Current Topics
The Republican Platform
by Greger
09/21/20 03:20 AM
Is it too soon to be talking 2020?
by perotista
09/21/20 01:36 AM
Ruth Bader Ginsburg Has Died
by pondering_it_all
09/20/20 09:16 PM
Global warming predictions
by pondering_it_all
09/20/20 09:04 PM
RoundTable for Summer 2020
by jgw
09/20/20 04:47 PM
Portland. A Turning Point?
by pdx rick
09/20/20 12:55 PM
Half of troops have an unfavorable opinion of President Bone Spurs
by CPWILL
09/20/20 07:42 AM
West Coast Burning
by NW Ponderer
09/19/20 06:57 PM
Bob Woodward's book details Trump's chaotic and dysfunctional White House
by Greger
09/19/20 06:57 PM
Coronavirus: The Plague of The 21st Century?
by pondering_it_all
09/18/20 05:18 AM
The Boogaloo Bois
by pondering_it_all
09/17/20 08:17 AM
How the world sees U.S. and Trump
by jgw
09/16/20 09:01 PM
The Trump campaign is broke
by pdx rick
09/15/20 12:20 PM
Barr is acting as ‘personal henchman’ of Trump
by Greger
09/13/20 09:33 PM
Covid Long Haulers
by jgw
09/07/20 06:23 PM
A post, on facebook, by my granddaughter that covers it all pretty good!
by pondering_it_all
09/02/20 07:27 PM
The Democratic Fight
by jgw
09/02/20 06:09 PM
voters who don't
by pondering_it_all
09/01/20 08:35 AM
There needs to be a ‘real reckoning’ for Trump’s abuses if Biden wins
by pdx rick
08/31/20 12:43 AM
WV woman goes to Mexico with her daughter and series of TOP SECRET U.S docs
by pondering_it_all
08/30/20 08:06 PM
Forum Stats
6292 Members
60 Forums
16994 Topics
302830 Posts

Max Online: 294 @ 12/06/17 12:57 AM
Google Adsense
Page 10 of 175 < 1 2 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 174 175 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#309946 - 12/20/18 12:07 PM Re: Is it too soon to be talking 2020? [Re: Jeffery J. Haas]
chunkstyle Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 10/02/07
Posts: 2356
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas


There simply are no party provisions for people running "as if" they were a member, you have to BE a member of the party.
And so, because Bernie was NOT a member of the party, the party chose someone else. I'm fairly certain that, if it had been anyone else instead of Hillary, they would have done much the same thing, namely: PROTECT THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE.

Because in the end, whether you and I agree what they did was immoral or even sometimes illegal, they did what a party is required to do, select a candidate and then protect them.


OK Jeff. Breaking my posting hiatus after reading this gem.
If you don't see the contradictions here then I'm afraid you have been clinically traumatized with what is being commonly called Hillary Clinton Defeat Syndrome
What it is, basically, is deep trauma to the brain for Clinton supporters that occured after she flamed out in the 2016 election. Their brains need to protect themselves of the reality that she lost by having a horrible political record for many on both the far right and left as well as the fact that she was nakedly incompetent to win against one of the most unlikable candidates in modern history.
For the brain to do this it must make up an alternate universe of cockamamie rationale that explains that loss, often extending the logic to the democratic primary itself, as you have done.
Unable to find a tidy narrative to paper over the obvious fact that she was unexpectantly challenged by real politics of addressing people's material concerns and anger and a resultant exposure of the DNC coordinating with her campaign over her challengers, youve concocted a set of rules that, apparent to yourself, allow for the coronation of a nominee.
Coupla things with that:

There was a widely publicized contest where the VOTERS got to both, listen to the arguments, and then cast their votes in whatever state primary system they reside in.

What is the rule or governing authority over candidate qualifications that you are referring to that allows a candidate such as Sanders to run in the primary but not allowed to win it over party preference? Really. A link or citation would come in handy here.

I understand the MSM (looking at you NYT, WP) serving as basically an outpost extension of the Clinton 2016 campaign and running sanders down when er they could. That's fair and the press has sided with the neoliberal consensus for decades now and Hillary was their pick but the DNC?
Out of respect to your fondness for analogies, how much confidence would you have in a stock car race if one of the race teams had just loaned NASCAR a pile of money just before the race?

