You admitted you were going to be a petulant child. There is thus no reason to listen to anything you say. That’s what you do when a child throws a tantrum. Hence why it’s dumb to act like such a child.
A petulant child is an entitled child, and has nothing to offer the actual conversation. You literally admitted to the thing that made it okay to dismiss you.
If you want your opinion to be respected, then don’t just be doing it to throw a tantrum.
The line about being a petulant child was, (I realize now), a poor attempt at sarcasm.
Fine, dismiss what I said on a technicality. Dividing the electorate up into competing teams has always served the country well… :rolleyes:
Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
Putin’s dirty-tricks department sent the flying cybermonkeys to try to top the American election toward the candidate who proposes to throw the Baltic States under the bus. Color me shocked. :rolleyes:
Yeah, we’re probably seeing a lot of those folks on message boards and comments sections. I gather they learn English quite young in Russian schools. Putin and Kim Jong Un both are (one would guess) drooling over the benefits they’d get from at Trump Administration.
Yeah the Democrats are likely to be working on how to get back the people who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 but conspicuously failed to show up in 2010 and 2014 for the rest of the party. We’ve no idea how many of the BoB’s are in that cohort.
Coming in second and “almost winning” aren’t quite the same thing.
I think many people would be surprised to know we actually do have an institution in this country that, in some respects, epitomizes communism and it’s one everybody loves: the U.S. Military. A specific example is its institutionalized medical practices. The government owns the medical facilities, employs the doctors and directs their activities. This is an example of common ownership of the means of production in terms of medical practice and it was set in motion during the founding era. Indeed, John Adams signed a bill mandating care for sick and injured soldiers in the existing marine hospitals in current ports of call and James Madison signed a bill mandating the construction of Navy hospitals, although none were actually built under this mandate for some time.
Sanders did a great job and I give him credit for it. But there’s only room for one nominee and Sanders came in second place. Why should the Democratic Party pick the candidate who almost won over the candidate who actually won?
And you certainly are entitled to your opinion. But you have to do more than simply pay lip service to saying other people are also entitled to their opinions. You have to decide what you’re going to do when other people disagree with your opinions. If your answer is you’re going to refuse to have anything to do with people who don’t agree with you then you’re going to hear other people calling you petulant.
Was I happy in 2008 when Obama beat Hillary Clinton? No. Was I happy in 1992 when Bill Clinton beat Paul Tsongas? No. But in both cases I supported the winning candidate even though they weren’t the candidate I had wanted.
So what are you going to do in 2016? Are you going to support Clinton now that Sanders has lost? Or are you going to decide that if you can’t have the candidate you wanted then you won’t support any candidate?
Since when is a 55-43 loss “almost” a victory? In any other two-person race, that would be a pretty bad loss. Michael Dukakis came closer to beating George Bush.
Good point, and the reason I didn’t bother to click your link.
Perhaps I should start a separate thread, but an article linked to indirectly in a recent post does a good job of synopsizing Hatred of all things Hillary:
Get it? The haters aren’t sure whether she’s clever or clueless, too soft-hearted or too hard-hearted; they just know they have to hate.
Similarly with Obama. Let’s hate him for keeping promises and hate him for breaking them; hate him by pretending he supports Islamist terrorism but also hate him for killing terrorists with drones.
At this point, if it turns out Hillary really was the Zodiac Killer after all, I wouldn’t click the news-link. The irrational haters have been shrieking “Wolf!” for too long.
Hillary won because she’s a household name and she is established as a credible member of the Democratic party.
I think what he means by ‘entitled’ is that Sanders is not entitled to being the nominee – he’s not.
There are a lot of considerations that go into running an election. The Democrats seemed to have avoided the problems that have been plaguing the Republicans this year. The RNC’s deep bench opened up the process to anyone, including Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, who are despised by the established party members and are demonstrably poor options for the electorate. By contrast, the DNC hinted all along that they had one candidate in mind as their nominee. Even so, they opened up the process to others and allowed other candidates to compete using their platform.
If the complaint is that stacking the deck for Clinton wasn’t fair, I’d just point out that the Framers of the Constitution intentionally avoided making the election of the president a purely democratic process. They deliberately enabled the powers that be to manipulate the process lest voters make the wrong choice. They may not have envisioned a republican party and a democratic party, but they certainly envisioned the possibility of voters not having the same vantage point as people who are more involved in the political process and have more expert knowledge of what can go wrong if the wrong guy gets elected, or nominated for that matter. Of course whether the pundits are wiser than the voters is always going to be a matter of debate in each individual case, and that I suspect is where we’re at now.
