Auto-Save Draft feature temporarily disabled. Please be sure you manually save your post by selecting "Save Draft" if you have that need.

The Democratic Candidates

16869717374194

Comments

  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 48,080
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Kat's judgment cometh, and that right soon.  
    Seems like it already came. my2hands is banned. Another conservative voice silenced by left-wing social media police! If message boards count as social media lol
    He made personal attacks - it had literally NOTHING to do with his politics or anyone else's. Also, my2hands isn't a conservative.
    Let me repost that comment with instructions, as it's sometimes hard for tone to come across in writing.....

    Seems like it already came. my2hands is banned. [BEGIN SARCASM] Another conservative voice silenced by left-wing social media police! [END SARCASM] If message boards count as social media lol 
    Ahhh, lol. Don't forget about emojis, they can be so helpful. :lol:;)
    I figured the exclamation point would suggest I was doing a Hannity-type character. 

    Didn't really see his personal attack other than calling someone an asshole, so I don't really know what the situation was. 
    it was pretty obvious IMHO
    It still isn't obvious to me at all, even now that I know it was supposed to be sarcasm, lol.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 25,152
    I thought there was a /s or a s/ that denoted sarcasm? Can’t keep up with all you whippasnappas.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 18,756
    mrussel1 said:
    Jason P said:
    I would surmise that the DNC had 10,000x more involvement in influencing Hillary’s nomination than the Russians did with Trump. 
    Did you get a bunch of facebook ads lying about Bernie on your newsfeed?  My conservative friends continue to tag me in FB anti-HIllary memes that are completely untrue 98% of the time.  You're saying that Hillary and the DNC having a joint fundraising agreement in 2015 affected voting 10,000 to 1, compared to lies on social media.  Am I understanding you correctly?
    My theory is that the DNC promised Hillary the 2016 nomination and the Secretary of State position if she would drop out when she faced Obama. That is just theory but there were internal documents that proved the DNC was locking Hillary in and Bernie never had a realistic chance in a true democratic fight. 
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 18,756
    You are also making a statement that the Russians affected voting 1:1. 
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 18,756
    Heck, the DNC total involvement may be zero if that is still what 10000 x 0 equals. 
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 7,115
    mcgruff10 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Kat's judgment cometh, and that right soon.  
    Seems like it already came. my2hands is banned. Another conservative voice silenced by left-wing social media police! If message boards count as social media lol
    How can you tell?
    Scroll up to a post of his and click on his username. His forum profile says banned. 
    Permanently banned or just a time out?
    Well, considering there was a brief time out not that long ago, I'd guess this one will be a little lengthier...
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 14,373
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Kat's judgment cometh, and that right soon.  
    Seems like it already came. my2hands is banned. Another conservative voice silenced by left-wing social media police! If message boards count as social media lol
    He made personal attacks - it had literally NOTHING to do with his politics or anyone else's. Also, my2hands isn't a conservative.
    Hasn’t stopped others. And my2hands is certainly not a conservative, like you say.

    well this place should be a lot less interesting.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 18,448
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Kat's judgment cometh, and that right soon.  
    Seems like it already came. my2hands is banned. Another conservative voice silenced by left-wing social media police! If message boards count as social media lol
    He made personal attacks - it had literally NOTHING to do with his politics or anyone else's. Also, my2hands isn't a conservative.
    Let me repost that comment with instructions, as it's sometimes hard for tone to come across in writing.....

    Seems like it already came. my2hands is banned. [BEGIN SARCASM] Another conservative voice silenced by left-wing social media police! [END SARCASM] If message boards count as social media lol 
    Ahhh, lol. Don't forget about emojis, they can be so helpful. :lol:;)
    I figured the exclamation point would suggest I was doing a Hannity-type character. 

    Didn't really see his personal attack other than calling someone an asshole, so I don't really know what the situation was. 
    it was pretty obvious IMHO
    It still isn't obvious to me at all, even now that I know it was supposed to be sarcasm, lol.
    T'wasn't to me either, considering Trump's recent tweets.  I take him at his word though, and find it funny now.  
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon I'm from Winnipeg, you idiot! (Chris Jericho)Posts: 22,353
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Kat's judgment cometh, and that right soon.  
    Seems like it already came. my2hands is banned. Another conservative voice silenced by left-wing social media police! If message boards count as social media lol
    He made personal attacks - it had literally NOTHING to do with his politics or anyone else's. Also, my2hands isn't a conservative.
    Hasn’t stopped others. And my2hands is certainly not a conservative, like you say.

