[QUOTE=Rika-chan;53161075]Yeah man, who cares if Trump gets more power, as long as I have my guns, I can lead my militia and overthrow the government. Or if that doesn't work out, jerk off to my AR-15. Win-Win[/QUOTE]
Way to turn valid criticism of two shitty Democrats into an Us Vs. Them scenario.
:goodjob:
[QUOTE=Birdman101;53161303]Fuck the patriot act so hard[/QUOTE]
Regardless of this dude's gun politics(I wouldn't expect any different from california) I don't think he agrees with the patriot act at all.
[QUOTE=elowin;53160090]Unfortunately it is [i]literally impossible[/i] to be knowledgeable on every subject.[/QUOTE]
A Senator should have a general knowledge across each subjects that are politically relevant, otherwise they belong in the House of Representatives.
You don’t have to know everything, but the Senators are suppose to be generalists. Jack of Trades so to speak.
[QUOTE=Duck M.;53160173]While I agree that a more unified party is necessary to take the reins in 2018 and 2020, I don't think the path of the complacent and idle centrist is the way forward.
People are tired of representatives like Feinstein leading a stagnating and toothless party in the face of a rapidly changing nation with dire issues that desperately need addressing. We need forward-thinking, progressively-minded people to lead and represent the American left going forward.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I don't particularly care if Diane Feinstein gets the nomination or not I just care that a democratic wins. If the California democratic party decides she's not left tenough and dumps her, I hope she takes it with Grace and gets out of the way. Likewise, if she does stay, then I hope progressives don't fling shit over it and toe the line
[QUOTE=proboardslol;53161659] Likewise, if she does stay, then I hope progressives don't fling shit over it and toe the line[/QUOTE]
This mindset allowed Hillary to sweep up the DNC and effectively block reform for her party. What did that result in?
[QUOTE=proboardslol;53161659]Yeah I don't particularly care if Diane Feinstein gets the nomination or not I just care that a democratic wins. If the California democratic party decides she's not left tenough and dumps her, I hope she takes it with Grace and gets out of the way. Likewise, if she does stay, then I hope progressives don't fling shit over it and toe the line[/QUOTE]
This is exactly the kind of partisan hackery that's destroying this country. "Toe the party line, you have no choice but to vote for boring centrist Democrats because the Republicans are so evil. Now excuse us while we don't support Medicare for all, a living wage, and bringing the troops home even though a vast majority of the American people want these things." It's time for milquetoast, centrist, corporate Democrats to be booted out of office and replaced with people who actually give a shit about improving people's lives.
I wish california democrats weren't so retarded on guns. I have a lot of friends that are extremely liberal but exercise their 2nd amendment right. It's pretty fucked up too that us people in the bay and los angeles are shitting up the rights of other californians.
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;53159990]Wow, just guns? That's all that matters to you or makes a change in senate?
This candidate should be more left, thus more willing to support social safety nets, making actual change.[/QUOTE]
I'm not even really for guns and I have a problem with misinformation here.
Why don't you
[editline]26th February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=elowin;53160530]Have they? I havent exactly looked through every bill of his, but from what I can tell he seems to primarily have been pushing for restrictions on ammunition sales.
Either way, I'm not so much arguing that there's nothing to complain about regarding this guy, I'm arguing that you're complaining about the wrong things. That he got the fire rate wrong for a gun he was presenting is a dumb thing to do and kinda funny, but it's not going to accomplish anything in a discussion because it's not really that important in the end. Whats important is what he actually wants to do, and what legislation he's actually pushing.
Whats also actually important is getting research done on these subjects, because as it stands right now legislators are largely flailing about in the dark when it comes to gun control. Unlike many other issues there's no clear solution available, just plenty of unproven theories. As long as that is the case you're going to have legislators pushing whatever theories they have for fixing the issue, because no one truly [i]knows[/i] what the solution is. This, along with how unfeasible certain types of legislation is due to the uncompromising nature of America's gun culture, is why you have shit like the assault weapons ban.
