCIALISM"!. Is it to contrast other candidates like Bernie that is more outspoken progressive and who's not afraid to say that Europe (with its democratic socialistic tradition) does things differently for a good reason (health care etc)?
Thank god for the Social Democratic values that has run through and shaped this country for the last 100+ years.
I'M CLOSE TO JUMPING SHIP ON PETE!
Democratic capitalism -- what he was saying was, he's not against capitalism but we should not prioritize it over the well-being of our citizens. That's as close to a direct quote as I can muster without spending two hours poring over videos of interviews.
He also has discussed his use of a moderate tone -- to really get things done, you need to stop yelling and scaring people away. Meet them where they are, couch things in language they can understand.
For better or worse, we are not Europe. This is an enormous and enormously diverse country and, while we actually hear a lot about how Scandinavian countries are doing things better than we are, the idea of imposing that sort of radical change is going to scare away, dare I say, millions of people.
Pete's theme -- see his new campaign materials -- is, build bridges, not walls. The rifts in our society are large and growing. I believe we need a candidate who can:
1) defeat the current president
2) help mend those rifts -- that includes lowering the volume on national debates. There is SO MUCH YELLING, be it inter-party or intra-party. That needs to stop.
I think Pete can do both of those things. I don't think Bernie can do either of them.
I'll never, ever, ever vote for Agent Orange. But if Bernie Sanders is the Democratic nominee, I don't know if I can vote for him. I certainly couldn't watch the debates ( again, SO MUCH YELLING). I would easily, readily, happily, enthusiastically vote for anyone other than Sanders or Gabbard. I follow several conservatives who are vehemently opposed to the current president. Rick Wilson, a former GOP strategist, keeps saying: Democrats, if you nominate Bernie, you are forcing a lot of voters to make a choice between him and 45, and in so doing you are virtually guaranteeing another four years of this hell. Yes, I saw yesterday's stories saying Sanders could prevail, but, frankly, I'm not convinced of that. I'm deeply distressed by what we have now, but when i look at Sanders I just don't see anything I like (and I turn down the volume, because SO MUCH YELLING).
Be careful saying you won't vote for Bernie over trump.
Didn't say that. Nothing could make me vote for Agent Orange. Nothing. But voting for Bernie would be a tough pill for me to swallow. My point was more that there are a lot of swing voters, less motivated than I am, who will stick with what they have rather than vote for Bernie.
I said earlier in this thread that I couldn’t vote for Bernie (and never for trump) and would vote 3rd party. Watch out for the wolves!
I agree with you.
I'm sorry, you continue to play the martyr on this one. No one attacked you. You're teh one that told someone to fuck off after it was said to "go back to civics class". Get off the cross already.
Just warning the guy. Put down the hammer
this Easter... the Passion of Cincy Bear...
Plenty of choices for pompous pilot round here....er Pontius I meant of course
I much prefer 'elitist' and 'globalist' for my pejoratives.
I'll reiterate that I think it's well worth taking the time to watch his interview with Rachel Maddow.
I have MSNBC on right now; Chuck Todd was talking to Markos Moulitsas (Daily Kos) about Sanders' appearance on Fox last night. Kos thinks going on Fox is a waste of time, thinks Pete shouldn't do a town hall on Fox, should "focus on the base" instead.
Pete already went on Fox and was interviewed by Chris Wallace.
And I'd really, really, really like to see a return of consensus builders rather than a focus on pleasing/ placating "the base," be they on the left or the right. Whoever is elected (and I wish someone would tell our current president this), they are President for ALL Americans. Nothing good can come from actively othering and ostracizing big chunks of the population.
Which brings me back to Pete and building bridges. I'd like people to stop yelling. I think there's something to be said for seeking common ground and building from there. Look: People are talking about how amazing it is that a presidential candidate is able to kiss HIS HUSBAND in front of the cameras right after announcing his candidacy. I firmly believe that the progress that has been made on issues such as marriage equality is due in large part to queer people's willingness to be out and visible. Once you realize that "teh gayz" are not scary monsters coming to break up your marriage, they're just your neighbor's son, the person in the cubicle next to yours, the barista at your favorite coffee shop, you realize that they are ordinary, boring, flesh and blood humans, just like yourself, and why shouldn't Pat be able to marry the person they love, just like you did? They're just people, who want to fall in love, have a family, build a life for themselves. The same could be said of Mexicans, Muslims, MAGAts and libtards, right? Consensus is built, problems are solved, a way forward is found only after common ground is established. I learned this from Star Trek: TNG, so it must be true. :-)
Pete's out to build bridges.