As mentioned before, there's a perverse comfort in knowing there's an equal amount of that there cognitive dissonance coming from the center right as there has been from the far right. It's just that the center right has more news channels to choose from.


Edited by chunkstyle (12/20/18 12:09 PM)

Top
#309948 - 12/20/18 05:26 PM Re: Is it too soon to be talking 2020? [Re: chunkstyle]
Jeffery J. Haas Offline
It's the Despair Quotient!
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/03/04
Posts: 15728
Loc: Whittier, California
Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas


There simply are no party provisions for people running "as if" they were a member, you have to BE a member of the party.
And so, because Bernie was NOT a member of the party, the party chose someone else. I'm fairly certain that, if it had been anyone else instead of Hillary, they would have done much the same thing, namely: PROTECT THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE.

Because in the end, whether you and I agree what they did was immoral or even sometimes illegal, they did what a party is required to do, select a candidate and then protect them.


OK Jeff. Breaking my posting hiatus after reading this gem.
If you don't see the contradictions here then I'm afraid you have been clinically traumatized with what is being commonly called Hillary Clinton Defeat Syndrome


You seem to have me confused with a Hillary fan.
Yes, Hillary Clinton is at least partly responsible for my son being alive, given all the hard work she did to make sure that the S-CHIP program survived.
But that doesn't mean that I wanted her to run for President...again.
2008 was enough for me, I knew she was a terrible candidate back then.
I also knew she was a terrible candidate after watching her dip her toe into the water in the first part of the 2016 campaign, and by that time I was already aboard the Bernie Sanders train.

I was maybe the very first "citizen-journalist" to cover his announcement, because he stopped by Canter's Deli right before his appearance on Bill Maher. There wasn't even enough time for most of his fans, which were already legion, to get to Canter's, so the room was sparsely populated. It was June 20, 2015.



But, putting aside your slightly condescending outlook toward what is basically a common sense look at how parties conduct their business, let's analyze what it is you think I'm trying to prove.

Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
There was a widely publicized contest where the VOTERS got to both, listen to the arguments, and then cast their votes in whatever state primary system they reside in.


Yes, there was. Yes, people did.
And the Democratic Party had indeed already "crowned" Hillary before the first primary was even planned, and even released funds to her campaign ahead of time.
But that's beside the point, and the point, which you steadfastly appear to be ignoring, is this:

The Democratic Party would, under any other circumstances, open the field to any challenger, much the same as the Republicans did to seventeen of them, had it been a different stable of candidates.
Only one requirement was needed - they had to actually BE Democrats.

Can I point to a specific party rule in either party that flatly states that a party candidate has to be a member of that party?
Wow, where do I even go to look for such a rule in order to copy and paste the link?
Maybe Democrats.org...

Sure enough, in Article 9, Section 9 there is a clause which says that you might be right!

Quote:
Section 9. The Democratic National Committee shall maintain and publish a code of fair campaign practices, which shall be recommended for observance by all candidates campaigning as Democrats.
The Democratic National Committee Chair shall put in place a code of Democratic National Committee conduct concerning Presidential candidates and campaigns prior to each presidential cycle to ensure
fairness and transparency. The code shall address areas including, but not limited to: providing information to campaigns; agreements between the Democratic National Committee and campaigns; fundraising; and common vendors. This code shall be made readily available to Democratic National Committee and all bona fide Democratic presidential candidates.


Except, what IS a "bona fide" candidate?
Let's look further...

Well, Section 4 of Article One says:

Quote:
Section 4. Establish standards and rules of procedure to afford all members of the Democratic Party full, timely and equal opportunities to participate in decisions concerning the selection of candidates, the formulation of policy, and the conduct of other Party affairs, without prejudice on the basis of sex, race, age (if of voting age), color, creed, national origin, religion, economic status, sexual orientation, gender identity, ethnic identity or disability, and further, to promote fair campaign practices and the fair adjudication of disputes.


So it appears it might be a bit of a quandry, because while Article One/Section 4 talks about the DNC's responsibility to all MEMBERS, Article Nine/Section 9 talks about "all candidates campaigning as Democrats" but makes the vague stipulation that they must be bona fide, and apparently there is no further definition of what exactly constitutes "bona fide".

You know, it could be that this sort of thing has happened so rarely that the issue has never even come up.
Teddy Roosevelt tried setting up his own unique party called the Bull Moose Party but he was basically running on a Republican Party platform, just not AS a Republican. It didn't go anywhere.

I cannot think of a single other instance in our entire history where a candidate for POTUS ran "as if they were" a party member.
Plenty of people have run as third party members, but Bernie might be unique.

As for the media ignoring Sanders (AND giving Trump almost two billion in free air time) there has never been a dispute between you and me about that ever. I've said in earlier discussions that I grant you everything in that regard.
Maybe you forgot, because you appear to have forgotten that I was a Sanders supporter.

I think where I must have failed in your eyes is the moment where I decided, all alone in my voting booth, not to throw my vote down a blank hole marked "write in candidate" in the futile hope that the laws of the universe would suddenly change and thousands of electors would suddenly "go faithless" and choose Bernie after he had already bowed out of the process. (thus in effect giving my vote TO Trump)

And now you appear to have decided that, in reality, it must just be a temporary form of madness and that I am suffering from some kind of Hillary syndrome.
Talk about a perverse form of cognitive dissonance.

No major political party will EVER lend support to candidates who are OUTSIDE of their own party. That's because in all our 242 years, no party ever HAS.
Pretending that they suddenly would is a fool's errand.
It's like trying to look for anti-matter in a jar of Crisco shortening.

PS: Why are you on a posting hiatus? I sure hope it's not because no one is willing to accept your pronouncements on my mental health.
My mental health is as good as it can be under Trump.
I wanted Bernie to be President, it didn't happen, and I happen to believe that Bernie could have made the DNC his bitch.

You seem to think that a political party would be willing to lay down a brand new rule for a unique and otherwise unheard of situation, and I must be suffering from a syndrome to excuse a candidate I didn't even want to run.

Hmmmm...
_________________________
"The Best of the Leon Russell Festivals" DVD
deepfreezefilms.com

Top
#309949 - 12/20/18 06:46 PM Re: Is it too soon to be talking 2020? [Re: Jeffery J. Haas]
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 17429
I think Bernie just misunderstood what it meant to "caucus with" the Democrats...

Top
#309950 - 12/20/18 07:04 PM Re: Is it too soon to be talking 2020? [Re: chunkstyle]
pondering_it_all Offline
veteran

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 10351
Loc: North San Diego County
Hillary might have been a poor candidate, but obviously Bernie was a worse candidate. Because Hillary actually won more votes than he did.

Top
#309951 - 12/20/18 07:22 PM Re: Is it too soon to be talking 2020? [Re: Jeffery J. Haas]
jgw Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 3603
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
An actual 'discussion' over non members of the Democratic party claiming the right to run as a Democrat. This is a VERY strange discussion. Apparently, according to those arguing for non Democrats running as Democrats means that the Democrats must allow anybody at all to run under their banner, ie. Nazis, Communists, Socialists, Aliens from Outer Space, Canadians, Mexicans, whatever........... (I know, that's crazy. On the other hand this is where some of the logic is headed)

If Bernie really wanted to run as a Democrat then he should have joined the Democratic party! It was that simple. On the other hand I also think that the Democratic party has a right to not allow just anybody to even join. It used to be that a political party also had a number of 'planks' under which any candidate, or member, subscribed to as it was the basis of the party. Now, however, nobody even seems to know, exactly, what the planks of either party actually are and candidates are, apparently, not necessarily supportive of said party planks. If this is true then I am not even sure what it means to be a member of either party.

Now, for the last - The anti-Hillary stuff is also kinda strange. She was a terrible candidate who won 3 MILLION more votes than the opposition. She wasn't all that bad a candidate but did have so-called strategists that REALLY screwed the pooch on this one. The Republicans simply out thought and out fought the Democrats. These are the same people who seem to be in charge these days too. Let me change that to "These are the same OLD people who seem to be in charge". These are also the same ones who watched as the Republicans took over something in excess of 80% of all State Legislatures and seems to have woke up one day and said; "Gosh, how in the world did the Republicans do that?"

