The Democratic Candidates

Spiritual_Chaos

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

I'm feeling left out of this discussion. 

Can we get back to Pete?

I thought you were off the Petewagon. 

I don't know anymore. I need to dive into some Kamala interviews maybe. Find someone new.

He does feel like old news.  It's been like a month already.  

He's on TMZ too. Dude's everywhere. He needs to take a step back and stop releasing music videos on MTV

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTjDh82EKMQ

mickeyrat

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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.

Spiritual_Chaos

mickeyrat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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...

Ledbetterman10

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. 

cincybearcat

Ledbetterman10 said:

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

mickeyrat

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mickeyrat said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

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...

quite.....lazy

Ledbetterman10

cincybearcat said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

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. 

cincybearcat

Ledbetterman10 said:

cincybearcat said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

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.

Ledbetterman10

cincybearcat said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

cincybearcat said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

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. 

Spiritual_Chaos

PETE PLAYS JIMI HENDRIX AT 21 minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTjDh82EKMQ

OnWis97

cincybearcat said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

cincybearcat said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

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.

cincybearcat

Ledbetterman10 said:

cincybearcat said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

cincybearcat said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

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. 

A very reasonable stance.

CM189191

Ledbetterman10 said:

cincybearcat said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

cincybearcat said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

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. 

So.... Both sides are bad?

Another set a horseshoes!

OnWis97

Ledbetterman10 said:

cincybearcat said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

cincybearcat said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

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.

what dreams

^^^^^
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.

mrussel1

what dreams said:

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.

what dreams

mrussel1 said:

what dreams said:

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. 

OnWis97

mrussel1 said:

what dreams said:

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.

what dreams

OnWis97 said:

mrussel1 said:

what dreams said:

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. 

Voters are not victims.

brianlux

curmudgeoness said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

I'm feeling left out of this discussion. 

Can we get back to Pete?

Sure (and btw I'm female).

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.)