    well this place should be a lot less interesting.
    don't usually see overt attacks like that. mods hands are pretty tied with that one. 

    interesting wouldn't be the word I'd use. 
    1993 - Gimli, MB (Sun/Mudfest)
    2003 - Fargo, ND
    2005 - Winnipeg, MB
    2011 - Minneapolis, MN (EV)
    2011 - Winnipeg, MB
    2014 - St. Paul, MN
    2020 - Ottawa, ON
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 14,373
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Kat's judgment cometh, and that right soon.  
    Seems like it already came. my2hands is banned. Another conservative voice silenced by left-wing social media police! If message boards count as social media lol
    He made personal attacks - it had literally NOTHING to do with his politics or anyone else's. Also, my2hands isn't a conservative.
    Hasn’t stopped others. And my2hands is certainly not a conservative, like you say.

    well this place should be a lot less interesting.
    don't usually see overt attacks like that. mods hands are pretty tied with that one. 

    interesting wouldn't be the word I'd use. 
    Hahahah, yeah I know you have a different opinion on this ;)
    hippiemom = goodness
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 48,080
    mrussel1 said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Kat's judgment cometh, and that right soon.  
    Seems like it already came. my2hands is banned. Another conservative voice silenced by left-wing social media police! If message boards count as social media lol
    He made personal attacks - it had literally NOTHING to do with his politics or anyone else's. Also, my2hands isn't a conservative.
    Let me repost that comment with instructions, as it's sometimes hard for tone to come across in writing.....

    Seems like it already came. my2hands is banned. [BEGIN SARCASM] Another conservative voice silenced by left-wing social media police! [END SARCASM] If message boards count as social media lol 
    Ahhh, lol. Don't forget about emojis, they can be so helpful. :lol:;)
    I figured the exclamation point would suggest I was doing a Hannity-type character. 

    Didn't really see his personal attack other than calling someone an asshole, so I don't really know what the situation was. 
    it was pretty obvious IMHO
    It still isn't obvious to me at all, even now that I know it was supposed to be sarcasm, lol.
    T'wasn't to me either, considering Trump's recent tweets.  I take him at his word though, and find it funny now.  
    Ditto - of course I believe him, haha!
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 14,373
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Kat's judgment cometh, and that right soon.  
    Seems like it already came. my2hands is banned. Another conservative voice silenced by left-wing social media police! If message boards count as social media lol
    He made personal attacks - it had literally NOTHING to do with his politics or anyone else's. Also, my2hands isn't a conservative.
    Hasn’t stopped others. And my2hands is certainly not a conservative, like you say.

    well this place should be a lot less interesting.
    don't usually see overt attacks like that. mods hands are pretty tied with that one. 

    interesting wouldn't be the word I'd use. 
    Plus I missed exact comment that got the ban. I know it wasn’t a passive aggressive name calling cause that never earns anyone anything. 
    hippiemom = goodness
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 48,080
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Kat's judgment cometh, and that right soon.  
    Seems like it already came. my2hands is banned. Another conservative voice silenced by left-wing social media police! If message boards count as social media lol
    He made personal attacks - it had literally NOTHING to do with his politics or anyone else's. Also, my2hands isn't a conservative.
    Hasn’t stopped others. And my2hands is certainly not a conservative, like you say.

    well this place should be a lot less interesting.
    don't usually see overt attacks like that. mods hands are pretty tied with that one. 

    interesting wouldn't be the word I'd use. 
    Yeah, those kinds of attacks are rare, and always bring consequences from what I've observed. I was surprised it was actually said, since it basically guaranteed a ban.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 18,448
    Jason P said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Jason P said:
    I would surmise that the DNC had 10,000x more involvement in influencing Hillary’s nomination than the Russians did with Trump. 
    Did you get a bunch of facebook ads lying about Bernie on your newsfeed?  My conservative friends continue to tag me in FB anti-HIllary memes that are completely untrue 98% of the time.  You're saying that Hillary and the DNC having a joint fundraising agreement in 2015 affected voting 10,000 to 1, compared to lies on social media.  Am I understanding you correctly?
    My theory is that the DNC promised Hillary the 2016 nomination and the Secretary of State position if she would drop out when she faced Obama. That is just theory but there were internal documents that proved the DNC was locking Hillary in and Bernie never had a realistic chance in a true democratic fight. 
    She was losing to Obama, it was close but considering the pledged delegates, she had a very low chance of coming out.  I agree that Obama promised her the SOS, not the DNC.  There's a big difference there.  There's no way a potential president is going to allow the party to choose the most important cabinet member.  No way.  

