I’m just going to go ahead and not believe the communist on this one. No offense you can have your beliefs, but I’m not coming along for your ride.
The article is by a Democrat....
If only Bernie was a Democrat.
yes, thos. every winning race that man has won was as an independent. his first membership in a democratic socialist party to this day has not won a national seat and only a few state seats.
he appoarently started as acn independent then was regidtered member of DS partu for 7 years then flipped back to I.
Registered D for the sole purpose of running for President. Hijacking party apparatus to avoid having to do the hard work of getting on ballot in every state.
THAT is opportunist....
That would be correct sir and my point. There is no bigger opportunist then Bernie.
Realist =/= opportunist
But I think a discussion on the subject with a "proud to vote Trump instead of Sanders" supporter is a non-starter. So no point in going there.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I’m just going to go ahead and not believe the communist on this one. No offense you can have your beliefs, but I’m not coming along for your ride.
The article is by a Democrat....
If only Bernie was a Democrat.
yes, thos. every winning race that man has won was as an independent. his first membership in a democratic socialist party to this day has not won a national seat and only a few state seats.
he appoarently started as acn independent then was regidtered member of DS partu for 7 years then flipped back to I.
Registered D for the sole purpose of running for President. Hijacking party apparatus to avoid having to do the hard work of getting on ballot in every state.
THAT is opportunist....
That would be correct sir and my point. There is no bigger opportunist then Bernie.
Realist =/= opportunist
But I think a discussion on the subject with a "proud to vote Trump instead of Sanders" supporter is a non-starter. So no point in going there.
Quoting its customarily used to document what a person explicitly said.
I’m just going to go ahead and not believe the communist on this one. No offense you can have your beliefs, but I’m not coming along for your ride.
The article is by a Democrat....
If only Bernie was a Democrat.
yes, thos. every winning race that man has won was as an independent. his first membership in a democratic socialist party to this day has not won a national seat and only a few state seats.
he appoarently started as acn independent then was regidtered member of DS partu for 7 years then flipped back to I.
Registered D for the sole purpose of running for President. Hijacking party apparatus to avoid having to do the hard work of getting on ballot in every state.
THAT is opportunist....
That would be correct sir and my point. There is no bigger opportunist then Bernie.
Realist =/= opportunist
But I think a discussion on the subject with a "proud to vote Trump instead of Sanders" supporter is a non-starter. So no point in going there.
Quoting its customarily used to document what a person explicitly said.
Would you indulge me, in doing the "A Few Good Men" routine first? Or just get the answer straight away?
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I’m just going to go ahead and not believe the communist on this one. No offense you can have your beliefs, but I’m not coming along for your ride.
The article is by a Democrat....
If only Bernie was a Democrat.
yes, thos. every winning race that man has won was as an independent. his first membership in a democratic socialist party to this day has not won a national seat and only a few state seats.
he appoarently started as acn independent then was regidtered member of DS partu for 7 years then flipped back to I.
Registered D for the sole purpose of running for President. Hijacking party apparatus to avoid having to do the hard work of getting on ballot in every state.
THAT is opportunist....
That would be correct sir and my point. There is no bigger opportunist then Bernie.
Realist =/= opportunist
But I think a discussion on the subject with a "proud to vote Trump instead of Sanders" supporter is a non-starter. So no point in going there.
I guess we could use the same analogy: why even talk to a person about American politics if they can not partake in the process?
I’m just going to go ahead and not believe the communist on this one. No offense you can have your beliefs, but I’m not coming along for your ride.
The article is by a Democrat....
If only Bernie was a Democrat.
yes, thos. every winning race that man has won was as an independent. his first membership in a democratic socialist party to this day has not won a national seat and only a few state seats.
he appoarently started as acn independent then was regidtered member of DS partu for 7 years then flipped back to I.
Registered D for the sole purpose of running for President. Hijacking party apparatus to avoid having to do the hard work of getting on ballot in every state.
