Dem Party

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

Truly horrible on John Podesta, particularly when compared to your guy,  Trump.  

Gish Gallop, Distort, Distract, Deflect
Haven't I tried helping your hapless party for months on end, I couldn't convince you after 18 straight months revealing just how corrupt your Heiress was? In 6 short months Ill again explain why you and your party failed again...give me another chance. When will you realize I'm on your side?
I'm betting that shorty after the mid-terms this thread will also be (perpetually) "closed for review"!

You traffic in lies,  distortions,  and false equivalency.  You are just doing your little part to try and create dissent in the progressives to advance your alt right agenda.  No one is fooled here.  Free may have been misguided and the epitome of a Bernie bro, but he wasn't duplicitous. 

pjhawks said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

mrussel1 said:

JimmyV said:

Again...it's not about Sanders. For many voters, like myself, Sanders was the only viable option to Clinton because the field was so small. There was no 2016 equivalent to an Obama or even an Edwards. This was by design and reflective of a party that had already chosen its nominee behind closed doors.

As for the super delegates, they may have prevented another McGovern disaster but they did so by bringing about a collapse of the "blue wall" in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The electability, the inevitability, it was all bullshit.

If we don't own what happened in 2016 we aren't going to do any better in 2020.

It doesn't matter what you think, individually, because more Democratic voters thought the opposite.  I would have had absolutely no problem with Sanders being the candidate had he prevailed in the DEFINED process.  I would have happily cast my vote for him, against Trump, regardless of who I voted for in the primary.  
There is no intellectually honest or consistent solution to 2016 that would have made Sanders the candidate.  

For the love of god, man...it's not about Sanders.

Then what, precisely is it about?  What are you advocating for here?

A robust crop of candidates. Not one "inevitable" choice.

if the Republicans had done this we wouldn't be stuck with President FuckTard.  An inevitable choice by the republicans would look a shit load better than what we got now.

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

mrussel1 said:

Truly horrible on John Podesta, particularly when compared to your guy,  Trump.  

Gish Gallop, Distort, Distract, Deflect
Haven't I tried helping your hapless party for months on end, I couldn't convince you after 18 straight months revealing just how corrupt your Heiress was? In 6 short months Ill again explain why you and your party failed again...give me another chance. When will you realize I'm on your side?
I'm betting that shorty after the mid-terms this thread will also be (perpetually) "closed for review"!

You traffic in lies,  distortions,  and false equivalency.  You are just doing your little part to try and create dissent in the progressives to advance your alt right agenda.  No one is fooled here.  Free may have been misguided and the epitome of a Bernie bro, but he wasn't duplicitous. 

Okay... place your faith... blue wave?
I hate to be an jerk but its "false equivalence" not false equivalency...lets at least set that straight!

The only thing worse than a "jerk" is an uninformed one.

e·quiv·a·len·cy

əˈkwivələnsē/

noun

1. another term for equivalence.

CARPET CALL- BLUE WAVE?

Seems odd to be gloating about a CNN poll when you don't believe in polls, or in CNN. I'd look at actual election results and their trend;  seems wiser. 

mrussel1 said:

JC29856 said:

Ill check back later... its open mic night at applebys! $6 APPS
$1 BLUE WAVE CURACAO u call its and of course FOLLA THE DOLLA MOSCOW MUELLERS!
BTW- how those indictments trickling thru the courts?
Intelligentsia

This is gibberish. 

benjs said:

JC29856 said:

benjs said:

JC29856 said:

should I make my predictions on the responses from the Hill-bot email list'ers?
For now Ill quote the democratic leader Pelosi:

“I don’t know that a person can tape a person without the person’s consent and then release it to the press,” Pelosi told reporters today. “In terms of candidates and campaigns I don’t see anything inappropriate in what Mr. Hoyer was engaged in — a conversation about the realities of life in the race as to who can make the general election.”

Here is the Democrats strategy to WINNING (worked so well over the past 10 years or so!)
We're openly and admitting to rigging the "democratic primaries" (against progressives) because that's the best chance for "us" to "win". wait what?
The proof and the reason why democratic voters should "trust their process"? 1000 SEATS AND HILLIARY CLINTON!
Now I see why Hilliary email list is worth so much money! I should try to buy some or all of that list, I too have a few things to sell them

In determining candidates, if I had to choose between a self-serving select few and the largely uneducated and/or ignorant population - I don't know which is less bad. Why do you feel the population is the lesser of two evils?

Aren't you ignoring the point that the Democratic party leadership is shutting out progressive voices? Or do you think it is just coincidental that the progressives are rarely if ever backed (I posted a few examples, see Ironstache vs Myers, the guardian did an entire piece).
I don't feel the population is the lesser of two evils, what make you assume that?

If you want a "system" whereby the primary candidates are chosen by a select few, for example a board, then describe how it would work and we can discuss it. I'm addressing the current system in place, whereby candidates run in a primary and the winner as determined by the voters runs against the "opposing" party(s) in the general.

If voters are too uneducated and ignorant for a thriving democracy, then have the Democratic party become a public company, that way shareholders have their say and the board of directors can choose the primary candidate (on behalf of their shareholders).
This will do away with the charade of holding "democratic" primary elections and better yet save money on the primary elections while raising capital (publicly traded) for the party.

I don't think I'm ignoring anything. With the current government structure in the US government, within the context of the federal republic, the democratic-ness of the system is defined by how much gatekeeping is done by the parties. As the gatekeeping functions of the parties are reduced (and please don't make it sound like ignoring progressive voices to assure a singular voice is an exclusively DNC affair), the democratic impact is heightened, and vice-versa. 

The "Board of Directors" model you're referring to effectively is the DNC with its superdelegates (arguably your biggest problem with the system), so I'm not sure why you think that'd be preferable. 

On the other side of the coin, the absence of the "Board of Directors" model is closer to the GOP with their lack of superdelegates. 

Model A produced Hillary Clinton as a candidate. Model B produced Donald Trump as a candidate. 

I'm not sure how anyone would read your lines and your disproportionate criticism of the DNC and its members, when compared to your hard-to-find GOP criticism, and disagree with my conclusion that you feel that the population is the lesser of two evils. 

In my opinion, all roads lead to destruction.