|
Rainbow Knight posted:if they really wanted to win, they would try to get rid of the electoral college for sure, because if it's just based on votes they would always win. But their rich friends would have to start muscling in on their turf to get paid, so that's out of the question. it's all just rich people playing around. everyone is friends with everyone else, and there is just one party at that point. it doesn't matter who wins or loses, just that the industry is maintained. E: The other thing is when we talk about "the Democrats" we're talking about a very tiny slice of very rich people at the very top of the party (Pelosi, Perez, Obama, etc, along with their less-famous but also massively influential friends and colleagues). Most people in state Democratic parties, hell most rank and file House reps and Governors want to make policy (usually not the policy we'd like, but still); Democratic voters want progress; they're just all hamstrung by the people who are at the top and have been at the top for 30 years. I'm comfortable slagging the Bernie-obstructing power brokers all day but when people say poo poo like this about random Warren or Buttigieg supporters it rubs me the wrong way. What they need is education, while the party leaders need excommunication. Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Apr 17, 2020 |
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 16:55 |
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:The democrats do not have the ability to unilaterally end the electoral college. Why, on gods green earth, would they ever change a system which benefits them so severely?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 17:54
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Why, on gods green earth, would they ever change a system which benefits them so severely?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 17:58
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:Um... in what respect, Charlie? As long as it’s a winner take all system, it is impossible for third party to rise. If we were to switch to a parliamentary system, the Democratic Party would disappear overnight. Hell, even a popular vote might mean they couldn’t browbeat the electorate into voting against the republicans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 18:01
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:The democrats do not have the ability to unilaterally end the electoral college. I am talking about that very tiny slice of very rich people too. I don't know which part of my post made it sound like I was talking about voters or supporters or whatever. Also, I said "try" to get rid of the electoral college. No one talks about it at the upper levels of the party so I think it's safe to assume that it's not a priority.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 18:18
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:As long as it’s a winner take all system, it is impossible for third party to rise. If we were to switch to a parliamentary system, the Democratic Party would disappear overnight. Hell, even a popular vote might mean they couldn’t browbeat the electorate into voting against the republicans. Getting rid of the electoral college does not switch the US to a parliamentary system nor does it get rid of the first past the post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 18:20
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/GoodwinCharlie/status/1250751967657365505 Setting the clock for October. It's also worth remembering that apparently, an Epstein related allegation has surfaced. If there's anything to it, there may be documents in fed custody, and Trump may well decide to unleash them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 18:35
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:As long as it’s a winner take all system, it is impossible for third party to rise. If we were to switch to a parliamentary system, the Democratic Party would disappear overnight. Hell, even a popular vote might mean they couldn’t browbeat the electorate into voting against the republicans. see i think that as long as republicans are the evil party, democrats could say "well we're not republicans so you should vote for us." i mean, they're always winning popular votes and suffer the most from disenfranchisement by way of gerrymandering, the EC, etc. they could push for mandatory voting, prison reforms, all kinds of stuff. but nooooooooo it's all about that ACA or some poo poo
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 18:40
|
|
|
Rainbow Knight posted:see i think that as long as republicans are the evil party, democrats could say "well we're not republicans so you should vote for us." i mean, they're always winning popular votes and suffer the most from disenfranchisement by way of gerrymandering, the EC, etc. they could push for mandatory voting, prison reforms, all kinds of stuff. but nooooooooo it's all about that ACA or some poo poo constitutional issues aren't usually vote winners, and healthcare and the carcereal state are strong stakeholders in the democratic party as well. the third way's whole "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"-thing was very real and the DNC is still basically in a clintonite mindset as far as most such issues go to put it this way: sanders was promising prison and voting reform, issues which should interest black voters since they're usually being disenfranchised by the failure of those systems, and he lost the black vote by a lot. it's very hard to build enthusiasm around procedures. in the case of a constitutional reform, that's a huge can of worms and so long as the democrats get to have their turn every now and again they're happy with things as they are in the sense that the major interests represented by the democratic party will typically feel that their investment has paid off to some extent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 18:48
