Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Criptfeind]

I feel less sympathy for such things when they are part of and benefit from the two party system though.

To torture your metaphor some, it'd be like if you were one of the only two buildings in town, and whenever another building was being put up you'd go knock it down, criticizing the person for even daring to try to build a building because it weakens the ground that your building is built on, and that they should really just come in and live in your building because the only other choice is living in the Republican house, where there's an odd smell and you're pretty sure that the dude living there killed a bunch of people in the 1960s.

Basically I'll cry for democrats being upset that their party is being hijacked by other philosophies when that doesn't appear to be the only way forward.

[mainiac]

You've said yourself that Sanders and Hillary were very close on most issues, and only differed significantly in emphasis and a few nuanced details (the debate question on foreign policy in Syria comes to mind). If the Democratic Party is a party committed first and foremost to the issues (and not just a party of power like the cynics say), why wouldn't they let him run on their ticket when his platform is so close? If the party ran closed primaries with only approved candidates, do you really think that the people attacking the party would be less inclined to do so?

There was no reason to suspect that he would be a git.  If they had I would have questioned the choice.  I'm just saying that if we could wave a magical wand and change history, it would be better.

But when it came to personal attacks, bullshit scandals like the email server, and the other sort of negative campaigning we normally see out of close contests,

Bull-fucking-shit.  Those are not par for the course.  Bernie Sanders does not get brownie points for not being Donald Trump.

There was a definite shift in her stated positions and emphasis on a number of issues as a direct result of that race,

She took the same policies she advocated from the start, slapped a new coat of paint on them and then sold them as new policies.  And the Bernie fans declared victory.  But they were 95% the same policies.  The only difference was the Bernie was finally with one foot out the door.  Not quite done mind you, he was going to take another step back in, flip the bird and get DWS fired, but he was finally admitting reality a bit.

You talk a lot about Sanders attacking Hillary; I know of examples where his campaign complained about favoritism and the failures of the Democratic primary system, and he criticized her voting record and use of super-PACs.
[...]
Instead he ran a mild campaign against Clinton until the primary ended, which he accepted and gave an endorsement. I agree that his attacks on the DNC were too severe, that DWS having to resign was pointless, but you can't honestly look at this as a bad result out of what was possible.

The part where he called the establishment corrupt and accused her of being in the pay of Wall Street was the part I was talking about actually.  That is what we used to call a dirty primary campaign in democratic circles.

when that doesn't appear to be the only way forward.

And this will become a valid argument the second Congress passes the law where the DNC chooses whether or not we have a first past the post system.  Because otherwise you are blaming them for something they have no control over.

The purpose of political parties should not be to perpetuate themselves; it should be to find decent politicians that their voters approve of.  Berne did nothing that the average democratic primary candidate wouldn't. In the end he probably brought more liberals under the tent.

Yes he did many things a normal democrat didn't.  For fucks sake, he had lost by April but demanded seats at the convention.  Hillary Clinton didn't lose until the very end and she didn't demand seats.  Because unlike Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton wasn't trying to blackmail Obama to please her own ego.  You have to go completely outside the realm of modern politics to find precedent.

[Criptfeind]

And this will become a valid argument the second Congress passes the law where the DNC chooses whether or not we have a first past the post system.  Because otherwise you are blaming them for something they have no control over.

Even if we accept it's not their fault, that doesn't mean it's not the reality we live in. And they sure do benefit from it. So. My tears continue to not flow for the suffering of the megaparty.

[Frumple]

The purpose of political parties should not be to perpetuate themselves; it should be to find decent politicians that their voters approve of.  Berne did nothing that the average democratic primary candidate wouldn't. In the end he probably brought more liberals under the tent.

... no, he... kinda' did. Do things the average democratic primary candidate wouldn't. As has been noted. Is large extent why the folks that have been mentioning they're pissed at him are pissed at him. And ninja'd, but eh.

