Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-10-2018, 06:29 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,046
DNC closes ranks: new rule excludes interlopers

The Democratic National Committee has enacted a rule that will require Presidential candidates to swear and affirm allegiance to the party. Because, you know, Bernie cost them the last election.

I see a few problems with this move. Arbitrarily shutting people out does not seem like a good idea for a party that wants to represent the whole country.
  #2  
Old 06-10-2018, 06:37 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,726
Itís pretty stupid to have a party that doesnít require its candidates to be part of the party.

Maybe stupid isnít the word. Absurd, maybe?

Would you criticize PETA for establishing a rule that meat-eaters canít be board members? Seems like a totally reasonable rule to me.
  #3  
Old 06-10-2018, 07:01 PM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 15,447
How did you come to that analogy, Ravenman? That doesn't sound equivalent at all.
  #4  
Old 06-10-2018, 07:10 PM
dalej42 dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 13,436
I’m liking it. Sanders did poison the well. I don’t think he’s running in 2020 as he’s got serious baggage from 2016. Bernie and Jane can stay home and look for their tax returns.
  #5  
Old 06-10-2018, 07:13 PM
Lightnin' Lightnin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Apple Core
Posts: 7,361
Sounds like a good idea to me.
__________________
What's the good of Science if nobody gets hurt?
  #6  
Old 06-10-2018, 07:21 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
So, Sanders joins the party just long enough to get through the election in 2020. He's not going to have to worry about any presidential election after that. Otherwise, this new rule will do an excellent job of encouraging more 3rd party candidates to run on the left and weaken the chances of the Democrats to win the EC. They should call this the "We want more Ralph Naders" rule. It will also do an excellent job of encouraging folks who support Sanders to vote for 3rd party candidates. Who needs all those Bernie Bros anyway!!

Last edited by John Mace; 06-10-2018 at 07:22 PM.
  #7  
Old 06-10-2018, 07:35 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,198
Not sure what is wrong with saying that to run to be the representative of a party you need to be of that party. That really is as it should be.

OTOH a tactic of running for a party's nomination knowing that you will decline the nomination and run as an independent, specifically to cut off threats that might split your vote ... which apparently is what Sanders does in his Senate runs seems unethical.
Quote:
Currently, Sanders is running for re-election to the United States Senate in Vermont. His campaign strategy will be the same as his previous two Senate races, which includes running as a Democrat, declining the partyís nomination when he wins a majority of the votes and then running as an independent instead. This strategy allows Sanders to get rid of any possible threats by blocking any other liberal candidate from getting the approval of the Democratic Party.
  #8  
Old 06-10-2018, 07:40 PM
John Mace's Avatar
John Mace John Mace is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 85,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Not sure what is wrong with saying that to run to be the representative of a party you need to be of that party. That really is as it should be.
If it helps you win elections, there is nothing wrong with it. If it makes it harder for you to win elections, then that's what's wrong with it.
  #9  
Old 06-10-2018, 07:43 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
How did you come to that analogy, Ravenman? That doesn't sound equivalent at all.
Why not? To be part of the leadership of an organization, a person should be (a) in the organization and (b) support in a general sense the goals of the organization.

Last edited by Ravenman; 06-10-2018 at 07:44 PM.
  #10  
Old 06-10-2018, 07:57 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mace View Post
If it helps you win elections, there is nothing wrong with it. If it makes it harder for you to win elections, then that's what's wrong with it.
I can understand (even if I do not agree with it) regarding a risk in the short term from those who feel it is targeted at Sanders specifically. But long term? I think it helps a party to not allow those who are not of it to take advantage of its infrastructure for their own purposes. Having those who do not feel enough part of the party to even declare themselves to be of it in your process sets up a cohort who will then do as many Sander supporters did, and sit out the general. They are for the personality not for the values the party represents and if not that personality then screw it.
  #11  
Old 06-10-2018, 08:03 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Iím liking it. Sanders did poison the well. I donít think heís running in 2020 as heís got serious baggage from 2016. Bernie and Jane can stay home and look for their tax returns.
How did he poison the well exactly? Didn't 90%+ of Bernie voters vote for Hillary?

Sanders represents a pressing need within the democrat party. Progressives who actually act like progressives. A lot of democrats talk a big talk but when in power, they do whatever is in the interest of the rich and powerful first and foremost.

