PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
Nope, I'm fairly certain I never said that. But I am here to point out the irony of it all for you.
How much support will bernie lose in Nevada from 2016?
- Thread starter UncleBuck
- Start date
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Pretty funny when you just make shit up to troll up some anti-establishment vibes for Sanders. I haven't heard anyone that is a die-hard centrist HRC supporter say that.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
Maybe you're not paying attention then.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Must have been another troll.
I'm not expecting anybody to "fall in line". It was more pointed at lampooning the authoritarian attitude that Bernie's Bros evince.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
I also don't expect anyone to "fall in line" but I've seen the sentiment iterated here repeatedly. Personally I think people should vote with their consciences. I also think the 2 party system is potentially the biggest demise to true democracy, so please don't fall in line with something you don't believe in.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
How uncharacteristic of a Bernie bro that you don't demand things just be given to you. Except for, perhaps the nomination of Bernie when he fails to win a majority of delegates outright.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
I thought this a lot too, until I started to read more about how having it gives us the ability to pool our votes. If everyone that ran had to have the resources to get all the signatures and funding it takes to run for office without being able to sign up as a Democrat and use their platform, it would basically mean you have to be rich or famous to have any chance at all in winning.
I am not an expert in this, and someone might be able to give a better explanation, but it was kind of eye opening.
Interesting too when you consider this is the only reason Bernie has the platform he does.
We are not forced to only have two parties, anyone can run anytime, but it is just too hard usually to win the support of enough people to matter.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
The coalition of old white men known as the Republican Party would love to have a field of smaller parties to run over. I keep hearing complaints from various sources about "special interest groups", as if that's a bad thing. But really, a "special interest group" is a group of people who come together to force changes in the status quo. The coalition of old white men, aka the Republican Party is a special interest group that, surprise, surprise, supports the status quo to protect the interests of old white men. They have numbers and the most resources, including cash. So, black voters, women, Hispanic voters and the few white men who don't support the status quo for various reasons come together in the Democratic Party.
Yet again, Republicans have managed to create a lie that is opposite from the truth and gotten people to accept it. They are the reason why there can be only one party that is able to oppose them. Republicans represent the majority of wealth, the majority of wealth holders, the majority of businesses, the majority of large farms, the majority of CEOs, the majority of wealthy inheritors, the majority of well off retirees, etc. In the face of that, darn right there can only be one viable coalition.
Those who decry the existence of a two party system and blame Democrats for that are working against democracy, not for it.
Yet again, Republicans have managed to create a lie that is opposite from the truth and gotten people to accept it. They are the reason why there can be only one party that is able to oppose them. Republicans represent the majority of wealth, the majority of wealth holders, the majority of businesses, the majority of large farms, the majority of CEOs, the majority of wealthy inheritors, the majority of well off retirees, etc. In the face of that, darn right there can only be one viable coalition.
Those who decry the existence of a two party system and blame Democrats for that are working against democracy, not for it.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
Yeah, except that I'm not a "Bernie Bro" or whatever. I will likely vote for him in the primaries, but I never make up my mind completely until I walk into the polling booth. I really never expected him to re-run in 2020, and kind of "poo-poo'd" it when he first announced his candidacy this time around. I had hoped that someone fresh with progressive values who isn't a puppet of the corporate-democratic establishment would step forth, who I could rally behind. Unfortunately that didn't seem to happen, so Bernie ends up garnering most of my support.
It's odd that you would think that founding fathers like John Adams and George Washington were "working against democracy, not for it":
America Is Now the Divided Republic the Framers Feared
John Adams worried that “a division of the republic into two great parties … is to be dreaded as the great political evil.” And that’s exactly what has come to pass.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
What happened 250 years ago isn't what's happening today.Yeah, except that I'm not a "Bernie Bro" or whatever. I will likely vote for him in the primaries, but I never make up my mind completely until I walk into the polling booth. I really never expected him to re-run in 2020, and kind of "poo-poo'd" it when he first announced his candidacy this time around. I had hoped that someone fresh with progressive values who isn't a puppet of the corporate-democratic establishment would step forth, who I could rally behind. Unfortunately that didn't seem to happen, so Bernie ends up garnering most of my support.
It's odd that you would think that founding fathers like John Adams and George Washington were "working against democracy, not for it":
America Is Now the Divided Republic the Framers Feared
John Adams worried that “a division of the republic into two great parties … is to be dreaded as the great political evil.” And that’s exactly what has come to pass.www.theatlantic.com
I can completely understand why Republicans want to have free run over a divided field of smaller groups. The old divide and conquer paradigm held up well over the past 250 years. Reasons against a two party system, not so much.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
I'm not suggesting that we should divide up the Democratic party into smaller subsets, I'm suggesting to abolish the party system all together. That and abolish the electoral college while we're at it too. Limit total campaign contributions/expenditures to one million per candidate. This should be about who is good and who is terrible, not who is the lessor of the two evils we need to rally behind.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
How could anyone get the name recognition that Bloomberg could buy? There would just be a Presidential "General" election in your scenario. Every election would just get bought by the person who could get the most advertising.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
I guess you missed this part of my post: "Limit total campaign contributions/expenditures to one million per candidate. "
Just throwing a number out there. Maybe it's not the best number, but there should be a reasonable cap.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Abolishing the electoral college is just a few new Democratically controlled statehouses away.
National Popular Vote
State status: AK AL AR AZ CA CO CT DC DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD ME MI MN MO MS MT NC ND NE NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV WY The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50...
It won't happen with Republicans in control.
Reform of campaign finance laws. Yeah, that. Did you know that the last time the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling was challenged in the senate, EVERY Democratic Senator supported Bernie's amendment and EVERY Republican Senator opposed it by upholding a filibuster mounted by a Republican?
If you want to reform campaign finance laws then Democrats must be voted in. Yet here we are. Bernie is running against Democrats as if they are why Republicans control US government.
And what la la land do you live in where you think that its a bad thing common people to band together in a large enough group to oppose the relatively few wealthy people? They have billions and we have debt. Our numbers is all we have. Well, that and the threat of violence but that's hardly ever a good solution. They have the police too. So, no. I'm all for a grass roots political organization being formed and growing from local to national prominence. It's just that the billions and billions of dollars held by members of the Republican Party necessitate the Democratic Party. The two party system is not bad compared to a one party system.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
Well that's true. However having the lesser-of-the-two-party-evils system doesn't work for a lot of voters, who end up not voting at all because they don't feel that either of the two major candidates reflect their own personal values. Don't forget that only around 25% of citizens typically end up choosing the president.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
So, why are you cheering for the demise of the Democratic party?
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
I only cheer for that demise if it also includes the demise of the Republican party at the same time.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
hmm
yeah, sure
Like that's going to happen without Democrats.
Did you know that the last time there was a vote on the repeal of the Citizen's United Ruling, every Democrat voted to support that repeal and every Republican voted to block it?
If you ever want to see the policies you claim to support get enacted into law, vote Democrats in.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
I generally do, except in the rare cases when I vote Peace and Freedom Party or Green Party.
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
What's a "die-hard HRC supporter"?