I'm sure that most politicians pushing for assault weapons bans are quite aware that simple handguns are responsible for the vast majority of firearm related homicides. However, they're also aware that trying to ban the common handgun is insane. So in order to curb at least some firearm related deaths, they try to curb another type of firearm. They don't [i]know[/i] if that will actually help, they don't [i]know[/i] if every shooter with a rifle would just have used a handgun to kill just as many people anyway. There's no way to know, whether your position is that it would help or not the proof is simply lacking, the knowledge isn't there. But they know something has to be done, they have to push something so they push this because it [i]might[/i] help, and because its niche enough that its slightly less insane to try than putting serious restrictions on handguns. Meanwhile a dozen other democrats are pushing for a dozen other types of restrictions without knowing for sure what will help, because the knowledge is simply not there.
In other words, because of the opposition that exists to gun control and the lack of research into effective gun control measures, current attempts at gun control legislation are essentially shooting into the dark. Legislators hope that some legislation will get through the insane opposition there is, and they hope that [i]some[/i] of that legislation that passes will actually be effective, but no one knows what can get passed and what will be effective.
Because they all know that new legislation is needed, but no one knows whats actually effective and the gun lobby seemingly opposes all of it whether its effective or not.[/QUOTE]
If people are making basic verifiable factual errors in their arguments or statements that should make you question the validity of laws they might draft based on said errors.
I'm not even for guns and I get the logic here
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53161688]This mindset allowed Hillary to sweep up the DNC and effectively block reform for her party. What did that result in?[/QUOTE]
it's a shit campaign strategy and it's not something any politician should ever ask for, but it's undeniably true that we essentially have no choice but to support the democrats at this point
If anything the election of trump has just made that even more clear. Either you have to put up with fucking retard yuppies banning high capacity barrel shrouds, or you have to put up with a mortal threat to the stability of the country and the world. It's a pretty easy choice to make if you aren't suicidal.
[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;53161964]This is exactly the kind of partisan hackery that's destroying this country. "Toe the party line, you have no choice but to vote for boring centrist Democrats because the Republicans are so evil. Now excuse us while we don't support Medicare for all, a living wage, and bringing the troops home even though a vast majority of the American people want these things." It's time for milquetoast, centrist, corporate Democrats to be booted out of office and replaced with people who actually give a shit about improving people's lives.[/QUOTE]
Call it what you want, but I'm a centrist democrat, so I'm just gonna vote D all the way down. I don't think the issue with America is partisanship, I think the issue with America is conservatives. What, am I just supposed to compromise on things like Abortion, gay marriage, or the Russians buying our elections?
I'm a realist. There is no perfect politician, and I'm not gonna pretend there is. If a progressive wins that district, great, if Feinstein wins, whatever, I'm not gonna go poison the field for her like Bernie supporters did for Hillary and engender dipshit conspiracy theories.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;53165668]Call it what you want, but I'm a centrist democrat, so I'm just gonna vote D all the way down. I don't think the issue with America is partisanship, I think the issue with America is conservatives. What, am I just supposed to compromise on things like Abortion, gay marriage, or the Russians buying our elections?
I'm a realist. There is no perfect politician, and I'm not gonna pretend there is. If a progressive wins that district, great, if Feinstein wins, whatever, I'm not gonna go poison the field for her like Bernie supporters did for Hillary and engender dipshit conspiracy theories.[/QUOTE]
The other side being terrible doesn't justify your side also being shit. It's not about waiting for the perfect politician, it's about wanting the Democrats to stop and realize that there are people in this country that matter, and the wishes of the democratic leadership aren't exactly in-tune with what most of us are looking for. Don't expect votes if you aren't willing to represent, but don't go blaming the voters when you lose.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;53165683]The other side being terrible doesn't justify your side also being shit. It's not about waiting for the perfect politician, it's about wanting the Democrats to stop and realize that there are people in this country that matter, and the wishes of the democratic leadership aren't exactly in-tune with what most of us are looking for. Don't expect votes if you aren't willing to represent, but don't go blaming the voters when you lose.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure democrats know what the voter wants. Just because everyone on facepunch is a liberal who's against gun control doesn't mean that most voters are. Your political interests are just one of many in the country. Many young people are progressives, but most voters are old, and they're centrists/moderates or conservatives. Consider that there are other opinions on the left that actually support people like Feinstein and Clinton. Clinton did win the primary after all, which was put to a vote. You can't pretend like 99% of people hate establishment democrats since Hillary did win the popular vote. If a candidate supported ALL the same things that Clinton did, but didn't have the same stigma and conspiracy theories/baggage behind her, she probably would've cleaned up in 2016
[QUOTE=proboardslol;53165668]Call it what you want, but I'm a centrist democrat, so I'm just gonna vote D all the way down. I don't think the issue with America is partisanship, I think the issue with America is conservatives. What, am I just supposed to compromise on things like Abortion, gay marriage, or the Russians buying our elections?
