what's worse?

what's worse?

  • the president is a treasonous traitor enriching himself with your tax dollars

  • elected GOP leaders won't do their job and hold him accountable

  • his retarded, racist supporters don't care that the law is being trampled on

Results are only viewable after voting.
st0wandgrow

st0wandgrow

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
@st0wandgrow , a candidate must win the party's nomination before he can run for office in the general election. Hillary Clinton beat Sanders in spite of your opposition. If you don't like the results then prepare for the next one. No do-overs.

What I hear berners say regarding the Democratic Party is that the members of the party must accept their doctrine and screen all candidates before they can even run in the primaries. Using campaign finance laws as an example. Do all Democratic Party candidates have to swear off PAC money before the primaries? Why can't we use the primaries to resolve this issue. That would be how a democracy would do it.
Click to expand...
I see what you're saying, and I don't really disagree. The primaries are the vehicle to sort out what the majority feels best represents them. I understand, as an example, that a Democratic Senator running in a red state has to represent the wishes of his/her constituents, so what I may feel is sensible gun policy may be different than what they have to run. I can live with differences of opinion, as long as our elected leaders are representing the wishes of their constituents (even if I don't agree with those wishes). Where I draw the line is when politicians are looking out for the big money/corporate donors at the expense of their constituents. I will never support that.
 
Last edited:
whitebb2727

whitebb2727

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
@st0wandgrow , a candidate must win the party's nomination before he can run for office in the general election. Hillary Clinton beat Sanders in spite of your opposition. If you don't like the results then prepare for the next one. No do-overs.

What I hear berners say regarding the Democratic Party is that the members of the party must accept their doctrine and screen all candidates before they can even run in the primaries.

Using campaign finance laws as an example: Do all Democratic Party candidates have to swear off PAC money before the primaries? Why can't we use the primaries to resolve this issue? That would be how a democracy would do it.

edit: @travisw , Hillary beat Bernie in spite of those numbers you show. What would you have us do? Set up a litmus test that excludes everybody who doesn't meet it before they can run for the nomination?
Click to expand...
That's fucked up in my book.

Screw the electoral and screw nominations. Should be who wants to run, runs and the person with the most votes win.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
travisw said:


Come on st0wandgrow. Anyone can see how minor their 31 differences were. Practically the same person.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/upshot/the-senate-votes-that-divided-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders.html?_r=0
Click to expand...
They made different promises and voted for mostly the same things. The nuance always seems to escape berniebabies. Did you happen to actually read what I said? Or did you just see me saying that they were identical twins? Even the promises that he made were not so different from hers from a more radical perspective. Economically, the guy calling himself a socialist (not a socialist) was just offering more. He was still a liberal and not at all promising to actually get rid of privatized Healthcare or any other industry. They're both keynesian liberals. He just tried to deceive us into thinking he is socialist.

Besides, he ended up endorsing her and then campaigning for months for her. Glad you finally found the courage to actually post something instead of just clicking like for every comment that contained insults toward me.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Abiqua said:
except these guys:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Garfield
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long

thats just 4 examples.....y'all are always long on theory, short on facts.
Click to expand...
Huh? There are no cases where an election was run twice. Lincoln and Garfield never faced a primary election either. Maybe Long did, I'm not really interested in Louisiana's politics and don't care to learn.

Not Lincoln, not Garfield, not Kennedy, not Long, not ever. In elections for public office. Maybe you can find something that the Lions Club once did, you can jerk off to that if you like.

Believe what you like, there are no do-overs.
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
st0wandgrow said:
Where I draw the line is when politicians are looking out for the big money/corporate donors at the expense of their constituents. I will never support that.
Click to expand...
I don't know what you mean by this. Care to give a real world example of who does this and stays in office for long?
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
st0wandgrow said:
Your posts of late are dripping with sarcasm, so I'm not taking much of what you say seriously here, but on the outside chance that you are being sincere I'll indulge you....