And hey, CF, hijacking the party is kinda' the way forward. One of 'em, anyway. I actually don't mind a genuine effort to invest in and change the party's makeup and whatnot. That. Is not what sanders did. Given how he's acted since he lost (e.g. he fucked right off more or less the moment it was over, among other things), I couldn't say that was the intent at all.

[Criptfeind]

And hey, CF, hijacking the party is kinda' the way forward. One of 'em, anyway. I actually don't mind a genuine effort to invest in and change the party's makeup and whatnot. That. Is not what sanders did. Given how he's acted since he lost (e.g. he fucked right off more or less the moment it was over, among other things), I couldn't say that was the intent at all.

Whether someone does it for genuine long term interest in changing the party or because they want whatever it is they get from winning or even loosing and this is the way to do it, it doesn't really matter to me.

[PTTG??]

Actually, I hate to say it, but there is a precedent in modern politics.

The thing I don't get is why this is such a big deal when the "right" person won the DNC and there are bigger, oranger fish to fry.

[mainiac]

And hey, CF, hijacking the party is kinda' the way forward. One of 'em, anyway. I actually don't mind a genuine effort to invest in and change the party's makeup and whatnot. That. Is not what sanders did. Given how he's acted since he lost (e.g. he fucked right off more or less the moment it was over, among other things), I couldn't say that was the intent at all.

Whether someone does it for genuine long term interest in changing the party or because they want whatever it is they get from winning or even loosing and this is the way to do it, it doesn't really matter to me.

Well it matters to people who care about democrats enacting progressive legislation a lot.

[Max™]

I feel less sympathy for such things when they are part of and benefit from the two party system though.

To torture your metaphor some, it'd be like if you were one of the only two buildings in town, and whenever another building was being put up you'd go knock it down, criticizing the person for even daring to try to build a building because it weakens the ground that your building is built on, and that they should really just come in and live in your building because the only other choice is living in the Republican house, where there's an odd smell and you're pretty sure that the dude living there killed a bunch of people in the 1960s.

Basically I'll cry for democrats being upset that their party is being hijacked by other philosophies when that doesn't appear to be the only way forward.

Well, as I said when testing the metaphor with the missus, it feels like the DNC and RNC are parts of the government and should abide by certain rules and have the interests of the nation as a whole in mind, but they're their own organizations who get together to select people and help them run, which is even skeezier sounding when you hear it said out loud, but that's how things are.

We can and should keep big box superstores from stomping on little local businesses, but even as an avowed socialist I don't feel right trying to say we should force the big box places to help the little guys at their own expense. Encourage them to do so, sure, appreciate if they do so, yeah, but when you encode a legal framework to start attacking those a bit better off and claim it is to help those worse off, it's easy to end up with your own Stalin running around.

I'd prefer if we had a system more like some discussed a few pages back, but as was said, coming in and using the DNC framework to push an agenda and then ending up attacking it and let's be charitable and say possibly harming the down-ticket races which would have been important in achieving said agenda is unbearably naive.

[Rolepgeek]

The best quote I saw was "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line."

3/5 Tea Party members agree: there is never party-damaging strife in the Republican party.

4/5 Trumpeteers agree: Sanders was definitely more damaging to Clinton than Cruz was to Trump. After all, Trump's gonna win. He's a winner. That's what he does. He wins. Disregard the important figures in the Republican party who've stated that Trump is a national security risk. In the end, they'll support him, because Republicans just do that. Disregard the fact that Sanders endorsed Clinton two and a half months ago, while Cruz only endorsed Trump a week ago. That just proves that the Republican party is far more organized than the Democrats, being able to get a candidate who'd previously said to vote with your conscience while specifically not endorsing Trump to turn around and endorse them, unlike the Democrats, who had the much easier job of getting Bernie Sanders, a socialist, to endorse Hillary Clinton despite his campaigns accusations of her being somewhat corporatist.

