|
Homestar Runner posted:But again, the problems with the DNC are deeply systemic. It's a system that's been completely turned over to the donors. The days of the Democratic Party representing anybody but the rich are looooooong gone. Expecting to just replace the current sitting bunch of bad seeds with "good" seeds, when the system itself is inherently corrupting and under the complete control of the ruling class, is going to result in endless years of zero progress and hapless flailing. Good luck with that. its no surprise that people think that hand wringing and good intentions with time will make the DNC actually do something because that's exactly what democrats in government positions do the democratic party willingly and with full cognisance of what they were doing alley opped the nomination under bernie's nose to give it to a right wing candidate with zero public appeal
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 22:51 |
|
|
DNC voters in 2017 are like battered wives only instead of their husband saying he'll change, he's telling them that the beatings are technically legal lmao
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:The republican primary system came out looking squeaky clean, because it did not use a superdelagate system, nor did it have any sort of bias towards a candidate. As shown by Trump showing up out of nowhere and becoming the republican nominee despite the party elite speaking out publicly against Trump. because the right realized cheating when ruin the party for a generation, the bernie/hillary feud will NEVER go away
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:the system is good if they did what they were put in place to do. the super delegates should've enshrined bernie as the candidate as the voters picked the weaker general election candidate (also them all pledging for clinton before the first primary already gave the illusion she had an insurmountable lead from the word go).
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:The republican primary system came out looking squeaky clean, because it did not use a superdelagate system, nor did it have any sort of bias towards a candidate. As shown by Trump showing up out of nowhere and becoming the republican nominee despite the party elite speaking out publicly against Trump. What's even more funny is it was squeaky clean until the DNC emails leaked, when it was revealed Hillary was urging the media to put Trump in the spot light so he would be the nominees. The DNC literally Russianed the election themselves!
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
basic hitler posted:yall literally aren't understanding the point here: the purpose and place of a democrat has varied wildly over the years and its membership is constantly in flux as is the republican party. That's from the voter to the elected level. in 2006 and 2008 when the democrats won majorities there were tons of republicans who changed affiliation over night despite not really changing a loving bit on policy. Bernie has never been a democrat and nearly won their nomination for president. every single complaint you've listed here, from pandering to fringe nutjobs to to being insanely toxic and ineffectual, can be attributed to both major parties. there are countless examples. the good ideas are losing for the same reason that people are turning to third parties: the establishment does not want to hear them and won't entertain them because in the end they are beholden to moneyed interests. your argument is literally "instead of wasting time building up a third party and trying to make it respectable, we should waste time trying to cut entrenched, insanely powerful and insanely wealthy special interests out of the "legitimate" parties (and ultimately fail in a public and hilarious fashion). like seriously, why do you think cutting the corruption out of the democratic party from the inside out is a less expensive, less time consuming and more worthwhile endeavor? has it occurred to you that, much like our currency, the only reason either party holds sway is because people keep trying to work within the rules they themselves have set? newsflash: it's not working because they just plain don't care and you will be throwing your time/money/sanity down a black hole as your heroes collectively vote to fellate the wealthy every single god drat time
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
basic hitler posted:you're never taking down the two party system without controlling one of the two parties. it won't happen. the democratic party is nothing but the sum of its parts too, so the only way to do it is to get a large enough faction of people who ran as democrats who want to change. You'll never, ever, ever, ever EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER get this done by voting for your third party of choice. It will never happen. Never. Ever. Never. This is ignorant of US history where exactly that has happened multiple times. COMRADES fucked around with this message at 17:21 on May 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 17:17
|
|
|
I'm just diving into the last 3 posts of this thread but yeah parties change all the time. Rallying behind a vocal and less compromising movement can and does force mainstream politics to shift. I wasn't a fan of jill stein but it doesn't detract from a thirdy party as an idea, either. At this point the democratic party is literally a failed platform, that crumbled against an extremely weak candidate because their bureaucracy is corrupt and their motives nothing but self-serving. We can do better.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
I have one question to the people who are citing history that parties ca be destroyed and switched out in America: Did any of that happen after the advent of mass media? This is the thing none of you are grasping. By and large, mass media leans Democratic. We all saw the DNC emails. How is the Democratic party going to die when they basically have fully half the country by population on their side, a solid chunk of the media in their pocket that is perfectly happy to churn out what amounts to propaganda, etc? There is a legitimate argument that things are a bit different now. Tallgeese fucked around with this message at 18:40 on May 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
because if there's one group of people who have proven they can be completely ineffectual, moronic dipshits who manage to pathetically lose everything, it's the Democratic party. there are no odds too great. With "half the country of the population on their side" and the mass media in their pocket, they still manage to overcome the odds and lose time and time again
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