There is a deep desire among the public for politicians who will take on the rich and powerful. We have serious problems that can only be solved by making the rich and powerful unhappy. Our broken healthcare system. Financial instability in the banking industry. Regulatory capture. Corporate control of the media. Income inequality. A culture of bribery.

Sweeping that under the rug will just lower turnout. People aren't going to line up around the block to vote for a democrat who ignores the wants of the public.

Liberals now make up half of all democratic voters, and I'd assume they are the majority of primary voters or midterm voters.

Ignoring them won't make this issue go away.

Having said that, Sanders wasn't perfect and Hillary would have been a much better president than Trump. But the public need to be listened to about this.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #12  
Old 06-10-2018, 08:11 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 7,449
I'm okay with the rule, but the real rub was super delegates. I don't always agree with Bernie Bros, but when I do, I prefer limiting or even eliminating super delegates.

Stay politically active my friends.
  #13  
Old 06-10-2018, 08:17 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 24,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Itís pretty stupid to have a party that doesnít require its candidates to be part of the party.

Maybe stupid isnít the word. Absurd, maybe?
I agree; why would you allow someone who isn't a member of your voluntary organization to lead your organization?
  #14  
Old 06-10-2018, 08:23 PM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
How did he poison the well exactly? Didn't 90%+ of Bernie voters vote for Hillary?

Sanders represents a pressing need within the democrat party. Progressives who actually act like progressives. A lot of democrats talk a big talk but when in power, they do whatever is in the interest of the rich and powerful first and foremost.

There is a deep desire among the public for politicians who will take on the rich and powerful. We have serious problems that can only be solved by making the rich and powerful unhappy. Our broken healthcare system. Financial instability in the banking industry. Regulatory capture. Corporate control of the media. Income inequality. A culture of bribery.

Sweeping that under the rug will just lower turnout. People aren't going to line up around the block to vote for a democrat who ignores the wants of the public.

Liberals now make up half of all democratic voters, and I'd assume they are the majority of primary voters or midterm voters.

Ignoring them won't make this issue go away.

Having said that, Sanders wasn't perfect and Hillary would have been a much better president than Trump. But the public need to be listened to about this.
We have had tons of True Scotsman lefties run for President in the Democratic primaries. Before 2016, I guess nobody saw the need to have a rule closing the ďAir Bud LoopholeĒ - there isnít anything in the rule book saying a dog canít play basketball.

And most of those lefties have lost primaries in a generally convincing way. Letís not pretend that radicalism is mainstream.
  #15  
Old 06-10-2018, 09:03 PM
Fair Rarity's Avatar
Fair Rarity Fair Rarity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post

Sanders represents a pressing need within the democrat party. Progressives who actually act like progressives. A lot of democrats talk a big talk but when in power, they do whatever is in the interest of the rich and powerful first and foremost.
I agree that Sanders represents that pressing need. And the best thing he could do about it is to join the party. Change it from within. Not take his toys and go home when he's not given his way 100%.

While he doesn't do what's in the interest of the rich and powerful first and foremost, he does what's best for HIM first and foremost. He's hardly the only senator that does it, but his image among the Bernie Bros and reality doesn't line up.

I'm very angry at Bernie, but I've been pushing for him for decades. He's let me down by not being what I wanted him to be. He's an illusion. There's no substance. I guess not seeing it was forgivable when I was a teen in VT, but I see through him now.
  #16  
Old 06-10-2018, 09:06 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,321
What a great principle for the Democratic Party to stand on. After all the important thing is remaining in power. No need to follow the GOP and pretend they stand for something else, just go out and announce to the world the only important thing is maintaining an exclusive club. What a shame they can't run Hillary again. Oh wait they can lose another presidential election, no worries there, no consequences to Bush and Trump becoming president were there?
__________________
ed

Last edited by TriPolar; 06-10-2018 at 09:07 PM.
  #17  
Old 06-10-2018, 09:08 PM
Dangerosa Dangerosa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 22,298
This is as it should be. If you haven't worked for and supported the party, you should not be entitled to its support.
__________________
One day, in Teletubbie land, it was Tinkie Winkie's turn to wear the skirt.
  #18  
Old 06-10-2018, 09:13 PM
kunilou's Avatar
kunilou kunilou is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 24,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
I see a few problems with this move. Arbitrarily shutting people out does not seem like a good idea for a party that wants to represent the whole country.
So, you're also okay with Arthur Jones running for Congress as a Republican? And now that he won the primary, should the Republican party automatically endorse him?
  #19  
Old 06-10-2018, 09:20 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dangerosa View Post
This is as it should be. If you haven't worked for and supported the party, you should not be entitled to its support.
Why? Are you saying Bernie Sanders didn't work for and support the Democratic Party, going back to the time when Hillary was a Republican? Is it because Democrats only represent their membership and not the rest of the country? Or is it just because they love to lose elections and put insane Republican morons in office?
__________________
ed

