Page 19 of 24 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 237

Thread: The DNC is the problem. Or is it?

  1. Top | #181
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    always on the move
    Posts
    1,043
    Archived
    801
    Total Posts
    1,844
    Rep Power
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post

    It is people with more loyalty to the status quo than to people who will seek positive change in the basis of the needs and desires of the constituency.

    It is the appointment of establishment friendly campaign insiders to pivotal roles in both 2016 and 2020 elections and giving conflict-of-interest laden sweetheart deals on party appointments.
    Exactly. And on these points here I would add the insider-only policies where if you want to run as a Democrat then you have to use the approved Democratic consultants, and can never challenge any sitting Democrat no matter how much they suck up to republicans. HOUSE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP WARNS IT WILL CUT OFF ANY FIRMS THAT CHALLENGE INCUMBENTS

  2. Top | #182
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    3,418
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    6,329
    Rep Power
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by marc View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post

    It is people with more loyalty to the status quo than to people who will seek positive change in the basis of the needs and desires of the constituency.

    It is the appointment of establishment friendly campaign insiders to pivotal roles in both 2016 and 2020 elections and giving conflict-of-interest laden sweetheart deals on party appointments.
    Exactly. And on these points here I would add the insider-only policies where if you want to run as a Democrat then you have to use the approved Democratic consultants, and can never challenge any sitting Democrat no matter how much they suck up to republicans. HOUSE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP WARNS IT WILL CUT OFF ANY FIRMS THAT CHALLENGE INCUMBENTS
    Because nothing says "democracy" like fighting democratic activity. The DNC should gladly and happily encourage primary activity, because it fosters democratic decisions and support of the constituents. It's not representative government if you don't give real choices of who represents people.

  3. Top | #183
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    10,366
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    13,810
    Rep Power
    0
    ^ And this is why I call it the Democrat party instead of the Democratic party. It is not Democratic. It could be. It isn't and those currently at the helm of it don't want it to be. I recall there was a court challenge and a ruling that they don't have to be.

    The concept of super delegates is proof of that as well. And no, it doesn't matter if these people have ever used their power to overrule the will of the majority. The mere fact that they can is enough. They cut back on the power of these people this time around, which shows that progress can be made.

  4. Top | #184
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    10,366
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    13,810
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea
    People respond to your complaints with facts about how the process works in America
    No they don't. They respond by telling me I don't know how your system works, as if the DNC's corruption is somehow excused by this adhom allegation.

    And no they don't show that they know how your system works and I do not. They merely state that, over and over, because I am a foreigner. There is no explanation of your system or fact revealed here about it that I don't already know. And certainly none that speaks against points or opinions I have given.

    You and your fellow conservative Democrats merely disagree with my opinions and rush to my being a foreigner to try to show I am wrong. It is nothing but adhom. And I can only conclude it to be based on either conservatism or learned helplessness.

    Moreover for the points and opinions I have expressed here, very little knowledge of your system is needed. You have elections. I encourage you to vote in progressive legislators and policies. That's it. And to this I am met with cries of how I must not understand your system. You have a first past the post system. You have Congress critters and senators who won't agree. You have conservative low information voters who keep them in power. A president can't by themselves make all the change you need. No shit Sherlock. None of that means you can't do as I have encouraged.

    And yes, I am a foreigner. That means short of military invasion and "regime change" USA style, the most I can do is encourage you, and I am. The vote is yours. It's your fault as American citizens, not mine, that you have the policies in place that you do. And it's up to you to make the change.
    Last edited by Jolly_Penguin; 02-21-2020 at 04:25 PM.

  5. Top | #185
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    9,486
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    13,141
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    We're not the ones ignoring evidence. You are. Clearly. By ignoring the fact that voters vote based on the information they get from the sources they have, and that corruption seen takes the form of manipulating who, what, when and where people can access information.
    I didn't know that you and JP were partners?


    Who is the problem in a car dealership, the person who buys the lemon or the dealer who sells it as a reliable car?

    Caveat emptor? That's bullshit.
    I'm not sure why you think that's a good metaphor but I'll play: The DNC would have been wrong to try to sell Sanders as a Democrat, just as an Audi dealership would be wrong to try to sell a VW Camper as its new mini-van.

    It's not "some cabal". Bloomberg bought his way into an election, and (albeit rather foolishly) onto a debate stage. That was 100% the DNC.
    I don't think anyone disagrees with you that Bloomberg bought his way onto the debate stage. In a very real sense, every single candidate running under the DNC umbrella has purchased their place on the Democratic primary ballot by coughing up donors money. Bloomberg is self-financed. Personally, I think both the DNC's pay to play and Bloomberg's abiloty to just pay out of his own pocket change are obscene.

    Hillary Clinton bailed on debates, and the DNC denied access to the voter rolls for a primary candidate. Then when debates DID happen, they were scheduled to happen when nobody would be viewing them. That was also the DNC.
    This is weird because I clearly remember watching some of the debates.

    It is blocking debates on widely demanded topics because some candidates with establishment support are weak on them.
    Is the DNC trying to control the narrative? Maybe it is. But sponsors of the debates are who actually run the debates. If they didn't play along, the DNC would have to change its demands.

