We’ve been through this before but for those who missed it or have reading comprehension problems here it is again:
Interestingly, in order for Sanders to lose, you would have to have all the Clintonistas choose to stay home and pout. The very thing Clintonistas revile Bernie Bros for supposedly doing and letting Trump win.
What’s a Clintonista? Anyone who voted for Clinton in the primary phase of the election? I’m sure some of them would have stayed home or even voted for Trump had Sanders taken the nomination, and in such an alternate reality, yes, they would have been worthy of revulsion. Given that the thing you say is needed for Trump to have beaten Sanders is almost certainly true, can we conclude then that Trump would have beaten Sanders? Or is your claim that it’s a necessary but not sufficient condition?
The reason a lot of folks like myself are unwilling to just ‘admit’ what you want us to - that Sanders would have been a stronger general election candidate - is based on three points. First, as you’ve pointed out, there’s no direct evidence, since Sanders has never run against Trump. Second, all the polling data that is used to show Sanders would have won also showed that Clinton would have won. So we have to understand it in the context of being imprecise. And third, no one - not Clinton, not Trump - ever really ran against Sanders. Clinton reasoned in the primary phase that she would win, and it wasn’t worth alienating Sanders supporters by going negative on him. Trump wouldn’t have worried about that. Clinton was quite popular as well, before Sanders and Trump and the combined right- and left-wing noise machines, backed by Russian influence, targeted her incessantly for months. How much some of that effort directed against Sanders would have affected his favorables is unknown, but to pretend it’s zero is naive.
This. This. And this.
So let’s all cut out the bullshit.
Berniestas love to dance around this because whether Sanders would have won against trump is something that can never be proved conclusively.
The same evidence that is used to suggest that Sanders would have won also suggests that Clinton should have.
Nice glurge that you got off google there. Some of your cites are even close to relevant. Can you please point out where in those cites show that more democrats voted for bernie than voted for Clinton in the primaries?
No, but I do think that those who think of themselves as social democrats and moderates would be too far to the right for you, and would be labeled as crypto fascists. I actually don’t have to just think that, I have your own words calling clinton, who is a social democrat, a crypto fascist.
You apply your own labels, and then judge according to those labels.
Considering that you consider anyone who supported Clinton to be far right means that you have no calibration worth considering. The mainstream democratic party is not centered on you.
I don’t have much tolerance for those ideas either. But, We aren’t allowed to send them to the gas chamber either, so we need to find some way of co-existing.
That’s what a public option is. How can you have a public option without nationalization?
Is that what I said, nope. So I will not respond to your rather stupid strawman.
You are the tea party of the left. You are using the same tactics, and have the same motivations of purity over sanity tha they brought to the table. The right allowed the tea party to take over, and that wasn’t enough, and then allowed the alt-right to have influence. I don’t want that for the left. I don’t want us to become a party that refuses to compromise to get things done, allowing things to fall apart and be destroyed while we wait for the “perfect and pure” to make up their minds.
I will fight against the democratic party being controlled by its extreme fringe, as the republicans should have as I can see very easily where that will lead.
You have not only rolled out the red carpet for trump to take power in the white house, you are also trying to pave the way for a left version of trump to rise to power as well. That is unacceptable.
“I don’t CARE that the league rigged the tournament, rigging doesn’t affect actual voting or anything!”
Sorry you can’t accept the massive pile of evidence in front of you. The counts don’t matter when the motherfuckin’ election was rigged, et cetera, et cetera… NEXT!
I explicitly said I’m cool with and get along with social democrats, but don’t worry - as can be seen above, you are a good little Democrat who doesn’t let those pesky facts get in the way of a good “we’re the real progressives” circle jerk.
And by the way, you made me set a new personal record. I happened to have a huge gulp of sharkleberry fin Kool-Aid in my mouth when I read you state that Hillary “Superpredators” Clinton is a goddamn social democrat. I measured the furthest the stream reached. 8 feet, 1.45 inches. An absurd distance for the absurdity of claiming someone that’s at 7, 4 - firmly in the authoritarian right - on the Political Compass is a social freakin’ democrat. Congratulations.
Yeah, I’m good with “co-existing” with such people in the same way we all “co-exist” with freshly-convicted murderers - with them nice and snug in an 8’ x 10’.