Last edited by TriPolar; 06-10-2018 at 09:21 PM.
  #20  
Old 06-10-2018, 09:41 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 15,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
What a great principle for the Democratic Party to stand on. After all the important thing is remaining in power. No need to follow the GOP and pretend they stand for something else, just go out and announce to the world the only important thing is maintaining an exclusive club.

I don’t see how this — directly — has anything to do with principle. (And I don’t mean that in a snide sense; I mean I don’t see how principle enters into it.)

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the Democrats have some principles they’re genuinely plugging away for. Whatever they are — something about gun control, say, and something about affirmative action, and something about illegal immigration, and so on, and so on — that’s where we can talk principles, right? If, say, you think they’re wrong to champion those principles; or if you think they’re right to champion those, but note that they didn’t do what they could for those principles.

I’m with you.

But after we discuss all of that, imagine the Democrats debate whether the rule we’re talking about will or won’t help their odds of advancing those principles. If the answer is “will”, then how is it a matter of principle to choose “won’t”? And if it’s “won’t”, then how is it a matter of principle to choose “will”?

Last edited by The Other Waldo Pepper; 06-10-2018 at 09:42 PM.
  #21  
Old 06-10-2018, 09:49 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I donít see how this ó directly ó has anything to do with principle. (And I donít mean that in a snide sense; I mean I donít see how principle enters into it.)

Letís say, for the sake of argument, that the Democrats have some principles theyíre genuinely plugging away for. Whatever they are ó something about gun control, say, and something about affirmative action, and something about illegal immigration, and so on, and so on ó thatís where we can talk principles, right? If, say, you think theyíre wrong to champion those principles; or if you think theyíre right to champion those, but note that they didnít do what they could for those principles.

Iím with you.

But after we discuss all of that, imagine the Democrats debate whether the rule weíre talking about will or wonít help their odds of advancing those principles. If the answer is ďwillĒ, then how is it a matter of principle to choose ďwonítĒ? And if itís ďwonítĒ, then how is it a matter of principle to choose ďwillĒ?
If someone wants to run as a Democratic Party candidate, someone supporting the principles the party says they stand for, someone who can actually win an election, what difference does it make whether she/he's a Democratic Party member? Unless of course their support for those principles was just bullshit to win elections.

And don't forget the wonderful message to non-Democrats who vote, "We don't want you if you're not one of us".
__________________
ed
  #22  
Old 06-10-2018, 09:59 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 15,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
If someone wants to run as a Democratic Party candidate, someone supporting the principles the party says they stand for, someone who can actually win an election, what difference does it make whether she/he's a Democratic Party member?

I don’t know; what difference do you think it makes?

If you think it makes them less likely to get folks into office for to support those principles, then you should of course criticize them for it; and if you think it makes them more likely to get folks into office for to support those principles, then I’d figure you should okay it.

But, near as I can tell, that’s it: I don’t see that principle enters in either way.

Last edited by The Other Waldo Pepper; 06-10-2018 at 10:02 PM.
  #23  
Old 06-10-2018, 10:22 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,046
My feeling is that, given the current state of affairs, the Democratic Party is one of two options available. Yes, third-party candidates and independents hold a few offices here and there – Bernie and Angus being the most notable – but in the lion's share of contests, you must pick one or the other or resign yourself to being inconsequential. If the other Party does not have this policy in place, it does not make the Democrats look good to institute it.
  #24  
Old 06-10-2018, 10:23 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
We have had tons of True Scotsman lefties run for President in the Democratic primaries. Before 2016, I guess nobody saw the need to have a rule closing the ďAir Bud LoopholeĒ - there isnít anything in the rule book saying a dog canít play basketball.

And most of those lefties have lost primaries in a generally convincing way. Letís not pretend that radicalism is mainstream.
How is liberalism radical? The left doesn't have a radical branch (except maybe for some college students who riot and shout down conservative speakers). The mainstream left has no radical branch. If anything, we need one to move the overton window to the left. I wish he had honest to god communists so that the progressives looked more moderate.