THAT is opportunist....
That would be correct sir and my point. There is no bigger opportunist then Bernie.
Realist =/= opportunist
But I think a discussion on the subject with a "proud to vote Trump instead of Sanders" supporter is a non-starter. So no point in going there.
I guess we could use the same analogy: why even talk to a person about American politics if they can not partake in the process?
That is not the same analogy.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
James Carville Rages Over State of Democratic Party: ‘I’m Scared to Death!’
Longtime Democratic strategist James Carville sounded the alarm bells on Tuesday night over what he described as the Democratic Party turning into an “ideological cult,” specifically singling out would-be presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.
“The polling averages have not been very good the last 10 days,” he sighed. “And I’ve seen some pretty good polls that show enthusiasm among Democrats is not as high as we would like it. So there’s something as people are watching this process that is concerning.”
Saying the party needs to “wake up and make sure that we talk about things that are relevant to people,” the former Clinton adviser grumbled that he is “not very impressed” with the Democratic field and suggested DNC chair Tom Perez should be canned.
After complaining that the campaigns “have to be more relevant,” Carville—who is backing longshot presidential hopeful Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO)— was asked if he would get behind Sanders if the progressive senator ended up getting the nomination.
“Well, I’ll get behind him. I have no choice,” an unenthused Carville replied. “But look at the British Labour Party. We’re like talking about people voting from jail cells. We’re talking about not having a border. I mean, come on, people.”
He continued to rail against Sanders’ policy positions, describing the independent Vermont lawmaker as being for “open borders” and stressing that he doesn’t want the “Democratic Party of the United States to be the Labour Party of the United Kingdom,” something he's told The Daily Beast before.
Carville would go on to exclaim that Democrats need to be more concerned about taking power back in Washington, repeatedly stating that only 18 percent of the population controls 52 Senate seats.
“It matters who the candidate is, it matters what a party chooses to talk about!” Carville shouted. “I’m 75 years old. Why am I here doing this? Because I am scared to death, that’s why! Let’s get relevant here, people, for sure.”
“I just love you,” former Democratic senator and current MSNBC contributor Claire McCaskill cooed in response.
Carville, meanwhile, went on to make his case that the party was leaning towards a centrist candidate over a liberal one, wondering out loud: “Do we want to be an ideological cult? Or do we want to have a majoritarian instinct to have the majority party?”
“You and I know that 18 percent of the country elects 52 senators,” he continued, addressing McCaskill. “The urban core is not gonna get it done. What we need is power! Do you understand? That’s what this is about.”
James Carville Rages Over State of Democratic Party: ‘I’m Scared to Death!’
Longtime Democratic strategist James Carville sounded the alarm bells on Tuesday night over what he described as the Democratic Party turning into an “ideological cult,” specifically singling out would-be presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.
“The polling averages have not been very good the last 10 days,” he sighed. “And I’ve seen some pretty good polls that show enthusiasm among Democrats is not as high as we would like it. So there’s something as people are watching this process that is concerning.”
Saying the party needs to “wake up and make sure that we talk about things that are relevant to people,” the former Clinton adviser grumbled that he is “not very impressed” with the Democratic field and suggested DNC chair Tom Perez should be canned.
After complaining that the campaigns “have to be more relevant,” Carville—who is backing longshot presidential hopeful Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO)— was asked if he would get behind Sanders if the progressive senator ended up getting the nomination.
“Well, I’ll get behind him. I have no choice,” an unenthused Carville replied. “But look at the British Labour Party. We’re like talking about people voting from jail cells. We’re talking about not having a border. I mean, come on, people.”
He continued to rail against Sanders’ policy positions, describing the independent Vermont lawmaker as being for “open borders” and stressing that he doesn’t want the “Democratic Party of the United States to be the Labour Party of the United Kingdom,” something he's told The Daily Beast before.
Carville would go on to exclaim that Democrats need to be more concerned about taking power back in Washington, repeatedly stating that only 18 percent of the population controls 52 Senate seats.