You consider Obamacare compared to Medicare for all a minor difference? Marijuana being legal as compared to illegal a minor difference? Perpetual warfare vs a sensible foreign policy minor (abandon conflict)? We'll have to agree to disagree on that.



So, no other candidates should run for office? You're happy with the two party system? Perhaps we should only have one party so then nobody will get their feelings hurt. We could just have a royal family!



Well geez, that settles it! No mud has been flung your way, ergo buck is just downright respectful and pleasant to all! You find me one insult that the "bernie babies" level towards someone, and I'll find you 20 from the Hillary crew. I mean, you've obviously taken sides here, but even still you can concede this point, no?
Click to expand...
You really didn't say much here. It's just a long winded and whiney ineffective defense based on perceived insult. I am sarcastic yes, but I am not the one name calling or following you around. You have been the one seeking dialog with me after all. I never initiated it with you.

Nonetheless I will take the time to reiterate, since you clearly don't grasp the basics of what I am explaining. Actually no, I won't. It's not worth my time to do it yet again since you have demonstrated such a lack of willingness to actually understand it while paradoxically seeking out dialog with me. My reply to travisw a couple of posts back is sufficient to answer your whiney little diatribe. Have a nice day.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
st0wandgrow said:
I see what you're saying, and I don't really disagree. The primaries are the vehicle to sort out what the majority feels best represents them. I understand, as an example, that a Democratic Senator running in a red state has to represent the wishes of his/her constituents, so what I may feel is sensible gun policy may be different than what they have to run. I can live with differences of opinion, as long as our elected leaders are representing the wishes of their constituents (even if I don't agree with those wishes).
Click to expand...
I can agree on this. I have no problem with campaign finances coming from other states to try to primary a candidate either. What the Justice Democrats are doing in W Va to try to bring in a more liberal Democrat to replace Manchin, for instance. The voters of W Va will decide.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
schuylaar said:
There are ONLY two ways to vote- yay or nay. The nuance always seems to escape you.

Do you happen to actually read what I *say? The nuance always seems to escape you.
Click to expand...
abandonconflict said:
They made different promises and voted for mostly the same things. The nuance always seems to escape berniebabies. Did you happen to actually read what I said? Or did you just see me saying that they were identical twins? Even the promises that he made were not so different from hers from a more radical perspective. Economically, the guy calling himself a socialist (not a socialist) was just offering more. He was still a liberal and not at all promising to actually get rid of privatized Healthcare or any other industry. They're both keynesian liberals. He just tried to deceive us into thinking he is socialist.

Besides, he ended up endorsing her and then campaigning for months for her. Glad you finally found the courage to actually post something instead of just clicking like for every comment that contained insults toward me.
Click to expand...
AC, AC. You still don't get it after all the splaining. Let me simplify this.

100% = 94%

OK?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
The only litmus test I have for candidates is that they don't accept corporate or PAC money to finance their campaigns. That way, there is no question as to who they will represent while in office.

Using your logic (@Fogdog), you would have been calling women and supporters of the 19th amendment and African Americans and supporters of the Civil Rights Act "authoritarian". They demanded the right to vote because voting is not a privilege. I am simply demanding the progressive party support universal healthcare because access to affordable healthcare is not a privilege, it's a right.


I'm not going to waste much more of my time discussing politics with people here who simply wish to strawman opposing beliefs, people who can't talk honestly about issues without resorting to personal attacks.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
st0wandgrow said:
I see what you're saying, and I don't really disagree. The primaries are the vehicle to sort out what the majority feels best represents them. I understand, as an example, that a Democratic Senator running in a red state has to represent the wishes of his/her constituents, so what I may feel is sensible gun policy may be different than what they have to run. I can live with differences of opinion, as long as our elected leaders are representing the wishes of their constituents (even if I don't agree with those wishes). Where I draw the line is when politicians are looking out for the big money/corporate donors at the expense of their constituents. I will never support that.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, this is now the majority case. It's so entrenched they don't bother to hide it anymore. That tells me they think the system is unassailable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top