I'm a realist. There is no perfect politician, and I'm not gonna pretend there is. If a progressive wins that district, great, if Feinstein wins, whatever, I'm not gonna go poison the field for her like Bernie supporters did for Hillary and engender dipshit conspiracy theories.[/QUOTE]
It's not fair to call it a problem with "conservatives" at large. Conservatism has actual ideological roots, especially the emphasis on tradition as something that should be respected and maintained, which goes back to Edmund Burke (and earlier). Conservatives once had loads of rational, fair arguments and beliefs. The problem we have isn't just "conservatives." It's that the party of conservatism has been co-opted almost entirely by self-interested, greedy, amoral cultists who want to further their own goals, and will do whatever they have to do so. There's no ideology left. There's no deeply-held beliefs - there's just the party, and what they say goes, end of.
Principled conservatism barely exists in the U.S. anymore, and it's being replaced with... nothing. No new policies. No new ideological beliefs. No compromises. It's been filled with gangsters who pilfer and loot their constituents while shouting on and on about traditional conservative beliefs that they don't give a rat's ass about. Conservatism can be a very reasonable stance, and it [i]was[/i] for basically the entire history of the nation-state.
What happened? The GOP shunned academia in favor of evangelical religion. [URL="https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater#Address_on_religious_factions_(1981)"]Goldwater noticed this happening[/URL]. Now, the old ideas of conservative academics and thinkers, from free market efficiency to minimal government, have turned evangelical. The ideas aren't backed by intellectual arguments now - they're backed by [i]faith[/i]. The party [i]is[/i] the church. The politicians are the pastors. Anti-intellectualism infected American conservatism, and it's led us to the situation we're in now. Now, even when the opposition is crafting intellectually-rigorous and convincing arguments for their policies, the new brand of conservatives don't care to actually challenge those arguments honestly. It's no coincidence that American conservatives fall for Trump in the same way that evangelicals fall for money-grubbing televangelists. They're the same people. They overlap. Even when they act in direct opposition to the core stated principles of their beliefs, they get support, because they profess faith. Trump wants to limit free trade in direct opposition to the backbone of conservative political philosophy. Televangelists buy multi-million dollar homes while quoting a God who explicitly said it was impossible for rich men to go to heaven.
The problem is anti-intellectualism. It's absolutely not limited to conservatives, but it sure as hell concentrates there. Anti-intellectualism breeds gullibility and trashes the public's ability to think critically - which makes them prime victims for opportunistic thieves, like those that make up the entire Republican party.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;53165691]I'm sure democrats know what the voter wants. Just because everyone on facepunch is a liberal who's against gun control doesn't mean that most voters are. Your political interests are just one of many in the country. Many young people are progressives, but most voters are old, and they're centrists/moderates or conservatives. Consider that there are other opinions on the left that actually support people like Feinstein and Clinton. Clinton did win the primary after all, which was put to a vote. You can't pretend like 99% of people hate establishment democrats since Hillary did win the popular vote. If a candidate supported ALL the same things that Clinton did, but didn't have the same stigma and conspiracy theories/baggage behind her, she probably would've cleaned up in 2016[/QUOTE]
I'll be brief: read polls, my guy. Americans aren't centrist democrats. They're just left. They support Bernie's platform overwhelmingly. Establishment democrats don't give a shit about the people. The primary was rigged against Bernie and Hillary Clinton had enormous name recognition and a huge political machine behind her. She was the lesser evil but was still such an unlikable, flawed and corrupt candidate that she lost to Donald Trump. There's no pretend hatred: Congress approval rating dips between 9 and 20%. Hillary has like a 60% unfavorability rating, almost higher than Trump's, last I checked. Quit supporting corporate shills who don't actually represent you.