Nationalization is doing the whole kit and caboodle… a public option is one company, an option, amongst private entities…
Oops…
Well, golly gee, I’m sorry for using your exact words. How silly of me. :rolleyes:
No, we’re the left. 
The MLB is RIGGED! That’s why the ORIX Buffaloes didn’t make it to the World Series.
The Democratic party may (or may not have…whatever “rigging” happened was minor) have favored one of their own instead of an outsider??? Oh NOES!!
He had caucused with the Democrats since the '90s, and ran as a Democrat. A level playing field is a requirement for an election worth a damn. But hey, I guess you’re cool with the Dems being like a high-school clique alliance.
Not to mention the Dems’ lack of respect for “outsiders” is what lost them the general election. :smack:
I swear, them/y’all jackasses are the unabashed masters of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. And y’all are the ones getting on me for supposedly being all abot “purity”.
Quick, what’s Bernie Sanders’ political affiliation at the moment? Not who he caucuses with, not his oh-so-convenient party during primary season - right now.
You’re pissed that Democratic VOTERS chose a Democrat over an Independent in a Democratic primary?
He’s an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. Sorry, you don’t get to throw out the fact he has caucused with them; that indeed matters.
And refer back to what I said about Democrats on that high-school-level shit. The party had a choice - either rig it and “choose” Hillary simply because she’s a party loyalist and run the ship into an iceberg full-speed-ahead as a result… or choose a path that, while previously unsailed, hard facts/stats/science states is likely safe and will lead to a successful journey and is iceberg-free.
And boy howdy, that damn iceberg still has one hell of a headache. 
Prissy little Derpocrats that favored party purity over good sense, just like high-school pricks who are upset a “nerrrrrrrrd!” tried to sit at “their” table in the cafeteria. And then ten minutes later the table collapses and makes a giant-ass mess that could have been avoided if they had someone with a brain at the table to warn them of the imminent failure of table due to poor structural integrity.
Are you saying that the vote tallies were altered? If so, then that’s a problem that needs looking into, and if you can present any sort of evidence whatsoever, I will join you in fighting against election tampering.
If not, then you just said that the counts don’t matter, which means that, to you, democracy doesn’t matter.
Right, the people that you have decided to allow themselves to call social democrats. If they do not pass YOUR purity test, they are a crypto fascist.
I’m glad to help. But that you decide to define a label for someone, and then attribute other negatives that you have assigned to that label to that person doesn’t mean that you are in anyway actually paying attention to reality. It’s just a game in your own little head.
And even to that, you supported trump in the general election. If you think that Clinton is too far to the right, then why did you advocate for someone much much further that direction?
So, lock up your political opponents. You are sounding so much better than the right wing crazies. [/sarcasm]
So, we should have a government run a pony distribution center, so that when you want a pony, you can get a free pony paid for by the taxpayers.
Look at what you “paraphrased”, and what I said. There are differences between the two. If you cannot see the differences, that explains why you make such ridiculous statements. If you can, then you are just being disingenuous.
Fool or a liar, I can’t tell, it’s your choice.
No, you are the far left.
The literal changing of vote tallies is not the be-all, end-all of electoral fraud. The sabotaging of candidates also falls under that category. See cites from earlier in thread about the DNC’s corruption.
Democracy is dependent upon FAIR elections. Sabotaging a fucking candidate simply because he’s not part of the “in crowd”… well, shit, that may as well not be democracy at all.
And for the record, I, personally, am not a small-d democrat, either. The rights to vote and hold office should be contingent upon being free of anti-social personality disorders and having above-average intelligence, amongst other criteria. Someone who lacks the capacity for empathy and/or doesn’t know a quasar from a quacker has no business in a voting booth or on a ballot.
Wowza, I invented the political compass and the dictionary itself? Holy fucking shit, I better tell the guys! Once I reveal I not only invented the muthafuckin’ political compass, but the very concept of words and terms having meaning, too, I’ll be a fucking celebrity!
To fuck shit up.
Lol! People who jerk off at night about genocide are just widdle innocent “political opponents” now? You do realize that in more civilized countries that acknowledge the fact that “free speech” doesn’t cover violence and hate, they indeed lock up such people, right? It’s the U.S. that’s behind the curve on that one.