They're terrible at the actual politics. That's an opening.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
That just means the Democrats are turning into a regional party. When the region in question happens to mostly be composed of the wealthiest and most power-concentrated sections of the country, they look far from screwed.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Tallgeese posted:I have one question to the people who are citing history that parties ca be destroyed and switched out in America: Did any of that happen after the advent of mass media? it's a good thing we are transitioning from the Atomic Age to the Information Age, we can use weaponized memes to undercut corporate media the internet is a hell of a thing
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
Tallgeese posted:How is the Democratic party going to die when they basically have fully half the country by population on their side, a solid chunk of the media in their pocket that is perfectly happy to churn out what amounts to propaganda, etc? Uh, they don't? They just lost a major election there guy and even though they get close to half the votes every time uh most of the nation doesn't vote. Besides what is your point here really? "Don't hope for anything better, history is over this is what it is?" gently caress that. COMRADES fucked around with this message at 18:56 on May 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:it's a good thing we are transitioning from the Atomic Age to the Information Age, we can use weaponized memes to undercut corporate media I thought alternative news sites were going to be rated and marked as unreliable by Facebook. COMRADES posted:Uh, they don't? They just lost a major election there guy and even though they get close to half the votes every time uh most of the nation doesn't vote. Perception is reality. People tend to forget that last part.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Tallgeese posted:How is the Democratic party going to die when they basically have fully half the country by population on their side, a solid chunk of the media in their pocket that is perfectly happy to churn out what amounts to propaganda, etc? because they lose elections
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
The existing two parties have been redefining themselves pretty thoroughly in the last century, which is probably a result of raw brand recognition. A change has to happen to one of the two real parties to reach people, but a party can be reshaped and people will make their choices around that. It's a big deal when that happens. The southern strategy may be the only clear cut example.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Stexils posted:because they lose elections they'll be the spunky underdog that doesn't actually have to accomplish anything to earn people's affection
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
ArgumentatumE.C.T. posted:they'll be the spunky underdog that doesn't actually have to accomplish anything to earn people's affection not if they keep talking about nothing but russia
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Stexils posted:because they lose elections They lose elections outside of their regional zones, yeah. Zones they don't actually care about and probably still don't care about. COMRADES posted:Besides what is your point here really? "Don't hope for anything better, history is over this is what it is?" gently caress that. My point is that history only works as a guide when the conditions are similar. I'm saying they are not due to two things that were probably not present earlier: 1) Increased polarization and identification with the parties. 2) An entrenched propaganda arm with wide and constant penetration into the consciousness of the public, which while not trusted is still quite entrenched. There was a third thing I was going to cite, but it slipped my mind. I am saying this: Basic Hitler did nothing wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Tallgeese posted:I thought alternative news sites were going to be rated and marked as unreliable by Facebook. they are, but people are also noticing an inherent bias in large media sites in how they present such things Twitter intentionally fucks with trending stories via autocorrect and hiding things that are problematic, and Youtube is cutting advertising to right wing and more progressive left wing channels this wouldn't be an issue for them, except that the internet simply lets you bypass the main channels and create your own platforms if you so choose, in a much cheaper and more wide reaching way than print media, radio or television ever could hope to offer
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:it's a good thing we are transitioning from the Atomic Age to the Information Age, we can use weaponized memes to undercut corporate media Too bad most young internet users don't even go out and vote. Where The viewers of entrenched media outlets are all the olds that love to vote.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:they are, but people are also noticing an inherent bias in large media sites in how the present such things I grant all of this, but you are counting on two things: 1) Most Americans not being lazy and actually seeking out the alternative news sites. and 2) The exceptions to point 1 going out and voting.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
Rasta_Al posted:Too bad most young internet users don't even go out and vote. Where The viewers of entrenched media outlets are all the olds that love to vote. Tallgeese posted:I grant all of this, but you are counting on two things: how quickly we forget idiots touting stories like this
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Tallgeese posted:They lose elections outside of their regional zones, yeah. Zones they don't actually care about and probably still don't care about. the democrats are a national party, if they don't care about those zones because they're outside their "region" then they won't have the seats to get anything done nationally either, as we've seen this past election. that's not a viable strategy and if they stick to it they will eventually die.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:how quickly we forget idiots touting stories like this I will reserve judgment until I see the youth turnout analyses for 2016, but I see your point. Stexils posted:the democrats are a national party, if they don't care about those zones because they're outside their "region" then they won't have the seats to get anything done nationally either, as we've seen this past election. that's not a viable strategy and if they stick to it they will eventually die. This is possible, but it won't be quick. It will be long and drawn out.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