[QUOTE=Jim Morrison;53168113]I'll be brief: read polls, my guy. Americans aren't centrist democrats. They're just left. They support Bernie's platform overwhelmingly. Establishment democrats don't give a shit about the people. The primary was rigged against Bernie and Hillary Clinton had enormous name recognition and a huge political machine behind her. She was the lesser evil but was still such an unlikable, flawed and corrupt candidate that she lost to Donald Trump. There's no pretend hatred: Congress approval rating dips between 9 and 20%. Hillary has like a 60% unfavorability rating, almost higher than Trump's, last I checked. Quit supporting corporate shills who don't actually represent you.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, how was the Primary rigged? Are you saying the democrats manipulated the votes?
[quote]Quit supporting corporate shills who don't actually represent you.[/quote]
When you throw around conspiracy theory buzzwords like "shill" it's hard for people to take your side seriously
[QUOTE=proboardslol;53168377]Sorry, how was the Primary rigged? Are you saying the democrats manipulated the votes?[/QUOTE]
Superdelegates, name recognition, SuperPACs, Correct the Record, the DNC themselves... all were things that Hillary Clinton had at her side. Let's not forget election fraud, some voters who voted Democrats their whole lives being switched to Republican for no reason, people given provisional ballots for arbitrary reasons... There are many things. I still don't understand why you so seriously support Hillary Clinton.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;53165668]Call it what you want, but I'm a centrist democrat, so I'm just gonna vote D all the way down. I don't think the issue with America is partisanship, I think the issue with America is conservatives.[/QUOTE]
Uh? Are you not seeing the irony in this statement? "I don't think the issue is partisanship, I think the issue is the other party!" That specific way of thinking is literally what's at issue.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;53161623]A Senator should have a general knowledge across each subjects that are politically relevant, otherwise they belong in the House of Representatives.
You don’t have to know everything, but the Senators are suppose to be generalists. Jack of Trades so to speak.[/QUOTE]
I already pointed this out but I'll say it again, why not.
Having only a general knowledge on something is exactly how you get these kinds of mistakes. He doesn't have a complete lack of knowledge or he wouldn't even know there was a .30 caliber or anything else. His knowledge is just flawed due to being just a minor thing among so many other, more important things he needs to know.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53162544]If people are making basic verifiable factual errors in their arguments or statements that should make you question the validity of laws they might draft based on said errors.
I'm not even for guns and I get the logic here[/QUOTE]
This sort of thing is the exact reason politicians never say anything of substance. They literally [i]have[/i] to be dubious and vague about nearly everything, because even the smallest mistake will have people dogpiling. This is exactly why you have so many duplicitous two-faced politicians being the dominant force. People who are good at being deceptive are practically the only people who can thrive in the political climate you create.
You may get the logic, but the logic is inherently flawed because humans are inherently flawed. The only way humans could wholly avoid mistakes is to say and do nothing of substance.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53160028]A person should be knowledgeable on a subject they want to write legislation for.[/QUOTE]
tell that to everybody that voted for tax cuts that would magically generate >3% gdp growth annually for 20 years to pay for themselves
[QUOTE=Sableye;53168659]tell that to everybody that voted for tax cuts that would magically generate >3% gdp growth annually for 20 years to pay for themselves[/QUOTE]
That...changes nothing about what I said
Just an FYI to you guys, there’s a huge problem with this. The way California runs this election is that the top two individuals who receive the most primary votes, regardless of party are put on the ballot for the general election. Currently there are between 5-7 Democrats that are running for the seat and only a handful of Republicans, the issue is that if these 5-7 Democrats run and don’t drop out of the race before appearing on the primary ballot, they could split the vote down so much that the top winningest Republicans, despite receiving a minority of the overall vote, could potentially overtake the top Democrats because of the vote splitting between Dems. Basically, if you don’t want to see California fucked out of a blue senate seat you need to vote for the most popular Democrat and encourage the others to drop out.