“It matters who the candidate is, it matters what a party chooses to talk about!” Carville shouted. “I’m 75 years old. Why am I here doing this? Because I am scared to death, that’s why! Let’s get relevant here, people, for sure.”
“I just love you,” former Democratic senator and current MSNBC contributor Claire McCaskill cooed in response.
Carville, meanwhile, went on to make his case that the party was leaning towards a centrist candidate over a liberal one, wondering out loud: “Do we want to be an ideological cult? Or do we want to have a majoritarian instinct to have the majority party?”
“You and I know that 18 percent of the country elects 52 senators,” he continued, addressing McCaskill. “The urban core is not gonna get it done. What we need is power! Do you understand? That’s what this is about.”
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
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
I’m just going to go ahead and not believe the communist on this one. No offense you can have your beliefs, but I’m not coming along for your ride.
The article is by a Democrat....
If only Bernie was a Democrat.
yes, thos. every winning race that man has won was as an independent. his first membership in a democratic socialist party to this day has not won a national seat and only a few state seats.
he appoarently started as acn independent then was regidtered member of DS partu for 7 years then flipped back to I.
Registered D for the sole purpose of running for President. Hijacking party apparatus to avoid having to do the hard work of getting on ballot in every state.
THAT is opportunist....
That would be correct sir and my point. There is no bigger opportunist then Bernie.
Realist =/= opportunist
But I think a discussion on the subject with a "proud to vote Trump instead of Sanders" supporter is a non-starter. So no point in going there.
Quoting its customarily used to document what a person explicitly said.
I don't think he understands how to use quotes correctly. I can't recall ever saying "proud to vote Trump instead of Sanders". Seems like someone likes to add in some words to fit their own narrative.
I’m just going to go ahead and not believe the communist on this one. No offense you can have your beliefs, but I’m not coming along for your ride.
The article is by a Democrat....
If only Bernie was a Democrat.
yes, thos. every winning race that man has won was as an independent. his first membership in a democratic socialist party to this day has not won a national seat and only a few state seats.
he appoarently started as acn independent then was regidtered member of DS partu for 7 years then flipped back to I.
Registered D for the sole purpose of running for President. Hijacking party apparatus to avoid having to do the hard work of getting on ballot in every state.
THAT is opportunist....
That would be correct sir and my point. There is no bigger opportunist then Bernie.
Realist =/= opportunist
But I think a discussion on the subject with a "proud to vote Trump instead of Sanders" supporter is a non-starter. So no point in going there.
Quoting its customarily used to document what a person explicitly said.
I’m just going to go ahead and not believe the communist on this one. No offense you can have your beliefs, but I’m not coming along for your ride.
The article is by a Democrat....
If only Bernie was a Democrat.
yes, thos. every winning race that man has won was as an independent. his first membership in a democratic socialist party to this day has not won a national seat and only a few state seats.
he appoarently started as acn independent then was regidtered member of DS partu for 7 years then flipped back to I.
Registered D for the sole purpose of running for President. Hijacking party apparatus to avoid having to do the hard work of getting on ballot in every state.
THAT is opportunist....
That would be correct sir and my point. There is no bigger opportunist then Bernie.
Realist =/= opportunist
But I think a discussion on the subject with a "proud to vote Trump instead of Sanders" supporter is a non-starter. So no point in going there.
Quoting its customarily used to document what a person explicitly said.
I don't think he understands how to use quotes correctly. I can't recall ever saying "proud to vote Trump instead of Sanders". Seems like someone likes to add in some words to fit their own narrative.
Now McGruff - please point to where I "were pissed at Eddie for taking a private jet, ", quoting you verbatim. ?
Seems like someone likes to add in some words to fit their own narrative.
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I’m just going to go ahead and not believe the communist on this one. No offense you can have your beliefs, but I’m not coming along for your ride.
The article is by a Democrat....