People who advocate hate, sociopaths, et cetera don’t have a place in a civilized society, they belong in a mental-health facility. After all, some of them can be rehabilitated. But the ones that can’t be, keep 'em in there. Not prison, but a psych ward.
Nah, see, my “political opponents” are the more moderate and more libertarian leftists. Actual social democrats, democratic socialists, anarchists, et cetera. And guess what? We have our disagreements, and that’s fine! More than willing to have dialogue and compromise with them, all in the name of across-the-spectrum unity and the good of all. I’ll happily get along with and be friends with 'em. In fact, I am.
Where people like you fail is in understanding that political ideologies that advocate genocide, racism, letting the poor die for lack of necessities, other sociopathic mess, et cetera have no validity.
An option to BUY that pony from a state-owned company rather than a private one.
Keep staring at that apple and swearing it’s a kumquat, it’s what y’all do best.
Still whining that voters chose Hillary over Bernie? If he’s such a badass, run as an independent in a national election instead of attempting to hijack a party you refuse to commit to.
If you wanna call me telling the truth about a rigged election “whining” and stating matter-of-factly how they fucked up by doing that rigging, it’s really whatever. Lol.
I feel it should be pointed out that the political compass is an anonymous project, probably by reporters rather than actual political scientists, and should not be regarded as an unassailable gold standard for determining politicians’ relative position.
I.e., “lol political compass says Hilary’s a right winger” isn’t the argument you seem to believe it is. For all we know it’s just some dude’s opinion.
As for the dictionary… Well, my dictionary says that social Democrats believe in a gradual, Democratic transition to a more socialistic state. I’m not sure how “fucking shit up” with Donald Trump really comports with that, but hey, you do you.
I probably missed it earlier, but could you explain how the election was “rigged”? In your own words, please - don’t just put up a link or quotes.
Not sure it’s even fair to the “far left” to say DoggyDunnit represents them. How many even on left-wing fringes support restricting the franchise to a minority of the population whose intelligence is “above average” and whose ideological purity is satisfactory? That may be a viewpoint prevalent in some ultraleft parties in other countries throughout modern history, but if it has any representation to speak of on the American left, it’s news to me. It’s also pretty hard to square with an alleged concern for the “underclass”.
Also against free speech, the most fundamentally important of all rights. Shocker. So to review: DD opposes free speech, opposes letting people of average or below average intelligence vote, or anyone who doesn’t toe the ideological line. An actual wannabe Big Brother. This is who is lecturing us!
Reducing extreme poverty from just under half the world’s population to a single digit percentage? Fuck yes, that is cause for celebration. And it happened within my lifetime—since I was in grade school, even. With any luck, my life is only about halfway over, and I look forward to seeing the trend continue in the coming decades. I see no reason to think the progress has come this far but is stopping right now for whatever reason. As a Chicken Little, you would like to think it has gone as far as it could go (actually, another Chomskyite, a Facebook friend of mine, said recently that he wished statistics like these would not be published at all, so people would think things are getting worse and be galvanized into progressive action). But you would have said the same ten years ago, and be proved wrong in the interim.
You’re assuming you wouldn’t lose anyone in the middle (married suburban white women, for instance) to Trump in such a case. People who voted for Dubya and Obama. And that is not at all a safe assumption.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So? Didn’t make him a member of the party. What else is he going to do? Caucus with himself?
And yet, he wasn’t one. He should be thankful they allowed that.
So the people who ran the party may have given a slight preference to one of their own. That’s not “rigging” an election.
This is starting to sound an awful lot like some two year old, screaming, flailing wildly on the floor, and shitting himself because he didn’t get his way.
What’s the Obvious answer? Burn it all down and fuck shit up.
Here’s a hearty STFU with a side of GTFO.
I’m a far-left anti-capitalist. No, DoggyDunnit does not represent my positions, nor that of most of my political allies. Also fuck accelerationists for throwing minorities under a bus as an attempt at some bullshit political agenda. Hillary was bad, and neoliberalism is a morally bankrupt political ideology (not all neoliberals are awful people, but neoliberalism is not an ideology I support). However, throwing queer people, black people, and so on under a bus with Donald Trump due to a misguided sense of it causing The Revolution to come sooner or because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of political science (in the case of third-partiers) is also an awful moral position.