Sanders did fairly well in the primary. He came from nothing and won 43% of the vote and 23 states. He wasn't Kucinich.

The democratic party is getting more and more liberal. Pushing for liberal democrats from the west coast or northeast is going to get more and more common.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.add5d5420129

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...zation/544059/

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...views-liberal/

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fair Rarity View Post
I agree that Sanders represents that pressing need. And the best thing he could do about it is to join the party. Change it from within. Not take his toys and go home when he's not given his way 100%.

While he doesn't do what's in the interest of the rich and powerful first and foremost, he does what's best for HIM first and foremost. He's hardly the only senator that does it, but his image among the Bernie Bros and reality doesn't line up.

I'm very angry at Bernie, but I've been pushing for him for decades. He's let me down by not being what I wanted him to be. He's an illusion. There's no substance. I guess not seeing it was forgivable when I was a teen in VT, but I see through him now.
Can you explain why? What does he do that is so horrible? Had he won the presidency he would've been totally ineffective as president with a GOP congress. But I don't get the hate for the guy. It is like people blame him for Hillary losing.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #25  
Old 06-10-2018, 10:27 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 7,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
What a great principle for the Democratic Party to stand on. After all the important thing is remaining in power. No need to follow the GOP and pretend they stand for something else, just go out and announce to the world the only important thing is maintaining an exclusive club. What a shame they can't run Hillary again. Oh wait they can lose another presidential election, no worries there, no consequences to Bush and Trump becoming president were there?
I know you Berniecrats think you're helping the country with your third party, populist, political outsider tripe...but you're not.
  #26  
Old 06-10-2018, 10:29 PM
dalej42 dalej42 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 13,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I'm okay with the rule, but the real rub was super delegates. I don't always agree with Bernie Bros, but when I do, I prefer limiting or even eliminating super delegates.



Stay politically active my friends.


I strongly disagree with you on this point. I’m glad the Democratic Party has superdelegates. Watch some of the chaos from the 1972 convention if you need further proof. Superdelegates can help right the ship should something go mad in the nominating process. Of course, the Democratic Party has all of their primaries and caucuses allocate pledged delegate proportionally, so there’s no winner take all nonessential that helped propel Trump.

I’m still glad we have superdelegates.
  #27  
Old 06-10-2018, 10:30 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Waldo Pepper View Post
I donít know; what difference do you think it makes?

If you think it makes them less likely to get folks into office for to support those principles, then you should of course criticize them for it; and if you think it makes them more likely to get folks into office for to support those principles, then Iíd figure you should okay it.

But, near as I can tell, thatís it: I donít see that principle enters in either way.
It has nothing to do with principle, but if they weren't incompetent boobs they'd pretend that it did. Their only chance in the mid-terms is because the GOP abandoned its phony principles for Trumpism. And as it emerges what a mistake that was they'll change their tune in a hurry, as they already are.
__________________
ed
  #28  
Old 06-10-2018, 10:32 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I know you Berniecrats think you're helping the country with your third party, populist, political outsider tripe...but you're not.
I know you'd rather have Trump as president than find an electable candidate.
__________________
ed
  #29  
Old 06-10-2018, 10:54 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 7,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
I know you'd rather have Trump as president than find an electable candidate.
No, it's just realizing that for decades, thicker than pigshit Americans of all stripes have been waiting for the magic pumpkin candidate to appear, and seem ever more determined to cut their nads off to find one...with predictably piss poor results. To anyone who sat out the election or voted 3rd party while simultaneously realizing the repulsiveness of Donald Trump, eff off. For the first time in our nation's history, a foreign adversary has as much influence as any cabinet member. This is not a fucking joke. This is not the fucking time to complain about the lack of purity from the DNC. Wake the fuck up and see how dangerously close we are to the precipice.