If only Bernie was a Democrat.
yes, thos. every winning race that man has won was as an independent. his first membership in a democratic socialist party to this day has not won a national seat and only a few state seats.
he appoarently started as acn independent then was regidtered member of DS partu for 7 years then flipped back to I.
Registered D for the sole purpose of running for President. Hijacking party apparatus to avoid having to do the hard work of getting on ballot in every state.
THAT is opportunist....
That would be correct sir and my point. There is no bigger opportunist then Bernie.
Realist =/= opportunist
But I think a discussion on the subject with a "proud to vote Trump instead of Sanders" supporter is a non-starter. So no point in going there.
Quoting its customarily used to document what a person explicitly said.
I’m just going to go ahead and not believe the communist on this one. No offense you can have your beliefs, but I’m not coming along for your ride.
The article is by a Democrat....
If only Bernie was a Democrat.
yes, thos. every winning race that man has won was as an independent. his first membership in a democratic socialist party to this day has not won a national seat and only a few state seats.
he appoarently started as acn independent then was regidtered member of DS partu for 7 years then flipped back to I.
Registered D for the sole purpose of running for President. Hijacking party apparatus to avoid having to do the hard work of getting on ballot in every state.
THAT is opportunist....
That would be correct sir and my point. There is no bigger opportunist then Bernie.
Realist =/= opportunist
But I think a discussion on the subject with a "proud to vote Trump instead of Sanders" supporter is a non-starter. So no point in going there.
Quoting its customarily used to document what a person explicitly said.
I don't think he understands how to use quotes correctly. I can't recall ever saying "proud to vote Trump instead of Sanders". Seems like someone likes to add in some words to fit their own narrative.
Now McGruff - please point to where I "were pissed at Eddie for taking a private jet, ", quoting you verbatim. ?
Seems like someone likes to add in some words to fit their own narrative.
I was just sarcastically replying to your dumb senseless post. Even so you didn't use quotes correctly.
You re this big environmental guy: are you ok with people like Bernie, Elizabeth and Ed Using private jets to get around?
As the reality of the first caucus results come in, and I see how strongly Sanders is finishing, I've had my first, "oh shit" moment when I realized I may have to vote for that man if he's the nominee. I don't think I can do it. Honestly. I can vote for any of the others. I don't think I can vote for Bernie. We have a Nationalist in the White House. We could replace him with a Socialist. I cannot vote to replace one side of a coin for the other. I'm having one of those nights of despair.
Nationalism is not the flip side of socialism. That equation simply makes no sense.
And it still amazes me how frightened the USA is of socialism.
Perhaps what_dreams was thinking of a hexagonal coin. Stood on edge, there are several sides.
To speak for myself, what I mean is that Bernie has the same demagogue personality as Trump, and too much power in his hands will be equally disastrous for this country. He calls for an open revolution in our government (without explaining what that means, really), and his supporters bully the rest of the party. They're not interested in democracy or even small r republicanism. They are autocratic in their views and their behavior. In that way, they are two sides of the same coin. I am not afraid of "socialism" as it has been traditionally practiced in this country. We take care of the elderly, the disabled, and low-income adults with children. [EDIT: yes, we could do a better job at it, which is why I continue to support the Democratic party]. Beyond that, I hold a pretty conservative view that my labor is my labor. I get paid for my labor. Taking what I earn to give it to some other able-bodied person who has not earned it = theft. I'm not interested in a radical debate on how much of an income is too much of an income. If you think YOU make too much money, YOU are welcome to give it to whatever charity you wish. I am not interested one bit in having another loud-mouthed president in Bernie Sanders telling me what he thinks my income ought be and why I have to give it to him to redistribute to able-bodied people perfectly capable of working for what they have.
As the reality of the first caucus results come in, and I see how strongly Sanders is finishing, I've had my first, "oh shit" moment when I realized I may have to vote for that man if he's the nominee. I don't think I can do it. Honestly. I can vote for any of the others. I don't think I can vote for Bernie. We have a Nationalist in the White House. We could replace him with a Socialist. I cannot vote to replace one side of a coin for the other. I'm having one of those nights of despair.