I reluctantly express agreement with Sanders voters in the belief that their candidate holds same advantages against Trump that Clinton herself does not enjoy. He’s the candidate of purity. He’s the candidate who can fire up a crowd. And he has consistently polled well against Donald Trump, at least nationally. I buy into some of the arguments that you’re probably trying to sell.
However, I’d also add that polls can be very tricky and they tend to shift wildly over time. Hillary Clinton, for all of her very obvious flaws, is a known commodity. I can already tell you now that if Bernie Sanders had emerged as the candidate, Wall Street Super PAC after Super PAC would be lining up to fund Trump’s campaign, which is not insignificant when you consider that they’re having serious doubts about supporting the republican nominee for the first time in as long as I can remember. I know that this point inevitably leads into your criticism of Hillary as a shill for Wall Street’s interests, but does anyone seriously think that Trump isn’t going to stand with corporations over people? Does anyone seriously think that the republicans he appoints aren’t going to be l’aissez faire republicans?
Sanders got a *higher *percentage of delegates than votes. Higher. The process was arguably rigged, but in his favor.
IOW, cut the whining.
The process is arguably more than who got the most votes. The DNC members take pledges of neutrality. It appears that they did not honor them.
But so what? If they can prove that there was ballot stuffing or that local party officials had votes tossed out or some other shenanigans, that might be worth an investigation. I’m not necessarily defending DW Schultz – I think she completely mismanaged the process and she’s being fairly criticized by Bernie supporters and others alike. I just don’t think it should be a shock or controversial that Bernie Sanders’ campaign wasn’t exactly welcomed with open arms. If their opinion was that he didn’t represent the interests of the Democratic party as a whole – and I think that is indeed their position – then they are within their ‘rights’ or realm of reasonable authority to make his ascent more challenging. In retrospect, it’s probably fair to say that if Republicans had done more to rig the process against the Donald, we might not be dealing with his trolling of the electorate right now. Maybe, maybe not…we don’t know. But the deep bench and hands-off approach clearly backfired for the RNC and presents a textbook argument against the vox populi position that Sanders supporters are making.
Yes, the process was nondemocratic (from the use of all those caucuses), and Sanders benefited from it.
After the nominee was already decided, despite the nondemocratic aspects of the process.
IOW, quit whining.
Because the entire process is subject to scrutiny. Ensuring that all votes are counted and that all of them are legitimate is just one aspect of the primary election. It is not the only part that matters. If the DNC rules state that they are to be impartial, then they should be. If not, they should change their rules.
The process doesn’t have to be democratic; it’s a private organization picking its leader. But what it should be is governed by the rules that it decided upon before the process began. Although I know of no time-based exception to its neutrality clause, Sanders’ complaints of partiality were well established while the primary season was still in the early stages.
His complaints existed, yes. The basis for them, no.
Here’s the thing…
I’m not a good debater, ESPESSIALLY compared to most of the very intelligent people on these boards. I read all of the replies, and though I don’t agree with what some of you have said, I’m at a huge disadvantage when I try to address the individuals who respended.
asahi said;
**“Hillary Clinton, for all of her very obvious flaws, is a known commodity.” **
So you admit that Clinton has “very obvious flaws”? I noticed that too!
Forget about Bernie. I was NEVER a ‘Bernie or Bust’ guy. I happen to think that I would still be questioning whether or not I would vote for her if Bernie wasn’t ever a factor.
Do I vote for someone I dislike, just to keep someone I dislike more out of the White House? Or do I vote for a third party and essentially waist my vote in protest and good conscious?
Still haven’t decided. I’m turned off by this: “You’re either with us, or against us.” attitude.
I apologize for not addressing individual arguments. I know that’s how things go around here, and I probably shouldn’t be poking my head into discussions I can’t keep up on.
My impression of ‘The Hill’ is that it’s pretty non-biased as to right v left. But all media is biased toward seeing scandal in revelations of confidential documents whether it’s really there or not. In general it’s hard to see how the DNC could affect primaries to a more than subtle degree, and it wasn’t all that close. But even without any confidential emails, it did seem the DNC wanted to bury, relatively speaking, their program of debates, and that naturally helped the all-along-presumptive nominee over the lesser known challenger(s, originally).
And in general the Democrats as a party apparatus steer their nominating process more than the Republicans do, two words: super delegates. But I’m not one of those who says purer democracy at every step of every political process is always better.