[QUOTE=elowin;53168556]I already pointed this out but I'll say it again, why not.
Having only a general knowledge on something is exactly how you get these kinds of mistakes. He doesn't have a complete lack of knowledge or he wouldn't even know there was a .30 caliber or anything else. His knowledge is just flawed due to being just a minor thing among so many other, more important things he needs to know.
This sort of thing is the exact reason politicians never say anything of substance. They literally [i]have[/i] to be dubious and vague about nearly everything, because even the smallest mistake will have people dogpiling. This is exactly why you have so many duplicitous two-faced politicians being the dominant force. People who are good at being deceptive are practically the only people who can thrive in the political climate you create.
You may get the logic, but the logic is inherently flawed because humans are inherently flawed. The only way humans could wholly avoid mistakes is to say and do nothing of substance.[/QUOTE]
Okay, I'm not sure how you read what I said and took from it that it's best practice for a politician to avoid dog piling is through being vague, and not showing how ill informed they may be. So how can we know who actually knows what they're talking about if details that you think are wholly irrelevant to the discussion but show an overall familiarity with the situation and contexts that the conversation is taking place in are useless, and best strayed away from so as to avoid said "dogpiling".
Would you trust a politician who showed a clear ignorance of how the internet functions, to regulate the internet? Would you maintain this position that it's best practices for politicians to be vague in the situation where you personally lose something from the application of ignorance that you couldn't discover, because you think it's a bad idea for politicians to actually speak about the details of an issue, lest they misspeak.
I'm sorry, but I don't agree, and I really don't understand your view point because at the end of the day, what we get what your view point is what we deserve. We can't have people able to choose their politicians, where their vote goes, if they're ignorant of the politicians actual views because of the said best practices you've suggested.
But please, do try and find a way to argue that politicians displaying ignorance is actually a failure of those that are critical of misinformation.
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;53168669]Just an FYI to you guys, there’s a huge problem with this. The way California runs this election is that the top two individuals who receive the most primary votes, regardless of party are put on the ballot for the general election. Currently there are between 5-7 Democrats that are running for the seat and only a handful of Republicans, the issue is that if these 5-7 Democrats run and don’t drop out of the race before appearing on the primary ballot, they could split the vote down so much that the top winningest Republicans, despite receiving a minority of the overall vote, could potentially overtake the top Democrats because of the vote splitting between Dems. Basically, if you don’t want to see California fucked out of a blue senate seat you need to vote for the most popular Democrat and encourage the others to drop out.[/QUOTE]
Isn't first past the post wonderful?
[QUOTE=.Isak.;53165727]It's not fair to call it a problem with "conservatives" at large. Conservatism has actual ideological roots, especially the emphasis on tradition as something that should be respected and maintained, which goes back to Edmund Burke (and earlier). Conservatives once had loads of rational, fair arguments and beliefs. The problem we have isn't just "conservatives." It's that the party of conservatism has been co-opted almost entirely by self-interested, greedy, amoral cultists who want to further their own goals, and will do whatever they have to do so. There's no ideology left. There's no deeply-held beliefs - there's just the party, and what they say goes, end of.
Principled conservatism barely exists in the U.S. anymore, and it's being replaced with... nothing. No new policies. No new ideological beliefs. No compromises. It's been filled with gangsters who pilfer and loot their constituents while shouting on and on about traditional conservative beliefs that they don't give a rat's ass about. Conservatism can be a very reasonable stance, and it [i]was[/i] for basically the entire history of the nation-state.