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:The democrats do not have the ability to unilaterally end the electoral college. What? No, this is nonsense. The party machine reaches all the way down to the local level. Of course we're not talking about your average wine mom who posts endlessly on facebook about Warren's plans. But anyone remotely associated with the infrastructure of the democratic party has a financial stake on keeping the machine in place. It was an open secret that the WFP endorsed Warren out of pressure from donors. It was obvious that the leadership of the WFP, who are mostly professionals working in nonprofits, had a very different set of priorities than the base. Much like the whole Iowa fiasco involved lots of connections between the old Clinton machine and the new Pete campaign. Hell, the entire reason people like Clyburn are so powerful is not because of their policy ideas. It's their control of the machine. It is not an accident that the democratic machine is stronger in states that are deep red. Clyburn has power not because of his policy ideas. But because in deep red states the bread and butter of a democratic politician is in "constituent services," where you help your constituents apply for that small business loan or for some grant or whatever. Which means you have to have people who take your calls when you ask favors. Which means that you play ball to be friends with the people who can help you. So that you can keep getting reelected by cultivating the sort of system where people owe you favors and you use those favors to get stuff for your constituents.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 18:50
|
|
|
Tweet is pretty misleading. Biden donated his senate records to the University of Delaware in 2011 under the stipulation that they remain sealed until 2 years after he leaves public office. At some point prior to April 2019 that was changed to say 2 years after he "retires from public life". It's unlikely that anything will force those documents to be unsealed anytime soon. So when the tweet says "those papers exist" they are not saying that documents that Tara Reade filed exists, they are saying that Biden's senate records exist. We still don't know what's in those senate records. Presumably if she filed something, they'd be there, but we don't know for certain. The only way we see what Tara Reade filed in time for the election is if someone already has it from another source and is just waiting for a good time to release it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 18:57
|
|
|
Apogee15 posted:Tweet is pretty misleading. Biden donated his senate records to the University of Delaware in 2011 under the stipulation that they remain sealed until 2 years after he leaves public office. At some point prior to April 2019 that was changed to say 2 years after he "retires from public life". It's unlikely that anything will force those documents to be unsealed anytime soon. Something I would bet there's a reasonable chance of, or possibly other accusers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 19:09
|
|
|
Also misleading: Claiming Biden is not a sexual predator.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 19:11
|
|
|
Apogee15 posted:Tweet is pretty misleading. Biden donated his senate records to the University of Delaware in 2011 under the stipulation that they remain sealed until 2 years after he leaves public office. At some point prior to April 2019 that was changed to say 2 years after he "retires from public life". It's unlikely that anything will force those documents to be unsealed anytime soon. Well I'm sure that Trump and the GOP will be honor bound to abide by the law and the dictates of  to not dig up all that poo poo no matter the cost then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 19:13
|
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:Something I would bet there's a reasonable chance of, or possibly other accusers. I wouldn't be shocked if there were, though I would wonder why they didn't come out when he was running as VP. For_Great_Justice posted:Also misleading: Claiming Biden is not a sexual predator. Who made that claim?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 19:13
|
|
|
Of course the DNC wants to win POTUS. However, they wanted to defeat Bernie more. If they had to choose one of these two opions: 1 - Bernie wins primary and POTUS or 2 - Bernie loses primary to anyone and that person loses POTUS They would happily have taken #2. It's why they cheated so hard to defeat the one candidate that would beat Trump.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
Apogee15 posted:I wouldn't be shocked if there were, though I would wonder why they didn't come out when he was running as VP. The Biden campaign for one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 19:20
|
|
|
Apogee15 posted:Looks promising for Warren. Also have to wonder if she got anything for her endorsement. Her name in a headline one last time Apogee15 posted:Biden donated his senate records to the University of Delaware in 2011 under the stipulation that they remain sealed until 2 years after he leaves public office. At some point prior to April 2019 that was changed to say 2 years after he "retires from public life". Lol, this country. Where a "donation" to a university also doubles as hiding possible evidence of public misdeeds until well after it can hurt your position of power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
For_Great_Justice posted:The Biden campaign for one. Ah, so you weren't actually responding to anyone here, just randomly throwing it out there. OK.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 19:22
|
|
|
I think there's an argument to be made that they want to win POTUS and lose Congress, since that gives them a lot of power and patronage without the pressure to actually form a government that works for their voters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 19:23
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I think there's an argument to be made that they want to win POTUS and lose Congress, since that gives them a lot of power and patronage without the pressure to actually form a government that works for their voters. They're not gonna win back the Senate in any event, so Mission Accomplished on that front.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 20:22
|
|
|
gandlethorpe posted:Lol, this country. Where a "donation" to a university also doubles as hiding possible evidence of public misdeeds until well after it can hurt your position of power. Is there any indication that his papers would contain a complaint filed against him? That doesn't seem like something that would end up in a person's archive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:constitutional issues aren't usually vote winners, and healthcare and the carcereal state are strong stakeholders in the democratic party as well. the third way's whole "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"-thing was very real and the DNC is still basically in a clintonite mindset as far as most such issues go i was just referring to the "brow beating" comment. I think that no matter what, as long as democrats can point to republicans who have the bloody severed body parts of children and brown people dangling out of their fat faces and say "hey look at these evil mother fuckers" democrats could get a majority of support. i only mention institutions that disenfranchise voters to point to the fact that these things aren't as vocally pushed as social issues. and social issues are good, but they don't do anything to get people to vote for democrats because as much as it would bolster their base, it would also enrage conservatives, thus bolstering their base. i guess i just expect them to do both tbh and i'm 100% convinced that sanders didn't lose SC because of enthusiasm but because of bad press. rather, it wasn't that people were disinterested in policy as much as people just not having the time or energy to research the stuff and turning on the tv to have the liberal media is telling them that bernie is sexist or racist or too radical and wants to hug and kiss all the communists. not only that, but (assuming it's true) people voted for biden thinking that he had the same policies as bernie on healthcare.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 20:58
