|
|
Post by Action Ace on Nov 14, 2015 19:56:38 GMT -5
All these reports I'm reading about Hillary using party leadership to cancel out the public support of Sanders has me thinking I'll just vote Republican if Sanders doesn't get nominated. Not that I think Republicans and Democrats are all the same, or that Clinton is as bad as a Republican, but she's not much better, and that's not the point. The people should decide their leaders. Not superdelegates. If sanders loses the vote then oh well, but if he wins the vote and loses the election, I'm casting my ballot for whoever the GOP nominate. Don't really care about any possible repercussions of having a Republican president for four years. I'm much more concerned about the repercussions of allowing the Democratic party to choose our candidates without taking our wishes into consideration. Sanders has historic support among voters, but the disturbingly corporate friendly party doesn't want him in the White House. Assuming Sanders doesn't run as an independent, surely there will be other political parties more to your liking like the Green, Socialist and Socialist Workers Parties that you can give your vote to. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Nov 14, 2015 19:58:55 GMT -5
Unbelievable. Dupont gets a good paying job and within days turns into a right-wing conservative booster.My faith in humanity takes a step backwards It is interesting to watch Democrats laugh at Republicans for eating their own...and then turn around and do the exact same thing. We'll soon see dupont add a chauffeur to his signature car photo |
|
|
|
Post by Action Ace on Nov 14, 2015 20:04:04 GMT -5
All these reports I'm reading about Hillary using party leadership to cancel out the public support of Sanders Can you please elaborate and/or give links? Link #1: NPRLink #2: Daily Mail |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2015 20:50:40 GMT -5
All these reports I'm reading about Hillary using party leadership to cancel out the public support of Sanders has me thinking I'll just vote Republican if Sanders doesn't get nominated. Not that I think Republicans and Democrats are all the same, or that Clinton is as bad as a Republican, but she's not much better, and that's not the point. The people should decide their leaders. Not superdelegates. If sanders loses the vote then oh well, but if he wins the vote and loses the election, I'm casting my ballot for whoever the GOP nominate. Don't really care about any possible repercussions of having a Republican president for four years. I'm much more concerned about the repercussions of allowing the Democratic party to choose our candidates without taking our wishes into consideration. Sanders has historic support among voters, but the disturbingly corporate friendly party doesn't want him in the White House. this makes me so sad, as I always have thought of you as smarter than this:
Don't really care about any possible repercussions of having a Republican president for four years.
because the repercussions would be HUGE (and a guaranteed far right, conservative, Supreme Court). |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Nov 14, 2015 21:01:55 GMT -5
Can you please elaborate and/or give links? Link#1: NPRLink#2: Daily MailHmmm, ok, thanks. So... Hillary isn't using party leadership to cancel out the public support, she's just getting the support from her political family, one that Sanders only is new to, if even a part of. Ths is unfortunate, but I see no foul play there, or am I missing something? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2015 21:16:23 GMT -5
All these reports I'm reading about Hillary using party leadership to cancel out the public support of Sanders has me thinking I'll just vote Republican if Sanders doesn't get nominated. Not that I think Republicans and Democrats are all the same, or that Clinton is as bad as a Republican, but she's not much better, and that's not the point. The people should decide their leaders. Not superdelegates. If sanders loses the vote then oh well, but if he wins the vote and loses the election, I'm casting my ballot for whoever the GOP nominate. Don't really care about any possible repercussions of having a Republican president for four years. I'm much more concerned about the repercussions of allowing the Democratic party to choose our candidates without taking our wishes into consideration. Sanders has historic support among voters, but the disturbingly corporate friendly party doesn't want him in the White House. this makes me so sad, as I always have thought of you as smarter than this:
Don't really care about any possible repercussions of having a Republican president for four years.
because the repercussions would be HUGE (and a guaranteed far right, conservative, Supreme Court). I know what the repercussions will be. But by caving and allowing the party leadership to ditch the people's favorite in favor of the corporate world's most acceptable Democratic candidate, we will never get progress. Everyone who contributed time and money to Clinton's campaign losing an election because voters aren't going to choose based on what they allow us to choose will make things better in the long run, and maybe in four years we'll get a real progressive, which I think we're beyond past due for. I'm also not entirely convinced Clinton would nominate progressives to the SCOTUS anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2015 21:18:24 GMT -5
Hmmm, ok, thanks. So... Hillary isn't using party leadership to cancel out the public support, she's just getting the support from her political family, one that Sanders only is new to, if even a part of. Ths is unfortunate, but I see no foul play there, or am I missing something? While Sanders is working to get the approval of voters, Clinton is working to get the approval of campaign financiers and super delegates. She's made quips about her delegate support already. No, she hasn't broken a law, but I don't like the way she does politics. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2015 21:19:15 GMT -5
All these reports I'm reading about Hillary using party leadership to cancel out the public support of Sanders has me thinking I'll just vote Republican if Sanders doesn't get nominated. Not that I think Republicans and Democrats are all the same, or that Clinton is as bad as a Republican, but she's not much better, and that's not the point. The people should decide their leaders. Not superdelegates. If sanders loses the vote then oh well, but if he wins the vote and loses the election, I'm casting my ballot for whoever the GOP nominate. Don't really care about any possible repercussions of having a Republican president for four years. I'm much more concerned about the repercussions of allowing the Democratic party to choose our candidates without taking our wishes into consideration. Sanders has historic support among voters, but the disturbingly corporate friendly party doesn't want him in the White House. Assuming Sanders doesn't run as an independent, surely there will be other political parties more to your liking like the Green, Socialist and Socialist Workers Parties that you can give your vote to. Sanders won't run as an independent, that's for sure. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2015 21:27:12 GMT -5
Unbelievable. Dupont gets a good paying job and within days turns into a right-wing conservative booster.My faith in humanity takes a step backwards It is interesting to watch Democrats laugh at Republicans for eating their own...and then turn around and do the exact same thing. I'm laughing at the ridiculous things they say at their debates, but what I'm not laughing at is they have sixteen candidates, with as many as ten of them being actual contenders, and the party treating them all like they have a shot. We have media bias and inside favoritism in debate schedules and superdelegates with their mind made up before the campaign even started. If Sanders didn't have historic grassroots support to the point it simply couldn't be ignored anymore because his campaign events were causing infrastructure problems in major cities then we'd have already had our candidate given to us and the other two who trail by a significant margin would have already conceded and endorsed the only viable option. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Gordon Scratch on Nov 14, 2015 21:30:14 GMT -5
Hmmm, ok, thanks. So... Hillary isn't using party leadership to cancel out the public support, she's just getting the support from her political family, one that Sanders only is new to, if even a part of. Ths is unfortunate, but I see no foul play there, or am I missing something? While Sanders is working to get the approval of voters, Clinton is working to get the approval of campaign financiers and super delegates. She's made quips about her delegate support already. No, she hasn't broken a law, but I don't like the way she does politics. But is there anything surprising in that she is campaining there and htat Sanders isn't since he won't find much support there? Is it a surprise tactic? It just seems the order of things in the way both of them were aware of long before either of them entered the campaign. Sanders must have known about that, right? So either he thinks he stands a chance with the rest of the delegates, or he entered the run fully aware he'd lose and has another agenda, and therefore isn't more honest with you whom he led to believe he was running with the sole and obvious goal to win the primary while Clinton never hid her strategy, especially since she opperated the same way 8 years ago... I'm not saying this is a good situation, just that nothing in this should surprise anyone at this stage. They play the rules, they know the stakes and rules, either they're bluffing or are advancing with an open hand. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 14, 2015 21:41:11 GMT -5
I said I rarely agreed with him, but by the same token I didn't feel that he was being needlessly insulting to anyone who might disagree with him. I think you maybe conflating "sensible" with has "similar opinions to me" and that doesn't have to be the case at all. Did you even look at the links? David Brooks defends those responsible for the Penn State child rape case because it gives him a chance to blame the "morality that says, "If it feels all right for you, it's probably OK."" I am most assuredly am not confusing "sensible and thoughtful" with "has similar opinions to me." And I also think there's a lot more to being "sensible and thoughtful" than "not being needlessly insulting to anyone who might disagree." I'm shocked that that you can't admit that you made a mistake when you included David Brooks in the "sensible and thoughtful" category. You can throw him out without doing any damage to your point. As a matter of fact, if David Brooks counts as "sensible and thoughtful" when he basically says that people can't be expected to know that raping a ten-year-old boy in the shower is wrong because of 30 or 40 years of "muddying the waters" in a society that he claims tells you that you can do what you want, then I don't really understand the words "sensible" and "thoughtful" well enough to continue because it means I missed a few very important days when I was learning the English language. Here's the link to the entire transcript. |
|
|
|
Post by Action Ace on Nov 14, 2015 22:14:36 GMT -5
Coming up next month in Superman's Girlfriend Lois Lane, she takes a $120,000 vacation just like David Brooks! Written by Bob Haney, art by Kurt Schaffenberger
Did he save up for that for a decade or is he really that valuable to The New York Times?
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Nov 14, 2015 22:15:02 GMT -5
There is more than just not being insulting, as I stated before; his point is evident, he frames his argument clearly and he then lays out points that he feels support his arguments. I don't support his premise, and I certainly don't follow the points to his conclusion but there's nothing inherently illogical to his point of view and at no point is there a sense of an attack against those who would disagree and there's nothing there that would make me feel like he would simply ignore me if I mounted a counter argument. So yes, being polite is part of being sensible and thoughtful but there is more and he exhibits it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Nov 14, 2015 22:29:07 GMT -5
All these reports I'm reading about Hillary using party leadership to cancel out the public support of Sanders has me thinking I'll just vote Republican if Sanders doesn't get nominated. Not that I think Republicans and Democrats are all the same, or that Clinton is as bad as a Republican, but she's not much better, and that's not the point. The people should decide their leaders. Not superdelegates. If sanders loses the vote then oh well, but if he wins the vote and loses the election, I'm casting my ballot for whoever the GOP nominate. Don't really care about any possible repercussions of having a Republican president for four years. I'm much more concerned about the repercussions of allowing the Democratic party to choose our candidates without taking our wishes into consideration. Sanders has historic support among voters, but the disturbingly corporate friendly party doesn't want him in the White House. this makes me so sad, as I always have thought of you as smarter than this:
Don't really care about any possible repercussions of having a Republican president for four years.
because the repercussions would be HUGE (and a guaranteed far right, conservative, Supreme Court). Who gets to appoint Supreme Court justices for the next four years is a huge consideration. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Nov 14, 2015 22:43:07 GMT -5
There is more than just not being insulting, as I stated before; his point is evident, he frames his argument clearly and he then lays out points that he feels support his arguments. I don't support his premise, and I certainly don't follow the points to his conclusion but there's nothing inherently illogical to his point of view and at no point is there a sense of an attack against those who would disagree and there's nothing there that would make me feel like he would simply ignore me if I mounted a counter argument. So yes, being polite is part of being sensible and thoughtful but there is more and he exhibits it. Thwhtguardian, Did you notice the part where he said that the people responsible for the Penn State child rape case couldn't be expected to know that raping a ten-year-old boy is wrong because they were confused by 30 or 40 years of a society that - he claims - told them they could do whatever feels right? Not "sensible and thoughtful" in my book. |
|