What happened? The GOP shunned academia in favor of evangelical religion. [URL="https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater#Address_on_religious_factions_(1981)"]Goldwater noticed this happening[/URL]. Now, the old ideas of conservative academics and thinkers, from free market efficiency to minimal government, have turned evangelical. The ideas aren't backed by intellectual arguments now - they're backed by [i]faith[/i]. The party [i]is[/i] the church. The politicians are the pastors. Anti-intellectualism infected American conservatism, and it's led us to the situation we're in now. Now, even when the opposition is crafting intellectually-rigorous and convincing arguments for their policies, the new brand of conservatives don't care to actually challenge those arguments honestly. It's no coincidence that American conservatives fall for Trump in the same way that evangelicals fall for money-grubbing televangelists. They're the same people. They overlap. Even when they act in direct opposition to the core stated principles of their beliefs, they get support, because they profess faith. Trump wants to limit free trade in direct opposition to the backbone of conservative political philosophy. Televangelists buy multi-million dollar homes while quoting a God who explicitly said it was impossible for rich men to go to heaven.
The problem is anti-intellectualism. It's absolutely not limited to conservatives, but it sure as hell concentrates there. Anti-intellectualism breeds gullibility and trashes the public's ability to think critically - which makes them prime victims for opportunistic thieves, like those that make up the entire Republican party.[/QUOTE]
I like this post for it's quality. I'd broadly endorse it if it weren't for one simple problem.
It's a narrative, not factual.
It's convenient to focus the failings of the American Republican Party through a lens of Evangelism. To characterize the majority of Republican voters, the base of the party, as if they were gullible, ignorant savages.
However, what excuse then does the American Democratic Party have for going from being the party that [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act"]prevented gays from marrying[/URL], to being the one that [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_policy_of_the_Barack_Obama_administration#LGBT_issues"]carries them forward?[/URL]
How does the American Democratic Party explain [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008#Politicians"]advocating for responsible bailouts[/URL] then passing [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009"]bailouts with no strings directly attached?[/URL]
How is it that Democrats claim to be the party for peace, for international negotiations, for diplomacy, when the Obama Administration carried out a unilateral [URL="https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-01-17/obamas-covert-drone-war-in-numbers-ten-times-more-strikes-than-bush"]air war,[/URL] so badly documented that we will never truly know the extent of the mortality it inflicted?
That like, scratches the surface, but to pretend that there is a disease that solely infects the Republicans is to turn a blind eye on a favorable rash. Most people I know who vote Republican vote that way because they believe the Republicans will be true to their word, whether it's ending welfare or stoving in brown people's heads with bombs, whereas the Democrats [URL="https://www.scribd.com/document/372469353/Assault-Weapons-Ban-of-2018#from_embed"]may do anything, if it satisfies their donors and their base.[/URL]
If the Republicans have a cancer of Evangelism in their belly, the the Democrats are smitten with Narcissism, characterizing themselves as being the only enlightened people in the nation, while their actual politicians rubberstamp [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_Congresspersons_who_support_or_oppose_SOPA/PIPA"]whatever they need to,[/URL] in effect being only better than their opponents by merit of [I]smiling[/I] while they [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996"]loot the public coffers[/URL] and [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter"]will play to the interest of anyone[/URL] who doesn't feel represented by "the other guys."
This not to say somehow that the Democrats are some greater Satan than the Republicans, or even a Great Satan at all. I vote Democrat. I (try to) participate in local level Democratic activities (work allowing.) Their interests align squarely with mine, politically. But to try to pretend that the Democratic party, as a whole, is not gripped with the same self-righteous, unreflective drunkeness that comes with the complacency of being the second-half in a two-party system is simply wrong. To try and pan out "the other guys," as being merely unenlightened gangsters when [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016"]they had a highly competitive, open primary with a wide range of possible outcomes[/URL] while "our guys" [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016"]seemed suspiciously decided[/URL] is at best, self-serving, and at worst, the same anti-intellectual bulling served up under cocktail sauce.