All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it.
I'll reiterate that I think it's well worth taking the time to watch his interview with Rachel Maddow.
I have MSNBC on right now; Chuck Todd was talking to Markos Moulitsas (Daily Kos) about Sanders' appearance on Fox last night. Kos thinks going on Fox is a waste of time, thinks Pete shouldn't do a town hall on Fox, should "focus on the base" instead.
Pete already went on Fox and was interviewed by Chris Wallace.
And I'd really, really, really like to see a return of consensus builders rather than a focus on pleasing/ placating "the base," be they on the left or the right. Whoever is elected (and I wish someone would tell our current president this), they are President for ALL Americans. Nothing good can come from actively othering and ostracizing big chunks of the population.
Which brings me back to Pete and building bridges. I'd like people to stop yelling. I think there's something to be said for seeking common ground and building from there. Look: People are talking about how amazing it is that a presidential candidate is able to kiss HIS HUSBAND in front of the cameras right after announcing his candidacy. I firmly believe that the progress that has been made on issues such as marriage equality is due in large part to queer people's willingness to be out and visible. Once you realize that "teh gayz" are not scary monsters coming to break up your marriage, they're just your neighbor's son, the person in the cubicle next to yours, the barista at your favorite coffee shop, you realize that they are ordinary, boring, flesh and blood humans, just like yourself, and why shouldn't Pat be able to marry the person they love, just like you did? They're just people, who want to fall in love, have a family, build a life for themselves. The same could be said of Mexicans, Muslims, MAGAts and libtards, right? Consensus is built, problems are solved, a way forward is found only after common ground is established. I learned this from Star Trek: TNG, so it must be true. :-)
Pete's out to build bridges.
I don't mind Markos, but I couldn't disagree more with his perspective on this.
Pete: "I believe in democratic capitalism". What the hell is ti87hat.
"Democratic Capitalism" sounds like a way to lure moderates and republicans? "DON'T MENTION "SOCIALISM"!. Is it to contrast other candidates like Bernie that is more outspoken progressive and who's not afraid to say that Europe (with its democratic socialistic tradition) does things differently for a good reason (health care etc)?
Thank god for the Social Democratic values that has run through and shaped this country for the last 100+ years.
I'M CLOSE TO JUMPING SHIP ON PETE!
but bernie is afraid to run as a DS , instead he prefers to hijack party apparatus so as to avoid the hard work of getting on the ballot in all 50v states and associated territories.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Pete: "I believe in democratic capitalism". What the hell is ti87hat.
"Democratic Capitalism" sounds like a way to lure moderates and republicans? "DON'T MENTION "SOCIALISM"!. Is it to contrast other candidates like Bernie that is more outspoken progressive and who's not afraid to say that Europe (with its democratic socialistic tradition) does things differently for a good reason (health care etc)?
Thank god for the Social Democratic values that has run through and shaped this country for the last 100+ years.
I'M CLOSE TO JUMPING SHIP ON PETE!
but bernie is afraid to run as a DS , instead he prefers to hijack party apparatus so as to avoid the hard work of getting on the ballot in all 50v states and associated territories.
I don't see how that can be held against him. Isn't it quite... smart...
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Just watched the Sanders town hall. It's almost made me want to rejoin the democratic party so I can vote for him in the primary...as I did in 2016. I disagree with him on a lot, but that's okay.
Just watched the Sanders town hall. It's almost made me want to rejoin the democratic party so I can vote for him in the primary...as I did in 2016. I disagree with him on a lot, but that's okay.
Hahahaha i registered a democrat to vote against him
Pete: "I believe in democratic capitalism". What the hell is ti87hat.
"Democratic Capitalism" sounds like a way to lure moderates and republicans? "DON'T MENTION "SOCIALISM"!. Is it to contrast other candidates like Bernie that is more outspoken progressive and who's not afraid to say that Europe (with its democratic socialistic tradition) does things differently for a good reason (health care etc)?
Thank god for the Social Democratic values that has run through and shaped this country for the last 100+ years.
I'M CLOSE TO JUMPING SHIP ON PETE!
but bernie is afraid to run as a DS , instead he prefers to hijack party apparatus so as to avoid the hard work of getting on the ballot in all 50v states and associated territories.
I don't see how that can be held against him. Isn't it quite... smart...