Last edited by asahi; 06-10-2018 at 10:57 PM.
  #30  
Old 06-10-2018, 11:06 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
No, it's just realizing that for decades, thicker than pigshit Americans of all stripes have been waiting for the magic pumpkin candidate to appear, and seem ever more determined to cut their nads off to find one...with predictably piss poor results. To anyone who sat out the election or voted 3rd party while simultaneously realizing the repulsiveness of Donald Trump, eff off. For the first time in our nation's history, a foreign adversary has as much influence as any cabinet member. This is not a fucking joke. This is not the fucking time to complain about the lack of purity from the DNC. Wake the fuck up and see how dangerously close we are to the precipice.
The Democratic Party put us there. What have they done for this country this century? And don't say the ACA, they fought Obama tooth and nail on that one, and he had to win the primaries with grass roots populism. Don't forget Hillary started the 'Obama is a Muslim' crap that led to Birtherism. They keep talking big and delivering nothing because they're practicing machine politics. The political party system is a blight on this country and now they're making it worse. Neither the Democrats or the Republicans can win an election with just their members anymore, Trump has sent a lot of Republicans to the 'I' column, this is not the way to pick them up.
__________________
ed
  #31  
Old 06-10-2018, 11:07 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Can you explain why? What does he do that is so horrible? Had he won the presidency he would've been totally ineffective as president with a GOP congress.
If Bernie were president, we would not have Gorsuch, or Pruitt or DeVos or Cow-Pai, and most of the rest of the world would have at least a half a shred of respect left for the US. And he probably would have vetoed that ridiculous tax bill. So, a little less destruction would have been better than what we have.
  #32  
Old 06-10-2018, 11:18 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 7,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
The Democratic Party put us there. What have they done for this country this century? And don't say the ACA, they fought Obama tooth and nail on that one, and he had to win the primaries with grass roots populism. Don't forget Hillary started the 'Obama is a Muslim' crap that led to Birtherism. They keep talking big and delivering nothing because they're practicing machine politics. The political party system is a blight on this country and now they're making it worse. Neither the Democrats or the Republicans can win an election with just their members anymore, Trump has sent a lot of Republicans to the 'I' column, this is not the way to pick them up.
Right, there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans. They're all the same.

p.s. 9/11 was an inside job.
  #33  
Old 06-10-2018, 11:21 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Right, there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans. They're all the same.

p.s. 9/11 was an inside job.
Just keep pretending Hillary is president right now. I didn't say there was no difference, but they're both political parties, and they both use the same kind of tactics and strategy, only because of your attitude the Republicans have been better at it.
__________________
ed
  #34  
Old 06-10-2018, 11:22 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 7,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
If Bernie were president, we would not have Gorsuch, or Pruitt or DeVos or Cow-Pai, and most of the rest of the world would have at least a half a shred of respect left for the US. And he probably would have vetoed that ridiculous tax bill. So, a little less destruction would have been better than what we have.
But seriously, for those of you who call me chicken little, this is what you need to understand, and this is why America is heading toward its inevitable collapse. There will be no unified stand against right wing authoritarianism. The growth of the political independents, the modern political know nothings, is the result of concerted efforts to destroy faith in democratic leadership and institutions by the right wing. As a result, centrists and leftists will fight each other, while the right wing eventually executes a hostile takeover of the country.
  #35  
Old 06-10-2018, 11:25 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 7,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
Just keep pretending Hillary is president right now. I didn't say there was no difference, but they're both political parties, and they both use the same kind of tactics and strategy, only because of your attitude the Republicans have been better at it.
Keep pretending that Obama was president. What was he able to accomplish after 2010 when lazy as fuck progressives sat out mid-terms and allowed the tea party to take over? He actually *was* able to accomplish ACA (imperfect as it was), TARP, and an economic stimulus package that put shovels in grounds and people back to work after one of the worst recessions in decades -- all in less than 2 years. Not much after that.

Last edited by asahi; 06-10-2018 at 11:27 PM.
  #36  
Old 06-10-2018, 11:39 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,046
TARP was accomplished in October of '08.
  #37  
Old 06-10-2018, 11:40 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Keep pretending that Obama was president. What was he able to accomplish after 2010 when lazy as fuck progressives sat out mid-terms and allowed the tea party to take over? He actually *was* able to accomplish ACA (imperfect as it was), TARP, and an economic stimulus package that put shovels in grounds and people back to work after one of the worst recessions in decades -- all in less than 2 years. Not much after that.
He was president, and he didn't have the backing of the Democrats. They ran for the hills and joined the GOP in opposition, lost the congress, and all because they didn't care a rat's ass about the principles that kept their voters over the years.

You just don't get it, we had to suffer through Bush the Lesser, and now we're suffering under Donald the Least because the Democrats can't even pretend that they care about people in this country any more. That's why they have no candidates, and why people think someone like Trump will save the country. Dear Og, Hillary didn't even have the sense to take on Bernie as the VP candidate because she cared more about being challenged in the primaries than the people, winning, or even the Democratic Party.
__________________
ed
  #38  
Old 06-10-2018, 11:44 PM
Leaper Leaper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: In my own little world...
Posts: 12,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
But seriously, for those of you who call me chicken little, this is what you need to understand, and this is why America is heading toward its inevitable collapse. There will be no unified stand against right wing authoritarianism. The growth of the political independents, the modern political know nothings, is the result of concerted efforts to destroy faith in democratic leadership and institutions by the right wing. As a result, centrists and leftists will fight each other, while the right wing eventually executes a hostile takeover of the country.
I thought you said we could vote our way out of this mess?
  #39  
Old 06-10-2018, 11:53 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 7,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaper View Post
I thought you said we could vote our way out of this mess?
We could...but look at what has happened the last few election cycles. How much do you trust the average American voter? It's possible, but the fact is that too many Americans are too ignorant to vote.

2018 and 2020 might be our last chances to save this country. We're very close to the end of American democracy and/or America as we've known it.
  #40  
Old 06-10-2018, 11:54 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 7,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
He was president, and he didn't have the backing of the Democrats. They ran for the hills and joined the GOP in opposition, lost the congress, and all because they didn't care a rat's ass about the principles that kept their voters over the years.

You just don't get it, we had to suffer through Bush the Lesser, and now we're suffering under Donald the Least because the Democrats can't even pretend that they care about people in this country any more. That's why they have no candidates, and why people think someone like Trump will save the country. Dear Og, Hillary didn't even have the sense to take on Bernie as the VP candidate because she cared more about being challenged in the primaries than the people, winning, or even the Democratic Party.
Right, the right wing is bat shit insane, so blame the Democrats.
  #41  
Old 06-10-2018, 11:58 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Right, the right wing is bat shit insane, so blame the Democrats.
It's the Democrats fault the batshit insane are in power. How deluded are you? The Democrats have been on a steady losing streak and even with the most corrupt nutbag president of all time in office it's unclear if they can even take back the House in the midterms. Now their plan comes right out of the GOP playbook, doubling down on the stupid. Step back and think about what is happening, stop blaming everyone else for the party's failures. The Democratic Party needs to be more inclusive, not less so.
__________________
ed
  #42  
Old 06-11-2018, 12:06 AM
OldGuy OldGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Very east of Foggybog, WI
Posts: 5,051
I wish we in CT had rules that would have prevented Lieberman from running as an Independent, excuse me Connecticut for Lieberman party candidate. This was a party he never even joined remaining a registered Democrat. He then carried the state in 2006 with many Republicans voting for him in a three party race.

He remained registered as a Democrat and caucused with them for a bit, but effectively became a Republican. He spoke at the Republican National Convention in 2008 endorsing McCain. I understand he was McCain's choice as VP, but higher ups did not approve. It was his refusal to support the public option in the ACA that led to its withdrawal as he was the crucial 60th vote. I'll never forgive him for that.
  #43  
Old 06-11-2018, 12:15 AM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
If Bernie were president, we would not have Gorsuch, or Pruitt or DeVos or Cow-Pai, and most of the rest of the world would have at least a half a shred of respect left for the US. And he probably would have vetoed that ridiculous tax bill. So, a little less destruction would have been better than what we have.
These are all valid points. Judges wouldn't be getting confirmed, the tax bill never would've gotten passed, the cabinet would be full of professionals, and the world would respect us more.

All valid. However I wonder if Trump is worth the possibility that he will move society away from his white nationalist agenda. Had Bernie or Hillary won, the GOP would pick up even more seats on the state and federal level, resulting in even more right wing legislation down the road. But who knows maybe Trump just makes white nationalism more socially acceptable w/o harming the GOP. That is also a realistic outcome of his reign, the GOP is just as powerful as it always was but now it is more shamelessly white nationalist and authoritarian.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
The Democratic Party put us there. What have they done for this country this century? And don't say the ACA, they fought Obama tooth and nail on that one, and he had to win the primaries with grass roots populism. Don't forget Hillary started the 'Obama is a Muslim' crap that led to Birtherism. They keep talking big and delivering nothing because they're practicing machine politics. The political party system is a blight on this country and now they're making it worse. Neither the Democrats or the Republicans can win an election with just their members anymore, Trump has sent a lot of Republicans to the 'I' column, this is not the way to pick them up.
The ACA was a heritage plan that removed every reform that would've actually reduced medical costs, because reforms that reduce medical costs anger and enrage rich and powerful people. That is partly why Bernie was so popular. Bernie knows single payer enrages the rich and powerful, and he doesn't care.