[QUOTE=Blackavar;53168443]Superdelegates, name recognition, SuperPACs, Correct the Record, the DNC themselves... all were things that Hillary Clinton had at her side. Let's not forget election fraud, some voters who voted Democrats their whole lives being switched to Republican for no reason, people given provisional ballots for arbitrary reasons... There are many things. I still don't understand why you so seriously support Hillary Clinton.[/QUOTE]
1. Bernie would have lost even without superdelegates.
2. Name recognition is not "rigging"; it's just the difference between how Hillary Clinton has spent that last 20+ years in the national spotlight while Bernie spent the last 20 years as a no-name independent senator with a lackluster legislative record from a state that's overlooked by the vast majority of Americans outside of an election season.
3. SuperPACs are not rigging, they're just an apparatus for donating money to a political cause and creating commercials. Call them shady if you want, but "rigging" is not the correct word
4. See above
5. I'm not sure what "The DNC themselves" means.
6. Source on election fraud please
I support Clinton because I don't believe that 20+ years of conspiracy theories that the far right elements of the Republican party have been slinging against the Clintons since Ruby Ridge
The fact is that Bernie had the better grassroots campaign and the support of young people by a VAST majority (being a Clinton supporter on a college campus was actually at one point LESS popular than being a Trump supporter on a college campus) and he lost because most voters are older folks who simply weren't impressed by Bernie
[QUOTE=proboardslol;53165668]Call it what you want, but I'm a centrist democrat, so I'm just gonna vote D all the way down. I don't think the issue with America is partisanship, I think the issue with America is conservatives. What, am I just supposed to compromise on things like Abortion, gay marriage, or the Russians buying our elections?
I'm a realist. There is no perfect politician, and I'm not gonna pretend there is. If a progressive wins that district, great, if Feinstein wins, whatever, I'm not gonna go poison the field for her like Bernie supporters did for Hillary and engender dipshit conspiracy theories.[/QUOTE]
I'm tansgender, gay, and an out and out libertarian socialist. I'm as far as you can get from a hard line right winger. And I didn't vote and will never vote for Hillary, for as many elections as her withered skeletal ass will cling to life for. And if your party keeps propping up career politicians who offer nothing more than fake smiles and empty platitudes while acting only in service to their corporate donors, I will never vote for them either.
The Democratic party is hopelessly corrupt, regardless of whether they're the lesser of two evils or not. And voting for them regardless of that corruption just means you're telling them that they can do whatever they want, and they'll still win elections anyways. But choosing not to vote for them and splitting their voter base means they actually have to change and serve the people to secure a victory.
Trump is a godawful president, and that's why he needed to win. He's proven to the Democrat party that their laziness and corruption holds actual consequences.
[QUOTE=Blackavar;53169496][url]https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774[/url][/QUOTE]
Please connect this to a point
[editline]1st March 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=TWKUK;53169853]I'm tansgender, gay, and an out and out libertarian socialist. I'm as far as you can get from a hard line right winger. And I didn't vote and will never vote for Hillary, for as many elections as her withered skeletal ass will cling to life for. And if your party keeps propping up career politicians who offer nothing more than fake smiles and empty platitudes while acting only in service to their corporate donors, I will never vote for them either.
The Democratic party is hopelessly corrupt, regardless of whether they're the lesser of two evils or not. And voting for them regardless of that corruption just means you're telling them that they can do whatever they want, and they'll still win elections anyways. But choosing not to vote for them and splitting their voter base means they actually have to change and serve the people to secure a victory.
Trump is a godawful president, and that's why he needed to win. He's proven to the Democrat party that their laziness and corruption holds actual consequences.[/QUOTE]
All I hear are insults and conspiracy theories. Please prove that the Democratic party is guilty of high level corruption (note, what you may consider to be corruption may simply be a different political opinion)
[QUOTE=proboardslol;53169881]All I hear are insults and conspiracy theories. Please prove that the Democratic party is guilty of high level corruption (note, what you may consider to be corruption may simply be a different political opinion)[/QUOTE]
Taking donations from anyone but regular people should be considered illegal corruption.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