    Second, I agree that if Sanders and Clinton were a literal draw or Sanders slightly up on pledged delegates, that the supers probably would have been tipped for Hillary.  I mean, after all she has been in the party, through thick and thin since the 80's. But I absolutely disagree that had the votes been reversed (55 to 44% for Sanders) that the supers would have gone fully for Hillary.  Even then, it's unlikely they could have overcome the pledged delegates.  

    It's always been sour grapes to me.  I'm tired of everyone blaming their preferred candidate's loss on  the media, the delegates, twitter, yes the Russians, etc.  This is true on both sides, it's a total victim culture in this country.  
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon I'm from Winnipeg, you idiot! (Chris Jericho)Posts: 22,353
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Kat's judgment cometh, and that right soon.  
    Seems like it already came. my2hands is banned. Another conservative voice silenced by left-wing social media police! If message boards count as social media lol
    He made personal attacks - it had literally NOTHING to do with his politics or anyone else's. Also, my2hands isn't a conservative.
    Hasn’t stopped others. And my2hands is certainly not a conservative, like you say.

    well this place should be a lot less interesting.
    don't usually see overt attacks like that. mods hands are pretty tied with that one. 

    interesting wouldn't be the word I'd use. 
    Hahahah, yeah I know you have a different opinion on this ;)
    I have no issue with people I disagree with. but when the delivery is constantly like it was......
    1993 - Gimli, MB (Sun/Mudfest)
    2003 - Fargo, ND
    2005 - Winnipeg, MB
    2011 - Minneapolis, MN (EV)
    2011 - Winnipeg, MB
    2014 - St. Paul, MN
    2020 - Ottawa, ON
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 2,796
    edited May 2019


    I don't know whether there are warnings applied (e.g., "you're on thin ice and the next insulting post could get you banned) but if not, I'd definitely prefer to see some sort of suspension as the first action, barring threats, etc.
    Post edited by OnWis97 on
    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
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 48,080
    OnWis97 said:


    I don't know whether there are warnings applied (e.g., "you're on thin ice and the next insulting post could get you banned) but if not, I'd definitely prefer to see some sort of suspension as the first action, barring threats, etc.
    There are normally warnings, yes (and apparently he's already been banned temporarily in the past)
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 14,373
    OnWis97 said:


    I don't know whether there are warnings applied (e.g., "you're on thin ice and the next insulting post could get you banned) but if not, I'd definitely prefer to see some sort of suspension as the first action, barring threats, etc.
    Kat usually does provide warnings....ummm....a friend told me that....I don’t know first hand.

    He was already on her list. ;)
    hippiemom = goodness
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 48,080
    PJ_Soul said:
    mrussel1 said:
    Kat's judgment cometh, and that right soon.  
    Seems like it already came. my2hands is banned. Another conservative voice silenced by left-wing social media police! If message boards count as social media lol
    He made personal attacks - it had literally NOTHING to do with his politics or anyone else's. Also, my2hands isn't a conservative.
    Hasn’t stopped others. And my2hands is certainly not a conservative, like you say.

    well this place should be a lot less interesting.
    don't usually see overt attacks like that. mods hands are pretty tied with that one. 

    interesting wouldn't be the word I'd use. 
    Hahahah, yeah I know you have a different opinion on this ;)
    I have no issue with people I disagree with. but when the delivery is constantly like it was......
    I have to agree, and it tripped me out a little, just because it was always so inconsistent with the activity in all the other forums, and with private communications. It was like dealing with two different people.
    But anyway... onward, lol.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 18,448
    OnWis97 said:


    I don't know whether there are warnings applied (e.g., "you're on thin ice and the next insulting post could get you banned) but if not, I'd definitely prefer to see some sort of suspension as the first action, barring threats, etc.
    Kat usually does provide warnings....ummm....a friend told me that....I don’t know first hand.

    He was already on her list. ;)
    There was someone named Free here back in the Bernie days.  I received a warning or two over my interactions. I never called him a name or anything,  just being me. Kate was very fair and I knew I was walking a line. 
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 18,448
    Kat not Kate
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 48,080
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:


    I don't know whether there are warnings applied (e.g., "you're on thin ice and the next insulting post could get you banned) but if not, I'd definitely prefer to see some sort of suspension as the first action, barring threats, etc.
    Kat usually does provide warnings....ummm....a friend told me that....I don’t know first hand.

    He was already on her list. ;)
    There was someone named Free here back in the Bernie days.  I received a warning or two over my interactions. I never called him a name or anything,  just being me. Kate was very fair and I knew I was walking a line. 
    Yeah, I got some kind of warning once or twice myself - Kat is nice about it (until she's not, ha!).
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 11,432
    edited May 2019
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:


    I don't know whether there are warnings applied (e.g., "you're on thin ice and the next insulting post could get you banned) but if not, I'd definitely prefer to see some sort of suspension as the first action, barring threats, etc.
    Kat usually does provide warnings....ummm....a friend told me that....I don’t know first hand.

    He was already on her list. ;)
    There was someone named Free here back in the Bernie days.  I received a warning or two over my interactions. I never called him a name or anything,  just being me. Kate was very fair and I knew I was walking a line. 
    Walking a line 

    Divide and dissolve 

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d5nVZA5X8Rg


    Edit: NOT a dig at anyone, just a line I like ...
    Post edited by oftenreading on
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 3,590
    it would be mind numblingly stupid to get the "fix" in for any nominee, unless you want to destroy your own party's chances. you let the people decide so you know who has the best chance of winning. 

    At the time they had "binders full of strategies " to maximize their voter turnout.  And at the time prevailing thought was things like blue walls existed which meant the electoral college was rigged in their favor even though they had recently suffered a popular victory electoral defeat. 

    Then Vlad got involved and the rest is history. 
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 3,590
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    it would be mind numblingly stupid to get the "fix" in for any nominee, unless you want to destroy your own party's chances. you let the people decide so you know who has the best chance of winning. 
    Agreed.

    Doesn't mean they won't do it.
    Explain 'fixing' please. 
    By the strictest of definitions, I suppose "fixed" isn't the word.  But the Brazille story points to the party hedging its bets toward Hillary.  It's kinda like the NBA.  No, they don't script a win for the higher-profile teams and players, but they give them the benefit of the doubt on the calls.  The lesser team has to do better than play even with the more important team. Similarly, I don't think you have to be outrageously cynical to think Bernie needed a better-than-50% +1 performance to beat Hillary and that it's because the party was favoring her from day 1.

    I share some of the criticism that Bernie is only a Democrat when it's convenient.  And I understand that the party can run itself how it wants to. But the superdelegates are able water down the vote.

    If the party leaders want Biden and the voters come out overwhelmingly for, say, Harris, then Harris will win the nomination.  But if it's close, the party leaders should prevail. Fix?  No. Hedge?  I'd say so.
    Hedging “bets” is a fact of life and individuals and organizations do it all the time. And party leaders want the “win.”
    The fundraising deal was made in 2015, before Bernie was even a Democrat.  I never saw how this was some indication of fixing, although I appreciate OnWis's softening of the word.  But it's annoying that this talking point persists, while materially untrue.  
    And this talking point is likely one of the reason so many Sanders voters defected to Trump (enough to tip the three key states), let alone those that stayed home.  
    This talking point is starting again.  
    I totally get it. Biden opening a huge lead early as an old stodgy white guy must be because of a fix or hedge and for no other possible reason(s). Some people can’t accept that Bernie and his policies are too radical. Has anyone ever asked Bernie how he’d get congress to go along to implement his policies or does that not matter, being pure and all?

    This is exactly why, although I like Bernie the most, I wouldn't vote for him in the primary if I were to vote in it

    What is normal to most of the world is radical policy here.  Bernie doesn't get that things need to happen incrementally to get support from moderate voters
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 18,448
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    it would be mind numblingly stupid to get the "fix" in for any nominee, unless you want to destroy your own party's chances. you let the people decide so you know who has the best chance of winning. 
    Agreed.

    Doesn't mean they won't do it.
    Explain 'fixing' please. 
    By the strictest of definitions, I suppose "fixed" isn't the word.  But the Brazille story points to the party hedging its bets toward Hillary.  It's kinda like the NBA.  No, they don't script a win for the higher-profile teams and players, but they give them the benefit of the doubt on the calls.  The lesser team has to do better than play even with the more important team. Similarly, I don't think you have to be outrageously cynical to think Bernie needed a better-than-50% +1 performance to beat Hillary and that it's because the party was favoring her from day 1.

    I share some of the criticism that Bernie is only a Democrat when it's convenient.  And I understand that the party can run itself how it wants to. But the superdelegates are able water down the vote.

    If the party leaders want Biden and the voters come out overwhelmingly for, say, Harris, then Harris will win the nomination.  But if it's close, the party leaders should prevail. Fix?  No. Hedge?  I'd say so.
    Hedging “bets” is a fact of life and individuals and organizations do it all the time. And party leaders want the “win.”
    The fundraising deal was made in 2015, before Bernie was even a Democrat.  I never saw how this was some indication of fixing, although I appreciate OnWis's softening of the word.  But it's annoying that this talking point persists, while materially untrue.  
    And this talking point is likely one of the reason so many Sanders voters defected to Trump (enough to tip the three key states), let alone those that stayed home.  
    This talking point is starting again.  
    I totally get it. Biden opening a huge lead early as an old stodgy white guy must be because of a fix or hedge and for no other possible reason(s). Some people can’t accept that Bernie and his policies are too radical. Has anyone ever asked Bernie how he’d get congress to go along to implement his policies or does that not matter, being pure and all?

    This is exactly why, although I like Bernie the most, I wouldn't vote for him in the primary if I were to vote in it

    What is normal to most of the world is radical policy here.  Bernie doesn't get that things need to happen incrementally to get support from moderate voters
    Yes, agreed, but it eventually happens.  Look at Obamacare.  That was ridiculed as radical (even though the Heritage Foundation wrote the same plan in the 90s) and it was highly unpopular when it came out.  It certainly had a lot to do with the 2014 drubbing.  But its popularity grows every year, and the GOP doesn't want to go near it for this election.  That's very telling.  
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 25,152
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    it would be mind numblingly stupid to get the "fix" in for any nominee, unless you want to destroy your own party's chances. you let the people decide so you know who has the best chance of winning. 
    Agreed.

    Doesn't mean they won't do it.
    Explain 'fixing' please. 
    By the strictest of definitions, I suppose "fixed" isn't the word.  But the Brazille story points to the party hedging its bets toward Hillary.  It's kinda like the NBA.  No, they don't script a win for the higher-profile teams and players, but they give them the benefit of the doubt on the calls.  The lesser team has to do better than play even with the more important team. Similarly, I don't think you have to be outrageously cynical to think Bernie needed a better-than-50% +1 performance to beat Hillary and that it's because the party was favoring her from day 1.

    I share some of the criticism that Bernie is only a Democrat when it's convenient.  And I understand that the party can run itself how it wants to. But the superdelegates are able water down the vote.

    If the party leaders want Biden and the voters come out overwhelmingly for, say, Harris, then Harris will win the nomination.  But if it's close, the party leaders should prevail. Fix?  No. Hedge?  I'd say so.
    Hedging “bets” is a fact of life and individuals and organizations do it all the time. And party leaders want the “win.”
    The fundraising deal was made in 2015, before Bernie was even a Democrat.  I never saw how this was some indication of fixing, although I appreciate OnWis's softening of the word.  But it's annoying that this talking point persists, while materially untrue.  
    And this talking point is likely one of the reason so many Sanders voters defected to Trump (enough to tip the three key states), let alone those that stayed home.  
    This talking point is starting again.  
    I totally get it. Biden opening a huge lead early as an old stodgy white guy must be because of a fix or hedge and for no other possible reason(s). Some people can’t accept that Bernie and his policies are too radical. Has anyone ever asked Bernie how he’d get congress to go along to implement his policies or does that not matter, being pure and all?

    This is exactly why, although I like Bernie the most, I wouldn't vote for him in the primary if I were to vote in it

    What is normal to most of the world is radical policy here.  Bernie doesn't get that things need to happen incrementally to get support from moderate voters
    Yes, agreed, but it eventually happens.  Look at Obamacare.  That was ridiculed as radical (even though the Heritage Foundation wrote the same plan in the 90s) and it was highly unpopular when it came out.  It certainly had a lot to do with the 2014 drubbing.  But its popularity grows every year, and the GOP doesn't want to go near it for this election.  That's very telling.  
    True but it also consumed the first two years of Obama’s presidency and was a huge legislative lift, involving inclusion of the repubs and even some of their previous positions/ideas and the health care and insurance industry and still, it only passed on a completely partisan vote. Ted Kennedy and his health down the stretch probably contributed as well.

    As for Bernie, listened to him interviewed on PBS news hour last night and while he’s great at throwing out stats and bemoaning the facts, he has no actual statements on how he’d accomplish cutting drug prices by 50%, particularly in this hyper partisan political climate. Not one repub would support any of his policy ideas, particularly as it relates to socialist causes. He was asked about Team Trump Treason’s trade policy and wouldn’t admit to supporting Team Trump Treason’s policy, despite having talked about the unfairness of NAFTA and TPP. After 4 attempts, he finally admitted that he agrees with Team Trump Treason but not his approach. I also have an issue with his previous hesitation of releasing his tax returns. Plenty of rhetoric, sorely lacking in details. And he’s not a dem. Go Joe Go.
     
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 8,233
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    it would be mind numblingly stupid to get the "fix" in for any nominee, unless you want to destroy your own party's chances. you let the people decide so you know who has the best chance of winning. 
    Agreed.

    Doesn't mean they won't do it.
    Explain 'fixing' please. 
    By the strictest of definitions, I suppose "fixed" isn't the word.  But the Brazille story points to the party hedging its bets toward Hillary.  It's kinda like the NBA.  No, they don't script a win for the higher-profile teams and players, but they give them the benefit of the doubt on the calls.  The lesser team has to do better than play even with the more important team. Similarly, I don't think you have to be outrageously cynical to think Bernie needed a better-than-50% +1 performance to beat Hillary and that it's because the party was favoring her from day 1.

    I share some of the criticism that Bernie is only a Democrat when it's convenient.  And I understand that the party can run itself how it wants to. But the superdelegates are able water down the vote.

    If the party leaders want Biden and the voters come out overwhelmingly for, say, Harris, then Harris will win the nomination.  But if it's close, the party leaders should prevail. Fix?  No. Hedge?  I'd say so.
    Hedging “bets” is a fact of life and individuals and organizations do it all the time. And party leaders want the “win.”
    The fundraising deal was made in 2015, before Bernie was even a Democrat.  I never saw how this was some indication of fixing, although I appreciate OnWis's softening of the word.  But it's annoying that this talking point persists, while materially untrue.  
    And this talking point is likely one of the reason so many Sanders voters defected to Trump (enough to tip the three key states), let alone those that stayed home.  
    This talking point is starting again.  
    I totally get it. Biden opening a huge lead early as an old stodgy white guy must be because of a fix or hedge and for no other possible reason(s). Some people can’t accept that Bernie and his policies are too radical. Has anyone ever asked Bernie how he’d get congress to go along to implement his policies or does that not matter, being pure and all?

    This is exactly why, although I like Bernie the most, I wouldn't vote for him in the primary if I were to vote in it

    What is normal to most of the world is radical policy here.  Bernie doesn't get that things need to happen incrementally to get support from moderate voters
    Yes, agreed, but it eventually happens.  Look at Obamacare.  That was ridiculed as radical (even though the Heritage Foundation wrote the same plan in the 90s) and it was highly unpopular when it came out.  It certainly had a lot to do with the 2014 drubbing.  But its popularity grows every year, and the GOP doesn't want to go near it for this election.  That's very telling.  
    True but it also consumed the first two years of Obama’s presidency and was a huge legislative lift, involving inclusion of the repubs and even some of their previous positions/ideas and the health care and insurance industry and still, it only passed on a completely partisan vote. Ted Kennedy and his health down the stretch probably contributed as well.

    As for Bernie, listened to him interviewed on PBS news hour last night and while he’s great at throwing out stats and bemoaning the facts, he has no actual statements on how he’d accomplish cutting drug prices by 50%, particularly in this hyper partisan political climate. Not one repub would support any of his policy ideas, particularly as it relates to socialist causes. He was asked about Team Trump Treason’s trade policy and wouldn’t admit to supporting Team Trump Treason’s policy, despite having talked about the unfairness of NAFTA and TPP. After 4 attempts, he finally admitted that he agrees with Team Trump Treason but not his approach. I also have an issue with his previous hesitation of releasing his tax returns. Plenty of rhetoric, sorely lacking in details. And he’s not a dem. Go Joe Go.
     
    I agree with everything except Go Joe Go. I'm still undecided on that one.
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 3,590
    Jason P said:
    I would surmise that the DNC had 10,000x more involvement in influencing Hillary’s nomination than the Russians did with Trump. 


    The DNC spent millions on sleeper agents with access to military assets impersonating democratic campaigners to help get Hillary elected?
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 8,233
    Jason P said:
    I would surmise that the DNC had 10,000x more involvement in influencing Hillary’s nomination than the Russians did with Trump. 


    The DNC spent millions on sleeper agents with access to military assets impersonating democratic campaigners to help get Hillary elected?
    Jason said 'influence', not 'cost', and I tend to agree with him, though no one will ever know the impact of one versus the other. 
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
This discussion has been closed.