|
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:Is there any indication that his papers would contain a complaint filed against him? That doesn't seem like something that would end up in a person's archive. His papers include the records of official business of his Senate office so if there was an internal complaint it might have ended up there through this pathway, but it's like anything else in American politics where if you just believe something is true the actual physical existence of evidence is of secondary importance and the absence of the same is no less convincing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
Rainbow Knight posted:i was just referring to the "brow beating" comment. I think that no matter what, as long as democrats can point to republicans who have the bloody severed body parts of children and brown people dangling out of their fat faces and say "hey look at these evil mother fuckers" democrats could get a majority of support. i only mention institutions that disenfranchise voters to point to the fact that these things aren't as vocally pushed as social issues. and social issues are good, but they don't do anything to get people to vote for democrats because as much as it would bolster their base, it would also enrage conservatives, thus bolstering their base. i guess i just expect them to do both tbh i honestly think that southern black people voted for biden, not because they were dumb enough to think that he stood for the things that sanders does, but because they don't see sanders' agenda as acheivable (rightly) and thought that biden was a safer bet in the sense that their guys would have a seat at the table. clyburn's now possibly the most powerful democrat in congress thanks to his demonstrated leverage, so there's some success on that front. these people have no ideological commitment to socialism - they're not interested in a violent internecine struggle in the party that represents them. they're invested in the existing balance of power within the party, where their voice is heard (relatively speaking, at least) and they can be sure to be well represented. southern black people have basically no other vehicle for political representation, and they strike me as being a pretty well-organisd and mobilised political group, but in their own interest and that of their specific community - intersectional analysis hasn't caught on very much among older black people in south carolina. this is legitimate and imo underestimating the discipline of the black vote in south carolina was the sanders campaign's biggest mistake - they could almost certainly have made enough inroads to at least try to undermine clyburn's civil society network there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 21:21
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i honestly think that southern black people voted for biden, not because they were dumb enough to think that he stood for the things that sanders does, but because they don't see sanders' agenda as acheivable (rightly) and thought that biden was a safer bet in the sense that their guys would have a seat at the table. clyburn's now possibly the most powerful democrat in congress thanks to his demonstrated leverage, so there's some success on that front. Yeah that's all true I think. It would definitely explain the age differences in voters for each candidate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 21:30
|
|
|
Rainbow Knight posted:see i think that as long as republicans are the evil party, democrats could say "well we're not republicans so you should vote for us." i mean, they're always winning popular votes and suffer the most from disenfranchisement by way of gerrymandering, the EC, etc. they could push for mandatory voting, prison reforms, all kinds of stuff. but nooooooooo it's all about that ACA or some poo poo The two political parties definitely have a dialectical relationship. That is, they exist only in opposition to each other. Without the Republicans, there is no Democratic party and vice versa. The injection of a third party would be the death of them both. And they know it, too. poo poo, Biden's entire campaign is based on opposing Republicans. Therefore, they both oppose any changes to the electoral system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 21:34
|
|
|
If I caught this right Trump just paused student loans during the crisis. Out lefting the left.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 21:36
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Barely a handful of people in power actually fought for anything. You're confusing Democratic Party voters for the Democratic Party. This. The other day Nomiki Konst told us we need to disabuse ourselves of the idea that the democrats actually care about winning. Their patronage scams and giveaways to their donors still work whether they are in power or not. They just had ot make sure someone like Bernie didn't become the head of the party because he would probably start doing something about the blatant corruption. Most democratic voters care a lot and if they realized how the party actually operated and the reason they have made some of the decisions they have made they would be just as jaded as the rest of us.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 21:42
|
|
|
ManBoyChef posted:Most democratic voters care a lot and if they realized how the party actually operated and the reason they have made some of the decisions they have made they would be just as jaded as the rest of us. Lol, they just do what republicans do and stick their heads in the sand when confronted with how their party sucks
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 21:54