    It is giving over debate moderation to biased organizations, and setting up rules that don't actually foster debates (even if they do foster some delicious roastings at times).
    First of all, in all honesty, I don't think that debates matter that much. In any election. I've helped set up/run debates in local, non-partisan elections and from what I can tell, people either don't watch or don't care because they will still vote for whichever candidate they decided they liked before the debate, even if said candidate is ignorant of any information or issue pertinent to the contest. On a level everyone will recognize: I give you Donald Trump v Hillary Clinton. But the same happens at every level, every where.

    I'm sorry if you don't feel your candidate is acquitting himself well enough in the debates. Since he's regarded as THE frontrunner, I'm not sure I can say he's being hurt by the debate rules.


    It is people with more loyalty to the status quo than to people who will seek positive change in the basis of the needs and desires of the constituency.
    In general, most people feel more comfortable with an imperfect scenario they know to an unknown scenario which may or may not be better than what they have now. Small changes, incremental changes are safer. Revolution is dangerous. What you end up with may be better than what you started out with--or it may not. But it is certain that there will be serious losses and not all of those losses will be things most people wanted gone.

    It doesn't take a cabal for people... Well, people clearly like you who disdain progressives... To want to block a progressive from getting the power to reform their positions away. That's just good old fashioned zeitgeist. It's the corruption of a thousand small parts for self-interest that don't necessarily need to work in concert, but can.
    I dunno. Rhea's politics seem pretty progressive to me. Or maybe you are referring to me? I think of myself as relatively progressive. Caring about the details of how policies and legislation would work and who would be affected and how is not being anti-progressive. Disagreeing with you or JP is not being 'anti-progressive.'

    Calling people names and hurling accusations at them, particularly false accusations, is not a way to convince anyone of your POV.



    You don't need to be an American to watch all that happening just like you don't need a Brit to see how Tories ratfucked their country right in the Brexit.

    Nobody said otherwise. Other people from other countries, including Canada have offered commentary on US politics and elections, not always in terribly flattering ways. When commentary is based on a poor grasp of actual facts about how US politics, elections and laws governing elections comes into play then I think it deserves to be called out, as does an attempt to behave as though someone who is from a nation which is not the US attempts to behave as though they are part of the process.


    If you don't see how campaign interference DRIVES those 'voter decisions' that's just willful ignorance the likes of which I would expect more from Half-life.
    I think you are imputing and attributing ideas and beliefs where they are not held.

  6. Top | #186
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    3,230
    Rep Power
    12
    Why are we assuming that there is a "the" problem? I look around this country and I see a fuck ton of problems. Deeply distressing problems

  7. Top | #187
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    8,584
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    17,624
    Rep Power
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Why are we assuming that there is a "the" problem? I look around this country and I see a fuck ton of problems. Deeply distressing problems
    We are assuming that when people wrote, “The DNC is the problem” that they thought so, and we are discussing whether that is true.

  8. Top | #188
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    8,584
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    17,624
    Rep Power
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhea
    People respond to your complaints with facts about how the process works in America
    No they don't. They respond by telling me I don't know how your system works, as if the DNC's corruption is somehow excused by this adhom allegation.

    And no they don't show that they know how your system works and I do not. They merely state that, over and over, because I am a foreigner.
    Well, they say it when you make claims that are objectively wrong in our local experience. So, there’s that. But you don’t need to pay attention to that if it harms your ability to tell us what voters (us!) think and want.

    You and your fellow conservative Democrats merely disagree with my opinions and rush to my being a foreigner to try to show I am wrong. It is nothing but adhom. And I can only conclude it to be based on either conservatism or learned helplessness.
    Now this is just stupid. Repeatedly stupid. You keep throwing out this label to people on the basis of - what, that we don’t agree with your solutions?
    You’ve been told again and again that we are not “conservatives” but you like the petty, juvenile, act of labeling people something that they are not, over and ovver and over again, to try to make a square into a round.

    But I know me, and I know what I have actually accomplished that is progressive to the point of anger and threats from actual conservatives, and your stupid 101st Keyboard Division actions will never change what I’ve already done. You can pretend and make false statements and repeat them until the “C” letter wears out on your keyboard, but that will never make me a conservative. Let us know when you make an actual policy change from regressive conservative to actual progress and we can talk. I am proud of fighting to get our public library re-opened, proud of my fight to keep it open, proud of my fight to get poor rural children a free parks program, proud of my fight to keep the senior luncheon funded. I have put myself out there among actual American voters and your stupid deliberate mis-labels will never ever take that away. They just make you look like you know nothing at all about American Politics or American Voters.


    Moreover for the points and opinions I have expressed here, very little knowledge of your system is needed. You have elections. I encourage you to vote in progressive legislators and policies. That's it.
    You are seriously claiming that is the content of your posts?


    And to this I am met with cries of how I must not understand your system. You have a first past the post system. You have Congress critters and senators who won't agree. You have conservative low information voters who keep them in power. A president can't by themselves make all the change you need. No shit Sherlock. None of that means you can't do as I have encouraged.
    I’ve already done far more than you’ve “encouraged”. You’re 15 years behind me, dude.