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Just watched the Sanders town hall. It's almost made me want to rejoin the democratic party so I can vote for him in the primary...as I did in 2016. I disagree with him on a lot, but that's okay.
Hahahaha i registered a democrat to vote against him
I'm guessing you're joking but believe it or not, my uncle (who is as conservative as they come) is actually registered as a democrat so he can, as he says half-jokingly, "meddle in their primaries." He voted for Sanders in 2016 because he felt Sanders would be easier to beat than Clinton.
Just watched the Sanders town hall. It's almost made me want to rejoin the democratic party so I can vote for him in the primary...as I did in 2016. I disagree with him on a lot, but that's okay.
Hahahaha i registered a democrat to vote against him
I'm guessing you're joking but believe it or not, my uncle (who is as conservative as they come) is actually registered as a democrat so he can, as he says half-jokingly, "meddle in their primaries." He voted for Sanders in 2016 because he felt Sanders would be easier to beat than Clinton.
I registered as a democrat in 2008. Then back to republican in 2012 (to vote in primary). Stayed 2016 for primary (but voted democrat). Moved...registered as a democrat. So not joking. My pick will likely not win, but I’m going to vote for the democrat I most like that has a shot.
Just watched the Sanders town hall. It's almost made me want to rejoin the democratic party so I can vote for him in the primary...as I did in 2016. I disagree with him on a lot, but that's okay.
Hahahaha i registered a democrat to vote against him
I'm guessing you're joking but believe it or not, my uncle (who is as conservative as they come) is actually registered as a democrat so he can, as he says half-jokingly, "meddle in their primaries." He voted for Sanders in 2016 because he felt Sanders would be easier to beat than Clinton.
I registered as a democrat in 2008. Then back to republican in 2012 (to vote in primary). Stayed 2016 for primary (but voted democrat). Moved...registered as a democrat. So not joking. My pick will likely not win, but I’m going to vote for the democrat I most like that has a shot.
Okay fair enough. I'm going to stick with no party affiliation. I just hate them both and don't want to be associated with either in any way....even if it's just to vote in a primary.
Just watched the Sanders town hall. It's almost made me want to rejoin the democratic party so I can vote for him in the primary...as I did in 2016. I disagree with him on a lot, but that's okay.
Hahahaha i registered a democrat to vote against him
I'm guessing you're joking but believe it or not, my uncle (who is as conservative as they come) is actually registered as a democrat so he can, as he says half-jokingly, "meddle in their primaries." He voted for Sanders in 2016 because he felt Sanders would be easier to beat than Clinton.
I registered as a democrat in 2008. Then back to republican in 2012 (to vote in primary). Stayed 2016 for primary (but voted democrat). Moved...registered as a democrat. So not joking. My pick will likely not win, but I’m going to vote for the democrat I most like that has a shot.
I did that in Illinois in 2002 to vote for a moderate Republican vs. a right-wing jackass in the GOP primary for governor. The right-wing jackass won the nomination. Then lost to a Dem I liked. That Dem? Rod Blagojevich. Turns out it was lose/lose.
So who might that be...I know you like Mayor Pete, but do you envision him having a shot? I kinda don't. Of course, I don't necessarily think Trump is beatable. In Minnesota we have a caucus so I probably won't bother. But if I do, I'd probably go against those I am 100% don't have a shot. That means Elizabeth Warren first.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Just watched the Sanders town hall. It's almost made me want to rejoin the democratic party so I can vote for him in the primary...as I did in 2016. I disagree with him on a lot, but that's okay.
Hahahaha i registered a democrat to vote against him
I'm guessing you're joking but believe it or not, my uncle (who is as conservative as they come) is actually registered as a democrat so he can, as he says half-jokingly, "meddle in their primaries." He voted for Sanders in 2016 because he felt Sanders would be easier to beat than Clinton.
I registered as a democrat in 2008. Then back to republican in 2012 (to vote in primary). Stayed 2016 for primary (but voted democrat). Moved...registered as a democrat. So not joking. My pick will likely not win, but I’m going to vote for the democrat I most like that has a shot.
Okay fair enough. I'm going to stick with no party affiliation. I just hate them both and don't want to be associated with either in any way....even if it's just to vote in a primary.
Just watched the Sanders town hall. It's almost made me want to rejoin the democratic party so I can vote for him in the primary...as I did in 2016. I disagree with him on a lot, but that's okay.
Hahahaha i registered a democrat to vote against him
I'm guessing you're joking but believe it or not, my uncle (who is as conservative as they come) is actually registered as a democrat so he can, as he says half-jokingly, "meddle in their primaries." He voted for Sanders in 2016 because he felt Sanders would be easier to beat than Clinton.
I registered as a democrat in 2008. Then back to republican in 2012 (to vote in primary). Stayed 2016 for primary (but voted democrat). Moved...registered as a democrat. So not joking. My pick will likely not win, but I’m going to vote for the democrat I most like that has a shot.
Okay fair enough. I'm going to stick with no party affiliation. I just hate them both and don't want to be associated with either in any way....even if it's just to vote in a primary.
Just watched the Sanders town hall. It's almost made me want to rejoin the democratic party so I can vote for him in the primary...as I did in 2016. I disagree with him on a lot, but that's okay.
Hahahaha i registered a democrat to vote against him
I'm guessing you're joking but believe it or not, my uncle (who is as conservative as they come) is actually registered as a democrat so he can, as he says half-jokingly, "meddle in their primaries." He voted for Sanders in 2016 because he felt Sanders would be easier to beat than Clinton.
I registered as a democrat in 2008. Then back to republican in 2012 (to vote in primary). Stayed 2016 for primary (but voted democrat). Moved...registered as a democrat. So not joking. My pick will likely not win, but I’m going to vote for the democrat I most like that has a shot.
Okay fair enough. I'm going to stick with no party affiliation. I just hate them both and don't want to be associated with either in any way....even if it's just to vote in a primary.
This leads down an interesting road. "We the People" don't really have a say in which two (realistic) candidates are up for election. Parties are not, by definition, public. It's amazing how many people I've run across think that the Dems pushing Hillary through like they did was illegal. It was stupid and less-than-ideal, but that was not a public process that anyone entitled to be involved in...
So if you don't want to affiliate with a party, you have to wait and see what the parties do. It's kind of a crappy reality. Similarly, when we play the system (as I have done) by "joining" an opposing party to stick a fork in their process, it's kind of counter to the process.
It's really not about "the people" until, for all intents and purposes, it's down to two.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
^^^^^ OnWis, I don't understand this statement: "parties are not, by definition, public." What does this even mean? It's simply not true. Any single person can attend a local party meeting, get deeply involved in the workings of it, and advance up the ranks to the state and national level if you wish. These local meetings are openly advertised, can be found through a simple Google search, and they welcome participation. I attend Democratic party meetings on a fairly regular basis. So I really wonder what you mean by this so-called not-public definition of a party. Please explain.
I'm going to just add here -- perhaps if Bernie were an actual Democrat, with supporters involved in party activities, he might have had a smoother time navigating the nomination process. His supporters were, in 2016, "party crashers" who didn't have a real understanding of how the nomination process worked in some states. They expected the rules to just magically change when they decided to crash the party. I do believe the party has changed some of the super-delegate rules since 2016, at his request, so let's be clear about what really happened as we move forward.
I don't understand this "parties are not, by definition, public." What does this even mean? It's simply not true. Any single person can attend a local party meeting. They are openly advertised, can be found through a simple Google search, and welcome participation. I attend Democratic party meetings on a fairly regular basis. I really wonder what you mean by this so-called not-public definition of a party. Please explain.
I interpret it to mean that they are private institutions, not an extension of the government.
I don't understand this "parties are not, by definition, public." What does this even mean? It's simply not true. Any single person can attend a local party meeting. They are openly advertised, can be found through a simple Google search, and welcome participation. I attend Democratic party meetings on a fairly regular basis. I really wonder what you mean by this so-called not-public definition of a party. Please explain.
I interpret it to mean that they are private institutions, not an extension of the government.
Well, to suggest the public doesn't have say in the nomination just isn't true. Anyone who wants to take the time to get involved, can. Most people call themselves whatever they vote for and think they are a member of a party. If you want to actually influence the party, go to meetings, become an officer, and really do the work for your candidates and policy positions.
I don't understand this "parties are not, by definition, public." What does this even mean? It's simply not true. Any single person can attend a local party meeting. They are openly advertised, can be found through a simple Google search, and welcome participation. I attend Democratic party meetings on a fairly regular basis. I really wonder what you mean by this so-called not-public definition of a party. Please explain.
I interpret it to mean that they are private institutions, not an extension of the government.
Yeah, I guess by some interpretations, they could be public...in a sense that a restaurant is a public place and essentially lets anyone in.