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:The two political parties definitely have a dialectical relationship. That is, they exist only in opposition to each other. Without the Republicans, there is no Democratic party and vice versa. The injection of a third party would be the death of them both. I mean, except for the part where Biden has raised the possibility of a Republican VP, has talked about Republicans in his cabinet and endorsed Republicans in state elections. But yeah, opposing Republicans. Totally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 21:55
|
|
|
Biden is campaigning on getting Trump and only Trump out of office.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 22:12
|
|
|
Dr Christmas posted:Biden is campaigning on getting Trump and only Trump out of office. "hey remember when your lives were only so lovely that you voted for trump? lets go back to that"
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 22:14
|
|
|
Dr Christmas posted:Biden is campaigning on getting Trump and only Trump out of office. The rest of the republicans are Biden's friends and he plans on working with them to help out business owners in the country.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 22:16
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:"hey remember when your lives were only so lovely that you voted for trump? lets go back to that" We know we need to make concessions to the left wing, so President Biden will be appointing Bernie as Secretary of the Treasury. Mr. Madoff has bold ideas that can really get our economy moving again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 22:17
|
|
|
spunkshui posted:I can. good point. they've already won.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 22:22
|
|
|
ManBoyChef posted:This. The other day Nomiki Konst told us we need to disabuse ourselves of the idea that the democrats actually care about winning. Their patronage scams and giveaways to their donors still work whether they are in power or not. They just had ot make sure someone like Bernie didn't become the head of the party because he would probably start doing something about the blatant corruption. Yeah. Literally no one lost their jobs over the Iowa fiasco. Troy Price resigned as chair of the Iowa party, but will likely land on his feet soon. Just this week the CEO of Acronym (the company behind Shadow inc that did the Iowa app fiasco) was doing an official live event with national organizing director for Pete. They received money from the democratic party of Wisconsin AFTER Iowa. You can fail in the most spectacular way, be publicly accused of coordinating with a campaign, and not only not only not lose a job, but go on in public confirming everything that was said about that conflict of interest and it's all good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 22:34
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i honestly think that southern black people voted for biden, not because they were dumb enough to think that he stood for the things that sanders does, but because they don't see sanders' agenda as acheivable (rightly) and thought that biden was a safer bet in the sense that their guys would have a seat at the table. clyburn's now possibly the most powerful democrat in congress thanks to his demonstrated leverage, so there's some success on that front. Honestly getting pretty tired of the conflation of “southern black people” into a single voting bloc, as well as the implication that the critique is they’re “dumb.” Your entire last paragraph begs the question: Why do black people believe their interests are being represented by figures like Clyburn, who sold his constituents out to the healthcare industry that lines his pockets. Or figures like Biden, who has somehow managed to play a part in every disastrous policy for the black community for decades? To me, the answer is in your instant dismissal of the media’s role there as just a claim that the voters are “dumb.” Why do people assume you have to be stupid to believe propaganda? For gently caress’s sake, look at the incredibly well-heeled folks in threads like these who uncritically echo idiotic talking points from the media? If anything, these voters are the ones who believe themselves to be informed because they pay close attention to politics, and the way people do that in 2020 is by watching cable news. I’ll reserve judgment as to whether or not Sanders really could’ve pushed harder in SC. The only reporting I’ve seen is just a stray comment from an anonymous source that Sanders never tried calling Clyburn, whereas I saw lots of campaign messaging and canvassing led by black folks in a serious effort to talk to older people in their communities. Meanwhile, Clyburn’s endorsement was covered like Jesus himself had come down to bless Uncle Joe on cable networks. All of which ignores the fact that a) what’s being depicted as a shut-out is way more nuanced once one digs into the demographics, which as usual show the real divide is generational, and b) Biden didn’t win SC because of the black vote, but because of the enormous surge in the same demographics that watch cable news, the story of basically every primary so far. CNN and MSNBC (with assists from NYT and WaPo) whipped boomer libs into a Trump-hating frenzy and they all went out to vote for who they were told to vote for. Simple as that. Nobody’s immune to propaganda. Old libs just happen to love consuming the most vile form of it in human history.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 23:37
|
|
|
rko posted:Nobody’s immune to propaganda. Old libs just happen to love consuming the most vile form of it in human history. I think this is a great post (as was the post you were responding to) but as for the bolded part, uhhh... I guess you could make an argument, but I wouldn’t want to make it. I think it’s totally fair to call it “the most insidious”.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2020 23:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 16:55 |
|
|
Waltzing Along posted:Of course the DNC wants to win POTUS. However, they wanted to defeat Bernie more. If they had to choose one of these two opions: I mean I’m sad that Bernie dropped out too but have the brain worms so thoroughly infected this forum? Biden polls better than sanders Sanders voters didn’t show out like we thought. Biden voters did Democrats believe this Sanders has publicly endorsed Biden When people have said “look he has to he said he would!” Sanders has doubled down and said no, just loving support him Maybe the democrats actually just want to win and see this as the best way? I don’t think there are many actual arguments to refute that and don’t come out sounding deranged. Just side arguments about how poo poo Biden will be at actually changing things, which is correct and bad, but not the point and you all know it? Biden will win in November and these posts will look absolutely insane.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2020 01:55
|
|