    And yes, I am a foreigner. That means short of military invasion and "regime change" USA style, the most I can do is encourage you, and I am. The vote is yours. It's your fault as American citizens, not mine, that you have the policies in place that you do. And it's up to you to make the change.
    Yeah, 35 years behind me, dude.

  9. Top | #189
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    16,018
    Archived
    41,943
    Total Posts
    57,961
    Rep Power
    77
    Political parties are institution. They exist to help those candidates who agree with the party platform to win elections. They are not bound by any particular set of ethics or laws in their pursuit. If a significant portion of the party members want to change the rules or behavioral expectations, they have to work within the party to accomplish their goals. Candidates who wish to run in the party's name agree to abide by existing party rules and agree to work within the established structure to change those rules.

    The idea that the DNC is "corrupt" because current rule favor party insiders is pure rhetoric at this point. Any set of rules favors someone. That does not make them "corrupt". Mr. Sanders is not a Democrat. It is silly to think that the Democratic Party should change their rules to favor him.

    I wonder if the same faction whinging about the DNC would be making the same arguments if Mr. Trump had decided to run as a Democrat. I also wonder if the GOP party is having second thoughts about its rules for nominating the POTUS candidate.

  10. Top | #190
    Cyborg with a Tiara
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Recluse
    Posts
    8,584
    Archived
    9,040
    Total Posts
    17,624
    Rep Power
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarhyn View Post
    We're not the ones ignoring evidence. You are. Clearly. By ignoring the fact that voters vote based on the information they get from the sources they have, and that corruption seen takes the form of manipulating who, what, when and where people can access information.


    It's not "some cabal". Bloomberg bought his way into an election, and (albeit rather foolishly) onto a debate stage. That was 100% the DNC.
    You are claiming that it’s the DNC’s fault that Bloomberg is “buying a seat at the table”.
    He *IS* buying a seat at the table, but he is using his own money to buy information dispensing from commercial sources. I don’t like him, and I don’t like his campaign. I don’t like his arrogance in parachuting in with $50B to buy advertising. But the DNC is not the problem here.

    Why do I say that? He got 10% approval in polls. The DNC had to look at that and say - will of the people? Is it really appropriate for us to keep someone away from the debate stage when 10% of the voters want him? How would I have felt if they did that to Bernie? Say he raised practically NOTHING, say his supperters were all the working poor - but got 10% in polls. I’d feel the DNC should include him on the stage, even though he is not a Democrat.. I don’t like Bloomberg, but he has 10% support. That’s significant and people-based. Maybe you think it should be more about money than people support, I dunno.

    Frankly, I’d rather the debate stage popularity be measured by Democratic voters, not random phone polls.


    the DNC denied access to the voter rolls for a primary candidate.
    You think the Democratic nominee should be decided by non-democrats.
    Not me. This is a party, trying to determine shared values among reliable supporters. You think it should be set up so that Republicans can come in droves and decide to elect someone THEY want? There are more of them than there are of us progressives. The PARTY nominee should be decided by PARTY members. If people want to join the party to decide the nominee, it’s free and open. I know lots of people have argued that non-Democrats should be able to define the Democratic party nominee. I cannot imagine a more useless scenario. It would be like Americans deciding that Canada should open a coal plant in every province.

    Then when debates DID happen, they were scheduled to happen when nobody would be viewing them. That was also the DNC.
    I have complaints about the DNC decisions on debates. I’ve contacted them to point out the deficiencies. More issues than you have, actually.


    It is blocking debates on widely demanded topics because some candidates with establishment support are weak on them.
    How do you know that is the reason? Or are you speculating?



    It is giving over debate moderation to biased organizations, and setting up rules that don't actually foster debates (even if they do foster some delicious roastings at times).
    What’s your debate format proposal? I have complaints about this, too, but I often observe that most Americans don’t actually want what I want out of debates. Typically the thoughtful, well versed, scholarly information I want is derided by the voting public, alas. So people like me tend to peruse campaign web sites for that info, and people that don’t want it wouldn’t listen even if the debate format was better and on popular nights or during super bowl halftime.



    It is people with more loyalty to the status quo than to people who will seek positive change in the basis of the needs and desires of the constituency.
    I want a solid single or double every time. A home run would be great, but you lose a game by only swinging for the fence at every at-bat.
    I have personally changed the status quo. I am proud of that, and I want more change.


    It is the appointment of establishment friendly campaign insiders to pivotal roles in both 2016 and 2020 elections and giving conflict-of-interest laden sweetheart deals on party appointments.

    It doesn't take a cabal for people... Well, people clearly like you who disdain progressives...
    This is bullshit and you can see my answer to Jolly on the topic. I don’t pass the purity test for you? Too bad. I’ve been fighting in the trenches and making change.


    If you don't see how campaign interference DRIVES those 'voter decisions' that's just willful ignorance the likes of which I would expect more from Half-life.
    As someone who has been elected to office twice, I know very well what drives voter decisions. What experience informs your opinion? I campaigned in a district where my party is outnumber 3:1, and I made progress. Your purity test would have left my town in the wild west with no public services at all.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •