• DWS now out as chair of the DNC, Marcia Fudge takes over
    87 replies, posted
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50767310]Bernie and his voterbase have spent more time talking about the corruption in the DNC than talking about Republicans or Donald trump.[/QUOTE] Hard to fight a battle when you have cancer, isn't it?
[QUOTE=srobins;50767373]No, I'm sure Clinton had nothing to do with the DNC's coordinated effort to crush her opposition. How could anyone suggest that the person who benefited the most from all this had something to do with it? Ludicrous![/QUOTE] It's a logical fallacy to assume that just because she benefit from it, that means she was involved in that corruption. It's entirely possible she knew that the DNC was biased towards her (because come on, everyone did) but didn't know the extent of dirty tactics they used to support her.
[QUOTE=Killer900;50767251]Not sure. Is collusion with the media illegal?[/QUOTE] I think that it should be, although I don't think that's the case right now. It's a similar argument to net neutrality.
[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;50767423]I think that it should be, although I don't think that's the case right now. It's a similar argument to net neutrality.[/QUOTE] Banning the media from having a political slant is wrong. You can't control free speech like that. As much as I dislike fox news, I'm not going to argue that what they do is illegal [editline]24th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Helix Snake;50767401]It's a logical fallacy to assume that just because she benefit from it, that means she was involved in that corruption. It's entirely possible she knew that the DNC was biased towards her (because come on, everyone did) but didn't know the extent of dirty tactics they used to support her.[/QUOTE] This is how superpacs work. They support a candidate but can not in any way coordinate with that candidate. Im sure the DNC coordinated with Clinton but I'm okay with that
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50767497]Im sure the DNC coordinated with Clinton but I'm okay with that[/QUOTE] I think this confirms proboardslol is a troll, not a shill.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50767310]How is this even controversial? Bernie and his voterbase have spent more time talking about the corruption in the DNC than talking about Republicans or Donald trump. Even now, there are plenty of Bernie supporters who say they will vote third party or even vote trump before they vote Clinton. They're obviously not loyal to the party and they're definitely outsiders[/QUOTE] ahahaha hold on, you actually think i should vote for someone who i strongly believe is not in the best interest of me or anyone for that matter because shes part of a party i align with. holy shit lol.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50767346]Of course this is anecdotal, but I feel that the Bernie supporters I've met have never voted before, so they're not exactly disillusioned democrats since they've never had a democrat to vote for since they were 12-13 when Obama was elected. I think theyre too young to develop a party affiliation, and so can't be considered democrats.[/QUOTE] How do you feel people have never voted before?
[QUOTE=person11;50767228]I mean, Clinton never had an e-mail leak in which she tried to plot against Sanders in an unsavory way. It was bad that Clinton did the whole private server thing, but the emails themselves never revealed anything terrible about Clinton, nothing like "oh Bernie's a Jew how can we use that against him?"[/QUOTE] its worse because it was more like "how jewey of a jew is he can we use that against him?"
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;50767528]I think this confirms proboardslol is a troll, not a shill.[/QUOTE] Im okay with this because I'm a democrat. I want what's best for my party and my party's platform. I don't want a populist to come in and take over the party after not being a member for his entire career. [editline]24th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=gokiyono;50767573]How do you feel people have never voted before?[/QUOTE] They're too young to have voted before. Of course this is anecdotal though [editline]24th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=codemaster85;50767567]ahahaha hold on, you actually think i should vote for someone who i strongly believe is not in the best interest of me or anyone for that matter because shes part of a party i align with. holy shit lol.[/QUOTE] No, you can vote for whomever you want. I'm just noting that the voterbase for bernie is largely unaffiliated with any party
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50767310]How is this even controversial? Bernie and his voterbase have spent more time talking about the corruption in the DNC than talking about Republicans or Donald trump. Even now, there are plenty of Bernie supporters who say they will vote third party or even vote trump before they vote Clinton. They're obviously not loyal to the party and they're definitely outsiders[/QUOTE] Maybe they wouldn't be outsiders if the party didn't abuse the shit out of Bernie and HRC's campaign didn't insult Bernie's voterbase constantly throughout the primary. Like, if Bernie had been treated with any modicum of respect I would probably have thought voting for Hillary would be a no brainer. There's a causal relationship between this, it's not just "dumb outsiders looking to ruin everything"
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50767310]How is this even controversial? Bernie and his voterbase have spent more time talking about the corruption in the DNC than talking about Republicans or Donald trump. Even now, there are plenty of Bernie supporters who say they will vote third party or even vote trump before they vote Clinton. They're obviously not loyal to the party and they're definitely outsiders[/QUOTE] Why should anyone be loyal to a party? You should vote for the candidate/party that you think will be the most beneficial, not pick a side and blindly stick to it.
