Republicans Don't Care if Trump Shoots Someone on Fifth Ave

schuylaar said:
Oh? Now you support Sanders? Does Bucky know? Have you told him yet?
Click to expand...
I voted for Sanders in the primary and like most of what he says and proposes. I supported Clinton when she became the Democratic Nominee I've said so many times. What I don't agree with is that strange faction of the Democratic party calling themselves supporters for Bernie.

For example: This idea that a candidate must sign a pledge to forego corporate campaign donations or they can't run as a Democrat is one of the strangest capitulations I've ever heard of. Also undemocratic.
 
Fogdog said:
I voted for Sanders in the primary and like most of what he says and proposes. I supported Clinton when she became the Democratic Nominee I've said so many times. What I don't agree with is that strange faction of the Democratic party calling themselves supporters for Bernie.

For example: This idea that a candidate must sign a pledge to forego corporate campaign donations or they can't run as a Democrat is one of the strangest capitulations I've ever heard of. Also undemocratic.
Click to expand...

You think Hillary signed it?
 
Fogdog said:
I voted for Sanders in the primary and like most of what he says and proposes. I supported Clinton when she became the Democratic Nominee I've said so many times. What I don't agree with is that strange faction of the Democratic party calling themselves supporters for Bernie.

For example: This idea that a candidate must sign a pledge to forego corporate campaign donations or they can't run as a Democrat is one of the strangest capitulations I've ever heard of. Also undemocratic.
Click to expand...
Maybe because we don't consider ourselves a faction of the Democratic Party.

Keep in mind that a significant portion of self described Democrats voted for Trump last November because they couldn't stand what passed for their candidate.
 
schuylaar said:
You think Hillary signed it?
Click to expand...
I'm not defending Hillary. That's last year.

Regarding the pledge to swear off campaign donations from PACs and corporations:

The primaries are coming up in 2018. Berners are demanding that every Democratic candidate sign a pledge to forego PAC and corporate money. I'm not against that if nobody can accept donations, Republican and Democrat, in other words laws reforming campaign financing. I think unilaterally making that decision gives Republicans too much of an advantage in the mid-term elections. Berners have said that this pledge will be some magic juju against ads and media releases making false claims by big right wing PACS.

I have no problem with candidates swearing off PAC and corporate money. If I'm wrong then they will have the advantage next year and I'm happy with that. So, why the pledge? Why not let these ideas be tested in the primaries? Let the people in each district decide and if campaign pledge against accepting PAC and corporate money is important enough then those candidates will win.

I think they will get pasted in many districts. Most actually. I think that's what Berners are afraid of too. Which is why I call unilateral refusal to accept campaign donations from PACS and corporations a very strange capitulation to Republicans.
 
schuylaar said:
You know what's really funny?..Bucky has fallen into Putins trap of chaos and dividing us.

Weak minded, I guess.
Click to expand...
Yep.

Reasoned discussion and coalition building is too hard for him and his sycophants.

Can't handle debate so they just shitpost page after page until everything they don't like is buried.

And @rollitup just confirmed that he's fine with it, so nothing here will change.
 
Fogdog said:
I'm not defending Hillary. That's last year.

Regarding the pledge to swear off campaign donations from PACs and corporations:

The primaries are coming up in 2018. Berners are demanding that every Democratic candidate sign a pledge to forego PAC and corporate money. I'm not against that if nobody can accept donations, Republican and Democrat, in other words laws reforming campaign financing. I think unilaterally making that decision gives Republicans too much of an advantage in the mid-term elections. Berners have said that this pledge will be some magic juju against ads and media releases making false claims by big right wing PACS.

I have no problem with candidates swearing off PAC and corporate money. If I'm wrong then they will have the advantage next year and I'm happy with that. So, why the pledge? Why not let these ideas be tested in the primaries? Let the people in each district decide and if campaign pledge against accepting PAC and corporate money is important enough then those candidates will win.

I think they will get pasted in many districts. Most actually. I think that's what Berners are afraid of too. Which is why I call unilateral refusal to accept campaign donations from PACS and corporations a very strange capitulation to Republicans.
Click to expand...
In other words; 'they're corrupt so in order to compete we have to be corrupt too'

That's so ethically and morally bankrupt I don't understand why you'd defend it.
 
ttystikk said:
Maybe because we don't consider ourselves a faction of the Democratic Party.

Keep in mind that a significant portion of self described Democrats voted for Trump last November because they couldn't stand what passed for their candidate.
Click to expand...
The Democratic Party is a coalition. So instead of faction, is it ok to call berners a group within the Democratic Party?. You guys aren't the whole deal. You don't disagree with that, do you? I mean, in 2016, the Berner group weren't a majority in the party. Not even close. Not unless you want to say that 45% >> 50%.

Regarding "significant fraction of democrats voted for trump". Where did you get that truthy statement? The numbers crossing over were small in any direction and trying to read something out of it is a fools game. The largest number was 11% white Democrats voted for Trump or third party. White voters crossing the line in the Republican party? 9% of white Republicans voted for Clinton or a third party. What you said sounded so certain. But it was just a crappy sounds like truth but is not.
 
ttystikk said:
In other words; 'they're corrupt so in order to compete we have to be corrupt too'

That's so ethically and morally bankrupt I don't understand why you'd defend it.
Click to expand...
I keep asking you to name names. Is your congressman ethically and morally corrupt? Mine aren't. You can look them up if you like. Ron Wyden, Jeff Merkley, Peter DeFazio.

You are cynical about Washington. Cynical is easy. A cynic just spouts what he wants without effort. Skeptical requires work. I checked and can't find evidence of what you claim.
 
Fogdog said:
The Democratic Party is a coalition. So instead of faction, is it ok to call berners a group within the Democratic Party?. You guys aren't the whole deal. You don't disagree with that, do you? I mean, in 2016, the Berner group weren't a majority in the party. Not even close. Not unless you want to say that 45% >> 50%.

Regarding "significant fraction of democrats voted for trump". Where did you get that truthy statement? The numbers crossing over were small in any direction and trying to read something out of it is a fools game. The largest number was 11% white Democrats voted for Trump or third party. White voters crossing the line in the Republican party? 9% of white Republicans voted for Clinton or a third party. What you said sounded so certain. But it was just a crappy sounds like truth but is not.
Click to expand...
Then there's the fact that so many Berntards seem overjoyed that Trump won...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top