Hillary didn't start birtherism. Birtherism was started by angry white republicans

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/...clinton-228304

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...lary-clinton-/

Income inequality keeps going up. Our democracy is under assault by domestic and foreign threats. People can't afford health care or education. Unemployment is low but wages aren't going up. And it feels like all the democratic party offers are platitudes while then going on and doing the bidding of the rich and powerful. We need genuine reform.

Granted, things did improve a little under Obama. Tax rates on the rich went up nearly 6 points. The ACA was better than nothing and a good start. But I think the entirety of Obama's 8 years of tax hikes on the rich was wiped out with 1 bill passed by the GOP via budget reconciliation. What does that tell you, it takes Obama 8 years to do what the GOP did in 1?

But for a lot of us, these are our choices.

Mild improvements under the democrats.
Massive declines under the republicans.

People are tired of being asked to vote for 1 step left, or 3 steps to the right as their only options. Yeah, 1 step left is better than 3 steps right, but why can't our side offer 3 steps left too. Where are our FDRs, LBJs, etc who would push us 3 steps left?
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 06-11-2018 at 12:20 AM.
  #44  
Old 06-11-2018, 12:25 AM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
The ACA was a heritage plan that removed every reform that would've actually reduced medical costs, because reforms that reduce medical costs anger and enrage rich and powerful people. That is partly why Bernie was so popular. Bernie knows single payer enrages the rich and powerful, and he doesn't care.
The ACA turned into a bastardized version of what Obama wanted because of the lack of support by the Democrats. And it's because they were obeying their masters in the insurance and health care industry just like the Republicans.


Quote:
Hillary didn't start birtherism. Birtherism was started by angry white republicans
You know very well that the 'Obama is a Muslim' chant started in the Hillary campaign. And she didn't stand up against it, she left that to McCain, Obama's opponent in the general election. And it was the precursor of Birtherism because Hillary did the GOP and alt-right's marketing research for them.
__________________
ed
  #45  
Old 06-11-2018, 12:26 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,063
:sigh:

It looks like the perfect is still the enemy of the good.
  #46  
Old 06-11-2018, 12:29 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
We have had tons of True Scotsman lefties run for President in the Democratic primaries. Before 2016, I guess nobody saw the need to have a rule closing the ďAir Bud LoopholeĒ - there isnít anything in the rule book saying a dog canít play basketball.

And most of those lefties have lost primaries in a generally convincing way. Letís not pretend that radicalism is mainstream.
"Air Bud loophole" is an awesome reference
  #47  
Old 06-11-2018, 12:30 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
You know very well that the 'Obama is a Muslim' chant started in the Hillary campaign. And she didn't stand up against it, she left that to McCain, Obama's opponent in the general election. And it was the precursor of Birtherism because Hillary did the GOP and alt-right's marketing research for them.
No, that is well known incorrect information pushed by right wing sources of information:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...lary-clinton-/
Quote:
The website promoted the theory with an email that read, "Obama May Be Illegal to Be Elected President," as Daily Beast editor John Avlon has documented.

According to Avlon, Linda Starr, a Clinton volunteer in Texas, was key to spreading the rumor. She connected with with Philip Berger, an attorney and Clinton supporter, who sued to block Obamaís nomination. The suit was thrown out.

But this is not the same thing as Clinton or her campaign promoting the theory. There is no evidence that they ever have done so. Clinton has dismissed the allegation when Trump made his accusation last September in an interview with CNNís Don Lemon.

"That is ó no. That is so ludicrous, Don. You know, honestly, I just believe that, first of all, itís totally untrue, and secondly, you know, the president and I have never had any kind of confrontation like that," Clinton said. "You know, I have been blamed for nearly everything, that was a new one to me."

(Another thing to note: Clinton volunteers forwarded emails promoting the myth that Obama is a Muslim. As we have previously reported, both resigned from the campaign after they were found to have spread the rumor. The Clinton campaign condemned their actions and said it was unauthorized.)