Nationalism is not the flip side of socialism. That equation simply makes no sense.
And it still amazes me how frightened the USA is of socialism.
Perhaps what_dreams was thinking of a hexagonal coin. Stood on edge, there are several sides.
To speak for myself, what I mean is that Bernie has the same demagogue personality as Trump, and too much power in his hands will be equally disastrous for this country. He calls for an open revolution in our government (without explaining what that means, really), and his supporters bully the rest of the party. They're not interested in democracy or even small r republicanism. They are autocratic in their views and their behavior. In that way, they are two sides of the same coin. I am not afraid of "socialism" as it has been traditionally practiced in this country. We take care of the elderly, the disabled, and low-income adults with children. [EDIT: yes, we could do a better job at it, which is why I continue to support the Democratic party]. Beyond that, I hold a pretty conservative view that my labor is my labor. I get paid for my labor. Taking what I earn to give it to some other able-bodied person who has not earned it = theft. I'm not interested in a radical debate on how much of an income is too much of an income. If you think YOU make too much money, YOU are welcome to give it to whatever charity you wish. I am not interested one bit in having another loud-mouthed president in Bernie Sanders telling me what he thinks my income ought be and why I have to give it to him to redistribute to able-bodied people perfectly capable of working for what they have.
As the reality of the first caucus results come in, and I see how strongly Sanders is finishing, I've had my first, "oh shit" moment when I realized I may have to vote for that man if he's the nominee. I don't think I can do it. Honestly. I can vote for any of the others. I don't think I can vote for Bernie. We have a Nationalist in the White House. We could replace him with a Socialist. I cannot vote to replace one side of a coin for the other. I'm having one of those nights of despair.
Nationalism is not the flip side of socialism. That equation simply makes no sense.
And it still amazes me how frightened the USA is of socialism.
Perhaps what_dreams was thinking of a hexagonal coin. Stood on edge, there are several sides.
To speak for myself, what I mean is that Bernie has the same demagogue personality as Trump, and too much power in his hands will be equally disastrous for this country. He calls for an open revolution in our government (without explaining what that means, really), and his supporters bully the rest of the party. They're not interested in democracy or even small r republicanism. They are autocratic in their views and their behavior. In that way, they are two sides of the same coin. I am not afraid of "socialism" as it has been traditionally practiced in this country. We take care of the elderly, the disabled, and low-income adults with children. [EDIT: yes, we could do a better job at it, which is why I continue to support the Democratic party]. Beyond that, I hold a pretty conservative view that my labor is my labor. I get paid for my labor. Taking what I earn to give it to some other able-bodied person who has not earned it = theft. I'm not interested in a radical debate on how much of an income is too much of an income. If you think YOU make too much money, YOU are welcome to give it to whatever charity you wish. I am not interested one bit in having another loud-mouthed president in Bernie Sanders telling me what he thinks my income ought be and why I have to give it to him to redistribute to able-bodied people perfectly capable of working for what they have.
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
As the reality of the first caucus results come in, and I see how strongly Sanders is finishing, I've had my first, "oh shit" moment when I realized I may have to vote for that man if he's the nominee. I don't think I can do it. Honestly. I can vote for any of the others. I don't think I can vote for Bernie. We have a Nationalist in the White House. We could replace him with a Socialist. I cannot vote to replace one side of a coin for the other. I'm having one of those nights of despair.
Nationalism is not the flip side of socialism. That equation simply makes no sense.
And it still amazes me how frightened the USA is of socialism.
Perhaps what_dreams was thinking of a hexagonal coin. Stood on edge, there are several sides.