COMRADES posted:This is ignorant of US history where exactly that has happened multiple times. What examples are you thinking of? The biggest example that comes to mind is the Republican/Whig moment, but that required the Whigs to collapse first so that the Republicans could fill the void. When did we successfully break away from the two dominant party structure?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Tallgeese posted:They lose elections outside of their regional zones, yeah. Zones they don't actually care about and probably still don't care about. what the hell does it matter if they win their "zones," if the other party controls all three branches of government and can steamroll over anything on the state/county level while the democratic limply hold their dicks in their hands and whine?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
the youth voting phenomenon is largely a chicken and egg thing. young people don't vote, so politicians don't push policies that benefit young people, so young people don't vote because there's nothing that helps them, etc. old people vote because they're on social security every month and politicans loving with that directly impacts the money they get. have dems push student loan reform (actual reform, not the bullshit hillary was peddling) and see what turnout is then.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Stexils posted:the youth voting phenomenon is largely a chicken and egg thing. young people don't vote, so politicians don't push policies that benefit young people, so young people don't vote because there's nothing that helps them, etc. old people vote because they're on social security every month and politicans loving with that directly impacts the money they get. what if I told you to pokemon go to the polls, would you vote then? please tell me in 3 emojiis or less
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Tato posted:what the hell does it matter if they win their "zones," if the other party controls all three branches of government and can steamroll over anything on the state/county level while the democratic limply hold their dicks in their hands and whine? Well, in that case we get increasingly shrill threats of Calexit. Which I admit I kind of want to see for the comedy value.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Tallgeese posted:I will reserve judgment until I see the youth turnout analyses for 2016, but I see your point. quote:Our pre-election poll of Millennials ages 18-34 had Clinton 49% vs. Trump 28%, a 21-point preference for the Democratic candidate. The National Exit Poll suggests that the actual split in the election was 55% for Clinton to 37% for Trump (an 18-point gap) among youth aged 18-29. Young white people actually voted against the Republicans more than usual, while minority Republican votes among the youth actually gained slightly. quote:As of this writing (noon on November 9, 2016), an estimated 23.7 million young voters participated in the 2016 presidential election, which is 50% of citizens aged 18-29 in the United States. We estimate that 13 million youth voted for Secretary Clinton and almost 9 million youth voted for Donald Trump. An additional 2 million young people either voted for third-party candidates or chose not to vote for any of the Presidential candidates on the ballot. There's your "but the popular vote!" answer. Link
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Tallgeese posted:This is possible, but it won't be quick. It will be long and drawn out. my dude when people are dying because they can't get healthcare and the dems are standing with their thumb up their asses change happens quicker than you think.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Tato posted:what if I told you to pokemon go to the polls, would you vote then? please tell me in 3 emojiis or less Why don't you make like a tree and pokemon go gently caress yourself.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Also I need to know about if  counts as a single emoji or not before I can engage in an intellectually honest (and definitely not transparent pandering) way.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
Soup du Journey posted:well yeah and tyranny is fine if you have an unbroken line of philosopher kings, but it never works out that way. installing a bunch of bureaucrats who exist explicitly to subvert the democratic process is just asking to get sizzled. founders of the democratic party, i say unto you (by way of the wendy's drive-thru): ditch the superdelegates and risk the occasional whoopsie as a cost of doing business!!! Thing is, the superdelegates AFAIK have never actually stepped in to overrule the popular vote anyway even when it would have helped get a non-garbage candidate so frankly I'm not even sure what the point of it is anymore.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Young white people actually voted against the Republicans more than usual, while minority Republican votes among the youth actually gained slightly. Well, the gap seems to have shrunken compared to Obama, sure. They still heavily favor Democrats though, like usual. I'm not seeing how this indicates they are seeking out alternative news sites, especially once FBook starts its propaganda campaign in earnest.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
That's actually a significantly higher number than I would have thought. Bernie would have driven those numbers through the roof. Bernie would have won.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
Tallgeese posted:Well, the gap seems to have shrunken compared to Obama, sure. Who knows how they accept Facebook in the future but c'mon man, are you saying that kids read the newspaper and watch cable news? It's pretty clear that young people consume "alternative" news sites almost exclusively. Remember, the alternative means alternative to legacy media. Rasta_Al posted:That's actually a significantly higher number than I would have thought. It also shows that the youth vote was crucial in preventing a complete Trump blowout of Clinton in the general election. Remove the youth vote and he wins the popular vote, the electoral college and conceivably wins a few more states.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 22:51 |
|
|
fruit on the bottom posted:Thing is, the superdelegates AFAIK have never actually stepped in to overrule the popular vote anyway even when it would have helped get a non-garbage candidate so frankly I'm not even sure what the point of it is anymore. They're there so the nomination vote count starts in favor of Hillary and never changes and hopefully this discourages people from even bothering to vote
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 19:32
|
|