Our ruling

Trump said, "Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy."

There is no evidence to support this. Clinton supporters circulated the rumor in the last days of the 2008 Democratic primary and after Clinton had conceded to Obama. But the record does not show Clinton or her campaign ever promoting the birther theory, let alone starting it.

We rate Trumpís claim False.
  #48  
Old 06-11-2018, 12:43 AM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
No, that is well known incorrect information pushed by right wing sources of information:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...lary-clinton-/
I've known it was Hillary from the beginning. I heard it first from a Democratic Party insider before it even hit the news. It doesn't matter exactly who started it and when, it matters that Hillary didn't stand up to defend Obama. Just another reason she lost in the primaries in 2008, and the general in 2016.
__________________
ed
  #49  
Old 06-11-2018, 12:50 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by TriPolar View Post
I've known it was Hillary from the beginning. I heard it first from a Democratic Party insider before it even hit the news. It doesn't matter exactly who started it and when, it matters that Hillary didn't stand up to defend Obama. Just another reason she lost in the primaries in 2008, and the general in 2016.
It seems that it also helps to not read the articles cited already by Wesley Clark to continue to be mistaken.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/...clinton-228304
Quote:
After years of denying the legitimacy of Barack Obama’s presidency, it was only in the midst of his own presidential campaign that Donald Trump began falsely claiming Hillary Clinton was the true progenitor of the “birther” conspiracy theory claiming Obama was not born in the United States.

But that’s swapping one discredited claim for another. Numerous fact checks, reports and interviews — in 2008 and 2011, when Trump revived the controversy — revealed that although some Clinton supporters circulated rumors about Obama’s citizenship, the campaign and Clinton herself never trafficked in it.

“There has never been evidence that Clinton or her campaign started the birther rumors,” said Ben Smith, editor in chief of BuzzFeed, who as a POLITICO reporter in 2011 linked the origin of the “birther” movement to a fringe politician in Illinois. Some hardcore Clinton backers circulated the rumors in 2008, but the campaign itself steered clear.

“As we reported, some of her supporters flirted with the idea in 2008 — but it has its origins in the fever swamps beginning in Illinois in 2004,” he said.

In fact, birtherism, as it’s been called, reportedly began with innuendo by serial Illinois political candidate Andy Martin, who painted Obama as a closet Muslim in 2004. That spiraled into a concerted effort by conspiracy theorists to raise doubts about Obama’s birthplace and religion — and essentially paint him as un-American.

Martin, who briefly launched a little-noticed presidential campaign last year, has disavowed the movement he’s often credited with starting, though he still foments similarly discredited doubts about Obama’s religion.

Clinton’s 2008 hands are recoiling at Trump’s revisionism about their role in propagating the lie about Obama’s citizenship. “The suggestion that the Hillary campaign was pushing birtherism in 2008 is bunk. It's fiction,” said Phil Singer, who was Clinton’s 2008 press secretary.

Much of the insinuation that Clinton had a hand in birtherism traces to the role of her then-senior strategist Mark Penn, who issued a memo in 2007 suggesting that Clinton emphasize Obama’s upbringing in Hawaii and Indonesia and paint him as fundamentally un-American. The memo never questioned Obama’s citizenship but did suggest highlighting his “lack of American roots.”

“[H]is roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited,” Penn wrote. “I cannot imagine electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values.”

The Clinton campaign never employed Penn’s strategy, and to this day it provokes sharply different perceptions among those who remember discussing it. Two sources with knowledge of the deliberations say Penn’s memo caused a “near-staff revolt” at the time it came up and contributed to factional infighting that would later hobble the campaign.

Another source who recalled the discussion dismissed that perception as revisionist, arguing instead that the memo was barely considered at all. “This memo got about 30 seconds of discussion and the only recommendation was that she emphasize her Midwest upbringing,” the source said. “While the campaign may have disagreed on going negative on Barack Obama, this paragraph had nothing to do with those discussions and it did not in any cause any discussion of his citizenship.”

Last edited by GIGObuster; 06-11-2018 at 12:51 AM.
  #50  
Old 06-11-2018, 12:54 AM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,321
Gigo, I don't know what you are talking about, and neither do you. I didn't say Hillary started Birtherism. Her campaign started the 'Obama is a Muslim' bullshit, and she went along with it, and that paved the way for Birtherism.
__________________
ed
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017