To speak for myself, what I mean is that Bernie has the same demagogue personality as Trump, and too much power in his hands will be equally disastrous for this country. He calls for an open revolution in our government (without explaining what that means, really), and his supporters bully the rest of the party. They're not interested in democracy or even small r republicanism. They are autocratic in their views and their behavior. In that way, they are two sides of the same coin. I am not afraid of "socialism" as it has been traditionally practiced in this country. We take care of the elderly, the disabled, and low-income adults with children. [EDIT: yes, we could do a better job at it, which is why I continue to support the Democratic party]. Beyond that, I hold a pretty conservative view that my labor is my labor. I get paid for my labor. Taking what I earn to give it to some other able-bodied person who has not earned it = theft. I'm not interested in a radical debate on how much of an income is too much of an income. If you think YOU make too much money, YOU are welcome to give it to whatever charity you wish. I am not interested one bit in having another loud-mouthed president in Bernie Sanders telling me what he thinks my income ought be and why I have to give it to him to redistribute to able-bodied people perfectly capable of working for what they have.
For sure, in general, Democrats are more focused on those social issues and I very much respect that. At the same time, I've known some very generous Republicans that want the same thing for people but they want to do it privately and not through government. I think it's more likely for everyone to get some good care if government is set up to do that- thus my preference for Democrat. Now here's the thing though- if both sides have people that want the same end result but have differing opinion on how to get there, that seems like a good reason to try to get these "sides" (I think there are a lot of sides- maybe more than that coin has) to work together. It used to work that way:
I think this is a concept worth consideration. This helps me to think outside the box as I watch the division grow:
I’m just going to go ahead and not believe the communist on this one. No offense you can have your beliefs, but I’m not coming along for your ride.
The article is by a Democrat....
If only Bernie was a Democrat.
yes, thos. every winning race that man has won was as an independent. his first membership in a democratic socialist party to this day has not won a national seat and only a few state seats.
he appoarently started as acn independent then was regidtered member of DS partu for 7 years then flipped back to I.
Registered D for the sole purpose of running for President. Hijacking party apparatus to avoid having to do the hard work of getting on ballot in every state.
THAT is opportunist....
That would be correct sir and my point. There is no bigger opportunist then Bernie.
Realist =/= opportunist
But I think a discussion on the subject with a "proud to vote Trump instead of Sanders" supporter is a non-starter. So no point in going there.
Quoting its customarily used to document what a person explicitly said.
I’m just going to go ahead and not believe the communist on this one. No offense you can have your beliefs, but I’m not coming along for your ride.
The article is by a Democrat....
If only Bernie was a Democrat.
yes, thos. every winning race that man has won was as an independent. his first membership in a democratic socialist party to this day has not won a national seat and only a few state seats.
he appoarently started as acn independent then was regidtered member of DS partu for 7 years then flipped back to I.
Registered D for the sole purpose of running for President. Hijacking party apparatus to avoid having to do the hard work of getting on ballot in every state.
THAT is opportunist....
That would be correct sir and my point. There is no bigger opportunist then Bernie.
Realist =/= opportunist
But I think a discussion on the subject with a "proud to vote Trump instead of Sanders" supporter is a non-starter. So no point in going there.
Quoting its customarily used to document what a person explicitly said.
I don't think he understands how to use quotes correctly. I can't recall ever saying "proud to vote Trump instead of Sanders". Seems like someone likes to add in some words to fit their own narrative.
Now McGruff - please point to where I "were pissed at Eddie for taking a private jet, ", quoting you verbatim. ?
Seems like someone likes to add in some words to fit their own narrative.
I was just sarcastically replying to your dumb senseless post. Even so you didn't use quotes correctly.
You re this big environmental guy: are you ok with people like Bernie, Elizabeth and Ed Using private jets to get around?
I don't see how my post was "dumb" or "senseless". And I don't see this sarcasm you speak of in yours.
And I used quote marks, or bunnyears if the term suits you better, in a very valid and correct way. I used it to make the describing term I used to make my point, easily and plainly seen in text to get through the sentence easier.