He sure did damage there, yep, yessir. There's no conceivable way that most politicians could be biased towards Wall Street, not when so many regulations are being passed! Income inequality continuing just means that more regulations need to be passed! Who cares which ones, just pile 'em up, we need to overcome the magical corporation aura through sheer weight of papers!

But I mean really, all that really matters is for our party to win as much as possible, and their party to lose as much as possible. Because fuck those guys, right? They don't really know what they're voting for. They're all just stupid and evil and terrible, and really, it'd be just so convenient if we could kick them out of the country all together. But some people won't get with the program, even though they say they're a team player. If you were a team player, you'd be trying to win at all costs! Not stick to 'principles' or 'ideals' or 'what the public wants'. That's just garnish. This is about Us vs. Them. And if you've done anything that might possibly make it so We don't beat Them as soundly as possible, then you may as well be one of Them.

And remember: if I said something incorrect, you can't really expect me to get everything right. I'm only human. But if you said something incorrect, it reveals just how little you actually know about the issue, and therefore, why your opinion is not only invalid but dangerous, and needs to be discredited as thoroughly as possible.

[RedKing]

If joining the Democrats/Republicans is the only possible way to have any legitimate shot at electability (and it is -- look at the fate of any third-party candidate), then I don't see it as somehow skeevy to treat it as an association of convenience.

Both Sanders and Trump were essentially political independents who joined the major parties as a necessary evil, and brought a lot of voters with them who may not have voted otherwise (or would have voted 3rd party). The difference is, Trump won and Sanders didn't. If Trump had lost the Republican nomination, we'd be talking about the large batch of Trump supporters who have proclaimed they aren't voting for Bush/Cruz/Rubio/Kasich/whoever, and why hasn't Trump done more to bring his people in line with the nominee?

To Democrats: Be immensely glad that Sanders didn't pull a 3rd party run and that he's doing outreach to his own supporters to get them to vote for Hillary. I'm not really sure what else he could do that would satisfy you at this point, short of committing seppaku.

If he had taken Stein's offer to head up the Green ticket, this election would already be over. And then you might have something legitimate to bitch about. Otherwise, it's being a sore winner IMHO.

[Max™]

The best quote I saw was "Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line."

[snip]

There's a whole lot of stuff being backed up into my lap there which makes it look like it was a response to me, or disagreeing somehow? People loved Bernie enough to support him, and be heartbroken when he said to support Hillary like the ones who love her. I could swear the never Trump crowd has been dwindling with a sigh of "ok fine, Trump" hasn't it?

@RedKing, the Trump camp would have ended up being fine with whoever won a long time before now, the fall in love/line quote didn't come out of nowhere.

[Criptfeind]

I think you missed the point of my metaphor just a little bit Max, although I'll cop to the fact that it was in fact super unclear because of my attempts to continue the silly house thing. I wasn't saying that the DNC should play fair or be helpful to third parties or be legislated against in some way (well maybe I'd rather have a voting system other then FPTP which in a way would be legislation against them, but only sorta). Just that they play how they want in the world that exists and suffer the consequences for it, the same way everyone else does.

Edit: Actually maniac you probably saw what I said but I misread your message fucking whoops and I deleted what I responded with llollo

[Max™]

I'm very confused how that is an argument for Trump, but mostly just because I don't know if he's conservative, progressive, regressive, apathetic, or anything else at any given time due to his strange superposition of political states when not being observed.

[Criptfeind]

Whoh I have no idea what you're talking about there friendo.

Well, I do, and honestly maybe it would be, but that's more a comment on how completely at odds with trump I find myself.

I feel somewhat isolated when he speaks, as I feel we do not only not live in the same america, but we don't live in the same universe. And then I see that millions of people agree with him, it's spookie somewhat.

Even if I sometimes don't like Hillary, she at least feels like a person from this world and country.

[Max™]

Didn't see the edit, but yeah it's more than just somewhat spooky.