[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzer;50767423]I think that it should be, although I don't think that's the case right now. It's a similar argument to net neutrality.[/QUOTE] There's no reason the courts should be interested in this. A similar issue cropped up regarding a decision of the Labour party NEC (National Executive Committee) regarding Jeremy Corbyn, which both sides said would try a legal challenge to if it went against them. Most lawyers were fairly certain the courts wouldn't be interested as this was a decision of a private club which can set its own rules and make its own decisions, so any legal challenges would get nowhere. The same likely applies to the DNC/RNC.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50767578]Im okay with this because I'm a democrat. I want what's best for my party and my party's platform. I don't want a populist to come in and take over the party after not being a member for his entire career. [editline]24th July 2016[/editline] They're too young to have voted before. Of course this is anecdotal though [editline]24th July 2016[/editline] No, you can vote for whomever you want. I'm just noting that the voterbase for bernie is largely unaffiliated with any party[/QUOTE] Because the democrats no longer represent the people, who knew? Honestly, if I could, i'd vote Hilary, but your method of just being okay with dirty tactics is very off putting.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50767578]Im okay with this because I'm a democrat. I want what's best for my party and my party's platform. I don't want a populist to come in and take over the party after not being a member for his entire career. [editline]24th July 2016[/editline] They're too young to have voted before. Of course this is anecdotal though [editline]24th July 2016[/editline] No, you can vote for whomever you want. I'm just noting that the voterbase for bernie is largely unaffiliated with any party[/QUOTE] thats not true, a ton of bernie supporters agree with what the party actually stands for, the DNC and hillary are absolutely not part of the true part of the party like bernie is. lol
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50767578]Im okay with this because I'm a democrat. I want what's best for my party and my party's platform. I don't want a populist to come in and take over the party after not being a member for his entire career. [/quote] Hows that koolaid taste [quote] They're too young to have voted before. Of course this is anecdotal though [/QUOTE] You heard it here first folks, everyone who voted for bernie is 18 Get your head out of your ass, dude. Why would anybody that has even two braincells to rub together vote based off of party instead of off what they actually want? Being a "republican" or "democrat" doesn't mean that you dogmatically follow every decision that the Democrats or Republicans make, it just means that by and large you agree with the party platform.
[QUOTE=Sableye;50767575]its worse because it was more like "how jewey of a jew is he can we use that against him?"[/QUOTE] True. It's worse when people try to define your Jewishness for you. Too many people are like "is Bernie a Jew even though he may be atheist?" I get the same question all the time as well.
I guess I'm an outsider. I can't put myself in either political party comfortably. I wanted McCain over Obama, I wanted Obama over Romney, I want Bernie over Hillary or Trump. I want Obama over Hillary or Trump, to be honest. Fuck the bipartisan system.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50767346]Of course this is anecdotal, but I feel that the Bernie supporters I've met have never voted before, so they're not exactly disillusioned democrats since they've never had a democrat to vote for since they were 12-13 when Obama was elected. I think theyre too young to develop a party affiliation, and so can't be considered democrats.[/QUOTE] I voted for Obama starting his second term. (I missed the voter registration deadline for the first term because I was too busy but would have voted him then too.) Since I was 10-11 (meaning 1998-99) or so my mom always discussed politics with my sister and I so registering democrat wasn't even a question when I did register. [QUOTE=proboardslol;50767578]Im okay with this because I'm a democrat. I want what's best for my party and my party's platform. I don't want a populist to come in and take over the party after not being a member for his entire career.[/QUOTE] Maybe you should want what's best for the people instead?? The party is literally irrelevant. The government is there for the people, not the other way around which you seem to be suggesting.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;50767623]Why should anyone be loyal to a party? You should vote for the candidate/party that you think will be the most beneficial, not pick a side and blindly stick to it.[/QUOTE] I vote for policies and a platform. Politics works by compromise. I want some things in the democratic platform but not others. On the whole, I agree with the democrats. I disagree with the republican platform, and so I will vote democrat [editline]24th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=phygon;50767674]Hows that koolaid taste You heard it here first folks, everyone who voted for bernie is 18 Get your head out of your ass, dude. Why would anybody that has even two braincells to rub together vote based off of party instead of off what they actually want? Being a "republican" or "democrat" doesn't mean that you dogmatically follow every decision that the Democrats or Republicans make, it just means that by and large you agree with the party platform.[/QUOTE] I don't get why you have to be so hostile. Im just noting that Sanders supporters aren't aligned with any party, as much as theyre aligned with an ideology. I never said it was wrong, I'm just saying Sanders is an outsider. [editline]24th July 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Alice3173;50767712]I voted for Obama starting his second term. (I missed the voter registration deadline for the first term because I was too busy but would have voted him then too.) Since I was 10-11 (meaning 1998-99) or so my mom always discussed politics with my sister and I so registering democrat wasn't even a question when I did register. Maybe you should want what's best for the people instead?? The party is literally irrelevant. The government is there for the people, not the other way around which you seem to be suggesting.[/QUOTE] I think voting for what's best for the party is what's best for the people. I think the party platform is best for the people,and the best way to see that platform enacted is to vote for the people in that party. The party elects more than just presidents. They elect senators and congressman and local representatives. I think by voting for Clinton, it will help the democrats get their platform pushed through. I think voting for a party outsider breeds disunity and will make it harder for democrats to get things done. This is simply how politics has worked for over a thousand years
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50767724]Im just noting that Sanders supporters aren't aligned with any party, as much as theyre aligned with an ideology.[/QUOTE] The fact that these aren't the same thing is an indicator that something is wrong
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50767310]How is this even controversial? Bernie and his voterbase have spent more time talking about the corruption in the DNC than talking about Republicans or Donald trump. Even now, there are plenty of Bernie supporters who say they will vote third party or even vote trump before they vote Clinton. They're obviously not loyal to the party and they're definitely outsiders[/QUOTE] Party loyalty is pure idiocy. A party is, ideally, a group of people with similar ideals pooling together resources to ensure said ideals are acted upon. A party is [i]not[/i] a label you assume and follow wherever it takes you. Bernie is a Democrat for pragmatic reasons, fine, but he's obviously a far better representation of where GenY wants the party to be than the line-towing Democrats that occupy DC.