That said, “Bernie Bros” is also not terminology I support since it’s frequently soft-used by centrist Liberal Democrats to discredit actual leftism by attempting to tie it with misogyny. There are absolutely misogynist far-Lefters, but as a tactic I disagree with it and think it’s one of the worst things to come out of the primaries, mainly serving to entrench Liberalism in a society that needs to be free of it for the common good. (I’ve also noticed that those who frequently gripe about “Bernie Bros” also tend to get TERF-y fast about leftist transpeople, esp leftist transwomen)
I’ve already done just that multiple times, backed up with sources who got a hell of a lot of the skinny from a party insider. If that doesn’t satisfy you… sorry, Charlie.
I admit to poor choice of words to describe that aspect of my ideology. Basically, I’m down with franchisement for those who can pass an intelligence (including emotional intelligence) test. If the average intelligence in the population is high enough, sure, average people would be franchised. And no, that ain’t hard to square. Ensuring intelligent, compassionate leadership is a damn GOOD thing for the underclass.
Haha. I do believe in free speech. You’re just deluded enough to think that “free speech” applies to hate, falsehoods, sociopathy, and violence. countries with even a shred of decency ban it. It’s pretty much the United States at the forefront of the contingent that has this twisted-ass “idea” that letting hate fester and spread without legal consequence is a good idea. A society letting unbridled hate-filled speech broadcast unfettered is what paved the path from Hitler giving table-pounder speeches in dimly-lit bars to six million Jews being led to the gas chambers.
The purpose of freedom of speech is for there to be a marketplace of ideas, one that anyone can proudly and confidently contribute to, for the sake of all’s survival, innovation, progress, problem solving, et cetera. Bringing ideas to the table, having a hearty debate, and together moving forward with a decision arrived at rationally.
Let’s imagine the marketplace of ideas as an actual market for a bit, shall we? Now, imagine that a dickhead barges in, drops his underwear and jeans, and just takes a huge, steaming dump in the produce section, right next to the grapes. Sensible people would kick and ban the dickhead, after making him clean up his own mess, and he’d have charges filed against him.
But the warriors of what is not “free speech”, but is instead “freeze peach”, would instead let the aforementioned dickhead package that shit in a pretty box, and put it on the shelf right next to the baked beans
Even Brazil, for all its faults, has it written right in its Constitution that racism is a serious offense, one which, rough translation from the Portuguese, an “offense with no statute of limitations and no right to bail for the defendant”. Even I don’t go that far! 
And yeah, no. How you managed to confuse “screening out people with anti-social personality disorders” with “only wanting to allow those who ‘toe the ideological line’” is beyond me, but then again y’all liberals bring virtual truckloads of absurdity to the table.
Lord have mercy. You’re staring at one tree; there’s an entire forest around you. Try expanding that field of view.
Sure. And Vladimir Putin and his cronies had just a “slight” finger on the scales during this most recent Russian election.
Damn right. I mean, my username is “DoggyDunnit”, after all. That ain’t random. It’s a reference to a move from the PSX game Chrono Cross, one in which Poshul (a dog) spins around, kicking up a whirlwind of sand mixed with her own piss and shit, and hurls it at the enemy. I didn’t just pluck that out of the air, I got given that nickname by a homie because of my, as Jragon puts it, “accelerationism”. Like Poshul, I am more than willing to help kick up a shitstorm!
See, Jragon and I have many differences, but I nonetheless have the utmost respect for them because, while we disagree on how to get there, we both want a society that’s just, fair, sustainable, and progressive. That is a shared goal. And I don’t motherfucking require “ideological purity”… I work with and support social democrats, for Pete’s sake. I’m all about left unity and fellowshipping/organizing with and supporting others from all across the left. It’s not that hard to understand that fact; I don’t know why y’all are having so much trouble doing so.
That said, Jragon, do be aware that I am a minority. Several of them, in fact. But the thing about it is, economics is firmly planted on the front burner for me. Me being black, gay, and disabled (triple play!) is secondary to that. I’m sure I’m not the only one you’ve heard this from, being on the far left as you are; I just ask that you try to understand where us “accelerationists” are coming from.