My fond hope, in all of this, is that the Dems are, right now, having a LOT of discussions on just what the hell happened, how they are going to fix it (the Democratic party), how they are going to setup groups, across the entire country willing to sit down and think it through. After they are done they should come up with some party planks that actually describe how they want to be understood and seen, and also make sure that their candidates agree with said planks, or explain their reasons for not doing that. They could start, for instance, with having certain institutions socialized like; fire departments, police departments, public schools and healthcare. These are the things all citizens should support (I think) I also believe that, eventually, the Republicans are going to have to do the same thing after their dear leader is out of the way.

One last. Jackass is 72, Sanders is 77, Biden is 76. How about somebody that's a bit younger?

Just saying.............

Top
#309952 - 12/20/18 10:27 PM Re: Is it too soon to be talking 2020? [Re: jgw]
Greger Online   content


Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/24/06
Posts: 17278
Loc: Florida
Quote:
One last. Jackass is 72, Sanders is 77, Biden is 76. How about somebody that's a bit younger?


Beto?

He's a centrist, I get that. A white Obama so to speak. And the press is already ragging on his voting record and accepting donations from the petroleum industry. Not a real progressive, no true Scotsman...

I don't mind centrists if I think they might be swayed further left than their previous records might show. I don't need a socialist agenda. Just a president who will sign progressive legislation into law. And of course a congress who can pass progressive legislation.
_________________________
Good coffee, good weed, and time on my hands...

Top
#309954 - 12/21/18 12:41 AM Re: Is it too soon to be talking 2020? [Re: Greger]
Jeffery J. Haas Offline
It's the Despair Quotient!
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/03/04
Posts: 15728
Loc: Whittier, California
Originally Posted By: Greger

I don't mind centrists if I think they might be swayed further left than their previous records might show. I don't need a socialist agenda. Just a president who will sign progressive legislation into law. And of course a congress who can pass progressive legislation.


Bow
_________________________
"The Best of the Leon Russell Festivals" DVD
deepfreezefilms.com

Top
#309956 - 12/21/18 02:45 AM Re: Is it too soon to be talking 2020? [Re: Jeffery J. Haas]
Greger Online   content


Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/24/06
Posts: 17278
Loc: Florida
That's really all there is to it. The press is pushing Dems hard to pick a progressive candidate. The more progressive the better. Because that's the horse race the press is trying to set up.
A Bernie vs Trump redux of the 2016 fiasco is what I think the press wants. It's a moneymaker. The glow was all on Beto after November but he's too mainstream for the mainstream press.

They're doing market research right now. Bernie can beat Biden if that's what it comes down to. Bernie still has the fire in his belly. Uncle Joe's day has passed, I'm afraid, it's time he drove his Vette into the sunset. He was never really presidential material anyway.

There's still a good chance that Beto catches fire even with the press trying to tamp it down. In age and attitude he's exactly what the country needs.
_________________________
Good coffee, good weed, and time on my hands...

Top
#309957 - 12/21/18 02:50 AM Re: Is it too soon to be talking 2020? [Re: Greger]
Greger Online   content


Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/24/06
Posts: 17278
Loc: Florida
And just for the record, my personal choice out of all the contenders would be Sherrod Brown. Of them all he would probably make the best president. But I just don't see it happening.
_________________________
Good coffee, good weed, and time on my hands...

Top
#309958 - 12/21/18 03:10 AM Re: Is it too soon to be talking 2020? [Re: Greger]
Jeffery J. Haas Offline
It's the Despair Quotient!
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/03/04
Posts: 15728
Loc: Whittier, California
Originally Posted By: Greger
And just for the record, my personal choice out of all the contenders would be Sherrod Brown. Of them all he would probably make the best president. But I just don't see it happening.


Maybe Sherrod and Beto oughta sit down and have a nice chat.
_________________________
"The Best of the Leon Russell Festivals" DVD
deepfreezefilms.com

Top
Page 10 of 175 < 1 2 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 174 175 >

Who's Online
1 registered (Greger), 42 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Superfly, GreatNewsTonight, danarhea, RoughDraft274, CPWILL
6292 Registered Users
A2