Make Liberalism Great Again

Freddie Millergogo said:
The DNC wanted Hillary and RNC wanted Jeb with Cruz or Rubio as fall back. Bushes, Clintons and O are all warm mongering NeoCon lackeys.

DNC knifed Bernie in the back. RNC tried multiple times to knife Trump and the base revolted.

The Dems might have stopped the theft except the DNC rigs it with Super Delegates and I am sure Bernie was also threatened.

I have little faith in any of this or voting.
Click to expand...

I agree with this like I disagree with most of the rest you have said.
 
ttystikk said:
As you well know, it only takes a few.

I do base my opinion on facts as I personally saw them.

You seem to implicitly trust what you see on teevee, which I think is a mistake.

As evidence continues to mount, I'll post it.

Any evidence that isn't followed up with prosecution is evidence that the establishment is running this game for their own ends.

Your continual denials are also your opinion, and I believe you're deluded by your belief in the truth of what's being retorted on mass media.

That said, I think we're on the same team; the one of protecting our middle class prosperity. The question I'd rather focus on is how to repair the DNC so it supports this goal.
Click to expand...
I think our disagreement is not large. I don't demand you hew to my story. Unlike right wingnuts, we have to at least use facts to form opinion. Your experience is also a good source for forming your opinion. My experience is different and I've learned that the farther we get from knowable facts, the more speculative an opinion becomes. I don't have a television and despise internet info-videos, so neither of those are the source of my information or bias as you would have it. As I've said, I'm happy to review anything that you say contains facts that would indicate the two opinions are true: that the entire DNC and Clinton organizations secretly colluded and that more than 12% of the Democratic Party's electorate were swayed to vote for Clinton when they would have voted for Bernie had the collusion not happened. This is a relatively complex scenario. Mine is simpler. That a few DNC operatives colluded with a few Clinton campaign staff and that one or two percent of the vote was swayed by this.

By all means, post more information when available.
 
Flaming Pie said:
Isn't it a bit rediculous that you have to provide a disclaimer?

PC culture says it is all or nothing. You either agree with everything or nothing at all.

It is ok to admit you agree on one point with someone. It does not mean you agree on everything.
Click to expand...

PC culture says i do not get to comment on what a fat, ugly, racist shithead you are.

luckily we did not vote for PC culture, you fat, ugly dumbass.

lose some fucking weight, pie. you are a 3 out of 10 at best as well. and no amount of weight loss can change your ugly fucking face.
 
Fogdog said:
I think our disagreement is not large. I don't demand you hew to my story. Unlike right wingnuts, we have to at least use facts to form opinion. Your experience is also a good source for forming your opinion. My experience is different and I've learned that the farther we get from knowable facts, the more speculative an opinion becomes. I don't have a television and despise internet info-videos, so neither of those are the source of my information or bias as you would have it. As I've said, I'm happy to review anything that you say contains facts that would indicate the two opinions are true: that the entire DNC and Clinton organizations secretly colluded and that more than 12% of the Democratic Party's electorate were swayed to vote for Clinton when they would have voted for Bernie had the collusion not happened. This is a relatively complex scenario. Mine is simpler. That a few DNC operatives colluded with a few Clinton campaign staff and that one or two percent of the vote was swayed by this.

By all means, post more information when available.
Click to expand...

I don't think we'll ever know everything that happened. 3,000,000 votes is a big number though, so I can't draw any reasonable conclusions that the DNC swung the election to Hillary by themselves. We do know that some of them tried, however. That's not acceptable to me, no matter the impact it had.

One of the other problems is the super delegates. There were quite a few states that Bernie won (some by large margins), and yet Hillary walked away with the majority of the delegates from those states. What exactly is the point of voting when super delegates can pick the winner no matter what the people have to say? The DNC, if nothing else, should exist to get out the vote. Do they not see how a rigged primary process where party elites trump the will of the people will have the opposite effect? People feel disenfranchised when they take the time to vote, their horse "wins", only to be told by a handful of super delegates that they know better.
 
st0wandgrow said:
I don't think we'll ever know everything that happened. 3,000,000 votes is a big number though, so I can't draw any reasonable conclusions that the DNC swung the election to Hillary by themselves. We do know that some of them tried, however. That's not acceptable to me, no matter the impact it had.