Examples of this:
- Man, Paul "Hotter than a midday sun" Stanley sure was on fire at tonights concert. - Turns out the "SEGA or nothing" fans of the 90s are all playing the Nintendo Switch nowadays. - Bernie "winning this thing for sure" Sanders really is the man. And also a mans man.
Does that mean that @mrussel1 also were wrong in implying I had used it wrong? Yes he was. And then you jumped in. Two wrongs does not make a right though.
But when asked for a source by mrussel1 I gave him one. Which showed the basis of this condensation, summarized description.
If you are looking for using quote marks for exact quotes, or maybe even some old university standard for making references with footnotes, than you are not looking at a context in which that is suitable.
But just like diverting to a discussion on the proper use of quote marks instead of the heart of the matter - you are also diverting from answering my question: please point to where I "were pissed at Eddie for taking a private jet, ", quoting you verbatim?
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
James Carville Rages Over State of Democratic Party: ‘I’m Scared to Death!’
Longtime Democratic strategist James Carville sounded the alarm bells on Tuesday night over what he described as the Democratic Party turning into an “ideological cult,” specifically singling out would-be presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.
“The polling averages have not been very good the last 10 days,” he sighed. “And I’ve seen some pretty good polls that show enthusiasm among Democrats is not as high as we would like it. So there’s something as people are watching this process that is concerning.”
Saying the party needs to “wake up and make sure that we talk about things that are relevant to people,” the former Clinton adviser grumbled that he is “not very impressed” with the Democratic field and suggested DNC chair Tom Perez should be canned.
After complaining that the campaigns “have to be more relevant,” Carville—who is backing longshot presidential hopeful Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO)— was asked if he would get behind Sanders if the progressive senator ended up getting the nomination.
“Well, I’ll get behind him. I have no choice,” an unenthused Carville replied. “But look at the British Labour Party. We’re like talking about people voting from jail cells. We’re talking about not having a border. I mean, come on, people.”
He continued to rail against Sanders’ policy positions, describing the independent Vermont lawmaker as being for “open borders” and stressing that he doesn’t want the “Democratic Party of the United States to be the Labour Party of the United Kingdom,” something he's told The Daily Beast before.
Carville would go on to exclaim that Democrats need to be more concerned about taking power back in Washington, repeatedly stating that only 18 percent of the population controls 52 Senate seats.
“It matters who the candidate is, it matters what a party chooses to talk about!” Carville shouted. “I’m 75 years old. Why am I here doing this? Because I am scared to death, that’s why! Let’s get relevant here, people, for sure.”
“I just love you,” former Democratic senator and current MSNBC contributor Claire McCaskill cooed in response.
Carville, meanwhile, went on to make his case that the party was leaning towards a centrist candidate over a liberal one, wondering out loud: “Do we want to be an ideological cult? Or do we want to have a majoritarian instinct to have the majority party?”
“You and I know that 18 percent of the country elects 52 senators,” he continued, addressing McCaskill. “The urban core is not gonna get it done. What we need is power! Do you understand? That’s what this is about.”
I watched this. It was pretty crazy. I agree with a lot of what he was saying.
Comments
But I think a discussion on the subject with a "proud to vote Trump instead of Sanders" supporter is a non-starter. So no point in going there.
www.headstonesband.com
James Carville Rages Over State of Democratic Party: ‘I’m Scared to Death!’
Longtime Democratic strategist James Carville sounded the alarm bells on Tuesday night over what he described as the Democratic Party turning into an “ideological cult,” specifically singling out would-be presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.
In the wake of Monday night’s chaotic Iowa Democratic caucus that featured delayed vote results due to a faulty app, Carville appeared on MSNBC to warn that regardless of the final tallies, the Dems appear to be in big trouble.
“The polling averages have not been very good the last 10 days,” he sighed. “And I’ve seen some pretty good polls that show enthusiasm among Democrats is not as high as we would like it. So there’s something as people are watching this process that is concerning.”
Saying the party needs to “wake up and make sure that we talk about things that are relevant to people,” the former Clinton adviser grumbled that he is “not very impressed” with the Democratic field and suggested DNC chair Tom Perez should be canned.
After complaining that the campaigns “have to be more relevant,” Carville—who is backing longshot presidential hopeful Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO)— was asked if he would get behind Sanders if the progressive senator ended up getting the nomination.
“Well, I’ll get behind him. I have no choice,” an unenthused Carville replied. “But look at the British Labour Party. We’re like talking about people voting from jail cells. We’re talking about not having a border. I mean, come on, people.”
He continued to rail against Sanders’ policy positions, describing the independent Vermont lawmaker as being for “open borders” and stressing that he doesn’t want the “Democratic Party of the United States to be the Labour Party of the United Kingdom,” something he's told The Daily Beast before.
Carville would go on to exclaim that Democrats need to be more concerned about taking power back in Washington, repeatedly stating that only 18 percent of the population controls 52 Senate seats.
“It matters who the candidate is, it matters what a party chooses to talk about!” Carville shouted. “I’m 75 years old. Why am I here doing this? Because I am scared to death, that’s why! Let’s get relevant here, people, for sure.”
“I just love you,” former Democratic senator and current MSNBC contributor Claire McCaskill cooed in response.
Carville, meanwhile, went on to make his case that the party was leaning towards a centrist candidate over a liberal one, wondering out loud: “Do we want to be an ideological cult? Or do we want to have a majoritarian instinct to have the majority party?”
“You and I know that 18 percent of the country elects 52 senators,” he continued, addressing McCaskill. “The urban core is not gonna get it done. What we need is power! Do you understand? That’s what this is about.”
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
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
Now McGruff - please point to where I "were pissed at Eddie for taking a private jet, ", quoting you verbatim. ?
Seems like someone likes to add in some words to fit their own narrative.
Even so you didn't use quotes correctly.
You re this big environmental guy: are you ok with people like Bernie, Elizabeth and Ed
Using private jets to get around?
I am not afraid of "socialism" as it has been traditionally practiced in this country. We take care of the elderly, the disabled, and low-income adults with children. [EDIT: yes, we could do a better job at it, which is why I continue to support the Democratic party]. Beyond that, I hold a pretty conservative view that my labor is my labor. I get paid for my labor. Taking what I earn to give it to some other able-bodied person who has not earned it = theft.
I'm not interested in a radical debate on how much of an income is too much of an income. If you think YOU make too much money, YOU are welcome to give it to whatever charity you wish. I am not interested one bit in having another loud-mouthed president in Bernie Sanders telling me what he thinks my income ought be and why I have to give it to him to redistribute to able-bodied people perfectly capable of working for what they have.
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
I don't see how my post was "dumb" or "senseless".
And I don't see this sarcasm you speak of in yours.
And I used quote marks, or bunnyears if the term suits you better, in a very valid and correct way. I used it to make the describing term I used to make my point, easily and plainly seen in text to get through the sentence easier.
Examples of this:
- Man, Paul "Hotter than a midday sun" Stanley sure was on fire at tonights concert.
- Turns out the "SEGA or nothing" fans of the 90s are all playing the Nintendo Switch nowadays.
- Bernie "winning this thing for sure" Sanders really is the man. And also a mans man.
Does that mean that @mrussel1 also were wrong in implying I had used it wrong? Yes he was. And then you jumped in. Two wrongs does not make a right though.
But when asked for a source by mrussel1 I gave him one. Which showed the basis of this condensation, summarized description.
If you are looking for using quote marks for exact quotes, or maybe even some old university standard for making references with footnotes, than you are not looking at a context in which that is suitable.
But just like diverting to a discussion on the proper use of quote marks instead of the heart of the matter - you are also diverting from answering my question: please point to where I "were pissed at Eddie for taking a private jet, ", quoting you verbatim?
I watched this. It was pretty crazy. I agree with a lot of what he was saying.