[QUOTE=CommunistCookie;50767805]Party loyalty is pure idiocy. A party is, ideally, a group of people with similar ideals pooling together resources to ensure said ideals are acted upon. A party is [i]not[/i] a label you assume and follow wherever it takes you. Bernie is a Democrat for pragmatic reasons, fine, but he's obviously a far better representation of where GenY wants the party to be than the line-towing Democrats that occupy DC.[/QUOTE] Votin for the party is voting for the platform. I'm going to vote democrat over republican or third party every time because I believe in the democratic platform. Even if a third party candidate happens to believe more closely to my personal beliefs, I don't think third party candidates can get anything done, so I'll just vote democrat
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50767824]Votin for the party is voting for the platform. I'm going to vote democrat over republican or third party every time because I believe in the democratic platform. Even if a third party candidate happens to believe more closely to my personal beliefs, I don't think third party candidates can get anything done, so I'll just vote democrat[/QUOTE] Jesus man I heavily preferred Clinton to Sanders myself but voting solely based on party loyalty is retarded as hell.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;50767712]I voted for Obama starting his second term. (I missed the voter registration deadline for the first term because I was too busy but would have voted him then too.) Since I was 10-11 (meaning 1998-99) or so my mom always discussed politics with my sister and I so registering democrat wasn't even a question when I did register.[/QUOTE] Also to go off other people: Basically my whole immediate family voted for Sanders in the primary. This includes my stepdad who's 50 and has voted in every election since he turned 18, my mom who's a few years younger, my sister (who's two years younger than me) and her husband (who's like 40ish or something, I forget exactly), and both of my aunts. (Mid 30s and late 40s, as well as their husbands who are mid 30s as well in the first case and early to mid 50s in the second case.) And those are just the ones I know of. So while it's no less anecdotal than your original claim was, you should keep in mind that your personal experience is in no way representative of the full situation.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50767824]Votin for the party is voting for the platform. I'm going to vote democrat over republican or third party every time because I believe in the democratic platform. Even if a third party candidate happens to believe more closely to my personal beliefs, I don't think third party candidates can get anything done, so I'll just vote democrat[/QUOTE] Voting for a candidate is voting for a candidate. There is no real incentive for Democrats, especially those with power, to give a shit about the party platform. By voting for anyone with a (D) next to their name, you're surrendering what little power you have to hold the party accountable. It's nonsensical.
[QUOTE=mcharest;50767276]Bernie's been caucusing with the Democrats since the late cretaceous period though, and his policies more closely reflect actual Democratic Party values than Clinton's ever will. Hearing her or anyone else call out Bernie for being an "outsider" is mad disingenuous, especially when a growing portion of the Democratic base favor his policies. Back on topic though, I'm hella glad that DWS is resigning the chair. Now it's time to boot her out of office entirely, methinks.[/QUOTE] You really thing the DNC as a political organization gives a shit about policy over membership?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50767256]Is it honestly surprising that a party didn't like an outsider trying to come in and win their nomination[url=http://inthesetimes.com/images/articles/trump_flicker_face_yess.jpg]?[/url][/QUOTE] The problem is that the DNC was publicly trying to pretend they were impartial, because they're supposed to be. DWS said consistently they had "two great candidates", that she would support whoever won the nomination, and that she was not supporting either candidate until the convention. Turns out, she was full of shit, and we have proof. This idea that Bernie isn't a "real democrat" and that the party should be allowed to ignore their own rules, lie to voters, and prop up a candidate because of it, is total bullshit.
[QUOTE=rilez;50767971]The problem is that the DNC was publicly trying to pretend they were impartial, because they're supposed to be. Turns out, she was full of shit, and we have proof.[/QUOTE] And to repeat my post you replied to - [I]You find this surprising?[/I] [editline]24th July 2016[/editline] Are you actually saying you believed they were fully being impartial?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50767988]And to repeat my post you replied to - [I]You find this surprising?[/I] [editline]24th July 2016[/editline] Are you actually saying you believed they were fully being impartial?[/QUOTE] Uh, no one finds it surprising. Including me. Doing it to an "outsider" doesn't justify it, is my point.
Where did I imply it was justified? :v:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.