One of the other problems is the super delegates. There were quite a few states that Bernie won (some by large margins), and yet Hillary walked away with the majority of the delegates from those states. What exactly is the point of voting when super delegates can pick the winner no matter what the people have to say? The DNC, if nothing else, should exist to get out the vote. Do they not see how a rigged primary process where party elites trump the will of the people will have the opposite effect? People feel disenfranchised when they take the time to vote, their horse "wins", only to be told by a handful of super delegates that they know better.
Click to expand...
I don't know anybody who thinks the super delegate system should survive the first meeting of a re-formed DNC. I'd prefer a popular vote. State primaries are fine but rather than award delegates, why not just count votes and accrue them throughout the primary? The candidate with the most votes wins. No superdelegates and let the majority of democrats select the candidate they want.

The Sanders-Clinton compromise worked out this summer isn't anything like that, however. This from Wikipedia:

On July 23, 2016, ahead of the 2016 Democratic National Convention, the 2016 DNC Rules Committee voted overwhelmingly (158–6) to adopt a superdelegate reform package. The new rules were the result of a compromise between the Clinton and the Sanders campaigns; in the past, Sanders had pressed for the complete elimination of superdelegates.[9]

Under the reform package, in future Democratic Conventions, about two-thirds of superdelegates would be bound to the results of state primaries and caucuses. The remaining one-third – Members of Congress, Governors, and distinguished party leaders – would remain unpledged and free to support the candidate of their choice.[9]

Of course, the party elites want their thumb on the scale. For reasons we can all guess.
 
UncleBuck said:
PC culture says i do not get to comment on what a fat, ugly, racist shithead you are.

luckily we did not vote for PC culture, you fat, ugly dumbass.

lose some fucking weight, pie. you are a 3 out of 10 at best as well. and no amount of weight loss can change your ugly fucking face.
Click to expand...
Since @Flaming Pie actively despises PC culture, there is no reason to ever hold yourself back from whatever observation you'd like to make. She's ok with it, so why not?

I'll take my own non PC shots but I'm more into mocking her religious views, which I find much more odious than her fat behind. But women who have fat behinds have difficulty keeping clean down there and so I'd rather not think about that.
 
Last edited:
Fogdog said:
I don't know anybody who thinks the super delegate system should survive the first meeting of a re-formed DNC. I'd prefer a popular vote. State primaries are fine but rather than award delegates, why not just count votes and accrue them throughout the primary? The candidate with the most votes wins. No superdelegates and let the majority of democrats select the candidate they want.

The Sanders-Clinton compromise worked out this summer isn't anything like that, however. This from Wikipedia:

On July 23, 2016, ahead of the 2016 Democratic National Convention, the 2016 DNC Rules Committee voted overwhelmingly (158–6) to adopt a superdelegate reform package. The new rules were the result of a compromise between the Clinton and the Sanders campaigns; in the past, Sanders had pressed for the complete elimination of superdelegates.[9]

Under the reform package, in future Democratic Conventions, about two-thirds of superdelegates would be bound to the results of state primaries and caucuses. The remaining one-third – Members of Congress, Governors, and distinguished party leaders – would remain unpledged and free to support the candidate of their choice.[9]

Of course, the party elites want their thumb on the scale. For reasons we can all guess.
Click to expand...

Nah, dump the super delegates. It's time to hack the thumbs off those self righteous 'elites' who would put their thumbs on the scale of democracy.
 
Flaming Pie said:
Isn't it a bit rediculous that you have to provide a disclaimer?

PC culture says it is all or nothing. You either agree with everything or nothing at all.

It is ok to admit you agree on one point with someone. It does not mean you agree on everything.
Click to expand...

I think it's ridiculous how you spell rediculous. At least you could spell it reeeee-diculous so it would match your political views.

And didn't the last great republican prez, who also lost the popular vote, George W. say, "either you're with us, or you're against us"?

Maybe he started a trend.
 
ttystikk said:
Nah, dump the super delegates. It's time to hack the thumbs off those self righteous 'elites' who would put their thumbs on the scale of democracy.
Click to expand...
I'm not endorsing super delegates but just saying that's what the committee recommended this summer. Nothing says that we can't agitate to change it. we can change it but the change has to be done before the 2020 primary season starts. After that, no point in complaining about it. I mean you can and have every right to but it won't change anything when the season starts and starts to sound whiny.

The time to make the system sane is within the next few years. Bernie wanted the superdelegates eliminated and he now has more influence than Clinton ever will again. Why should the compromise they forced down Bernie's team's throats be honored? So, encourage people to agitate their state Democratic party to eliminate that relic of a time long gone. That's what I'm going to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top