But they are not an extension of government and your voting rights don't quite extend there. That's why nobody got in trouble for rigging the nomination for Hillary. It's what party insiders wanted and they don't owe anything to any electorate, as is the case for actual elections. My point was kind of a tangent, anyway...simply that if you don't feel you have a party, you are kind of out in the cold until that parties decide for you who you should consider.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
I don't understand this "parties are not, by definition, public." What does this even mean? It's simply not true. Any single person can attend a local party meeting. They are openly advertised, can be found through a simple Google search, and welcome participation. I attend Democratic party meetings on a fairly regular basis. I really wonder what you mean by this so-called not-public definition of a party. Please explain.
I interpret it to mean that they are private institutions, not an extension of the government.
Yeah, I guess by some interpretations, they could be public...in a sense that a restaurant is a public place and essentially lets anyone in.
But they are not an extension of government and your voting rights don't quite extend there. That's why nobody got in trouble for rigging the nomination for Hillary. It's what party insiders wanted and they don't owe anything to any electorate, as is the case for actual elections. My point was kind of a tangent, anyway...simply that if you don't feel you have a party, you are kind of out in the cold until that parties decide for you who you should consider.
My point is that if you really want to change the party, then get involved. It's not a secret society. The Democratic party in every state has a governing document with all their rules and a steering committee, and anyone who works at it can be influential. For goodness sake, my historically conservative district sent a transgendered delegate to state office last cycle because she worked the system.
I'll reiterate that I think it's well worth taking the time to watch his interview with Rachel Maddow.
I have MSNBC on right now; Chuck Todd was talking to Markos Moulitsas (Daily Kos) about Sanders' appearance on Fox last night. Kos thinks going on Fox is a waste of time, thinks Pete shouldn't do a town hall on Fox, should "focus on the base" instead.
Pete already went on Fox and was interviewed by Chris Wallace.
And I'd really, really, really like to see a return of consensus builders rather than a focus on pleasing/ placating "the base," be they on the left or the right. Whoever is elected (and I wish someone would tell our current president this), they are President for ALL Americans. Nothing good can come from actively othering and ostracizing big chunks of the population.
Which brings me back to Pete and building bridges. I'd like people to stop yelling. I think there's something to be said for seeking common ground and building from there. Look: People are talking about how amazing it is that a presidential candidate is able to kiss HIS HUSBAND in front of the cameras right after announcing his candidacy. I firmly believe that the progress that has been made on issues such as marriage equality is due in large part to queer people's willingness to be out and visible. Once you realize that "teh gayz" are not scary monsters coming to break up your marriage, they're just your neighbor's son, the person in the cubicle next to yours, the barista at your favorite coffee shop, you realize that they are ordinary, boring, flesh and blood humans, just like yourself, and why shouldn't Pat be able to marry the person they love, just like you did? They're just people, who want to fall in love, have a family, build a life for themselves. The same could be said of Mexicans, Muslims, MAGAts and libtards, right? Consensus is built, problems are solved, a way forward is found only after common ground is established. I learned this from Star Trek: TNG, so it must be true. :-)
Pete's out to build bridges.
Very cool what you said there, Curmudgeoness.
(For those who don't know, the "ess" is the clue. Baroness, waitress, stewardess, partydress, etc.)
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Comments
Can we get back to Pete?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
So who might that be...I know you like Mayor Pete, but do you envision him having a shot? I kinda don't. Of course, I don't necessarily think Trump is beatable. In Minnesota we have a caucus so I probably won't bother. But if I do, I'd probably go against those I am 100% don't have a shot. That means Elizabeth Warren first.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Another set a horseshoes!
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
OnWis, I don't understand this statement: "parties are not, by definition, public." What does this even mean? It's simply not true. Any single person can attend a local party meeting, get deeply involved in the workings of it, and advance up the ranks to the state and national level if you wish. These local meetings are openly advertised, can be found through a simple Google search, and they welcome participation. I attend Democratic party meetings on a fairly regular basis. So I really wonder what you mean by this so-called not-public definition of a party. Please explain.
I'm going to just add here -- perhaps if Bernie were an actual Democrat, with supporters involved in party activities, he might have had a smoother time navigating the nomination process. His supporters were, in 2016, "party crashers" who didn't have a real understanding of how the nomination process worked in some states. They expected the rules to just magically change when they decided to crash the party. I do believe the party has changed some of the super-delegate rules since 2016, at his request, so let's be clear about what really happened as we move forward.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Voters are not victims.