|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 21 2016 07:06 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 06:42 Mohdoo wrote:On December 21 2016 05:08 ticklishmusic wrote:
if by berniecrats you mean the millenials, i guess. ellison is being considered quite seriously - schumer has given support as well as many others. i think he has a good strategy.
perez has great cred on both civil rights and labor rights. i like him better, though it's not a knock on ellison by any means. i'd say he's also a less controversial pick. Yeah, I mean milennials. All I'm saying is that this 'cred' you're talking about doesn't mean anything at all to an enormous amount of people I know. If Bernie wants one person and Obama wants someone else, the DNC choosing the Obama person is going to make them verrrrrrrrrrrry cynical. Obama is just so meaningless to these people. He's even negative to them. Times are changing and changing very fast. I am not among them, but it is easy to see that they matter very, very much. i have nothing against ellison, but im not interested in picking him purely to pander to leftists. appealing to the various segments of the democratic party is a factor, but he needs to make a case for himself that's a lot more compelling than that.
Why? Trump is president right now. A losing party is a worthless party.
|
On December 21 2016 07:11 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 07:06 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 21 2016 06:42 Mohdoo wrote:On December 21 2016 05:08 ticklishmusic wrote:
if by berniecrats you mean the millenials, i guess. ellison is being considered quite seriously - schumer has given support as well as many others. i think he has a good strategy.
perez has great cred on both civil rights and labor rights. i like him better, though it's not a knock on ellison by any means. i'd say he's also a less controversial pick. Yeah, I mean milennials. All I'm saying is that this 'cred' you're talking about doesn't mean anything at all to an enormous amount of people I know. If Bernie wants one person and Obama wants someone else, the DNC choosing the Obama person is going to make them verrrrrrrrrrrry cynical. Obama is just so meaningless to these people. He's even negative to them. Times are changing and changing very fast. I am not among them, but it is easy to see that they matter very, very much. i have nothing against ellison, but im not interested in picking him purely to pander to leftists. appealing to the various segments of the democratic party is a factor, but he needs to make a case for himself that's a lot more compelling than that. Why? Trump is president right now. A losing party is a worthless party.
When the republicans lost in 2008 they banded together not snipped at each other. If Democrats spent more time helping each other and less time getting on moral high horses then the image of them being lazy money spending inexperienced millennials wouldn't be so true.
|
On December 21 2016 07:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 07:11 Mohdoo wrote:On December 21 2016 07:06 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 21 2016 06:42 Mohdoo wrote:On December 21 2016 05:08 ticklishmusic wrote:
if by berniecrats you mean the millenials, i guess. ellison is being considered quite seriously - schumer has given support as well as many others. i think he has a good strategy.
perez has great cred on both civil rights and labor rights. i like him better, though it's not a knock on ellison by any means. i'd say he's also a less controversial pick. Yeah, I mean milennials. All I'm saying is that this 'cred' you're talking about doesn't mean anything at all to an enormous amount of people I know. If Bernie wants one person and Obama wants someone else, the DNC choosing the Obama person is going to make them verrrrrrrrrrrry cynical. Obama is just so meaningless to these people. He's even negative to them. Times are changing and changing very fast. I am not among them, but it is easy to see that they matter very, very much. i have nothing against ellison, but im not interested in picking him purely to pander to leftists. appealing to the various segments of the democratic party is a factor, but he needs to make a case for himself that's a lot more compelling than that. Why? Trump is president right now. A losing party is a worthless party. When the republicans lost in 2008 they banded together not snipped at each other. If Democrats spent more time helping each other and less time getting on moral high horses then the image of them being lazy money spending inexperienced millennials wouldn't be so true.
What? Tons of republicans were extremely upset that they picked moderate McCain, and then doubled down being moderate in 2012 with Romney and ignored their base. The tea party was something of a backlash against the moderate republican establishment, way back in 2010.
The difference is that the GOP didn't purposely rig the primaries for their establishment picks - they were just the best candidates in the admittedly weak fields. Or if they did rig it, it wasn't definitively proven by hacks and leaks. The third way democrats failed to beat the worst candidate of all time aside from the one they nominated, good riddance to them.
|
The GOP primary system as it currently functions helps a well known establishment candidate win with a lower % of the vote. It's just less obvious because there are no super delegates.
I do find it funny that the party whining about the electoral college being undemocratic has super delegates though, that's pretty funny come to think of it.
|
Don't worry everyone, the Trump Org never self-deals with charity money.
The Center for Public Integrity on Monday night published a story demonstrating that a Texas-based non-profit recently formed by Trump’s two adult sons and two associates in Texas is already selling the opportunity to meet with President Trump -- on the day after his inauguration -- for as much as $1 million.
Also on Monday night, the liberal organization ThinkProgress published a report claiming that the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States had been pressured by officials with the Trump Organization to cancel a contract to hold the annual National Day celebration at the Four Seasons Hotel in Georgetown and to move it to the newly opened Trump International Hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue near the White House.
The stories come just days after Eric Trump canceled a controversial online auction in which he was offering the opportunity to have coffee with his sister, Ivanka, to donors willing to make a donation to a charity he sponsors. Ivanka Trump, a close adviser to her father, is expected to play a major behind-the-scenes role in the Trump White House and, like her brothers, is already serving on the presidential transition team that is in charge of filling jobs in the coming administration.
Source
|
On December 21 2016 07:22 Introvert wrote:
The GOP primary system as it currently functions to help a well known establishment candidate win with a lower % of the vote. It's just less obvious because there are no super delegates.
I do find it funny that the party whining about the electoral college being undemocratic has super delegates though, that's pretty funny come to think of it.
You'll have a hard time finding people around here who still support super delegates.
|
super delegates seem rather pointless unless you intend to actually use them for something; and right now the policy seems to generally be to not use them.
They might have some value if used judiciously and rarely; but most people have too stupid a sense of democracy for that to work out well in practice.
I'd like to just ditch primaries altogether and just use approval voting.
I'd also like any system that favors picking moderates for president.
I should blame the politicians for not putting forth more proposals to avoid debacles as happened this election.
|
On December 21 2016 07:32 zlefin wrote:
super delegates seem rather pointless unless you intend to actually use them for something; and right now the policy seems to generally be to not use them.
They might have some value if used judiciously and rarely; but most people have too stupid a sense of democracy for that to work out well in practice.
I'd like to just ditch primaries altogether and just use approval voting.
I'd also like any system that favors picking moderates for president.
I should blame the politicians for not putting forth more proposals to avoid debacles as happened this election.
Primaries are a new addition, and fairly recently at that.
Before the parties would present someone based on who they wanted.
Primaries were then added later.
Superdelegates were a stopgap so that weird things like republicans voting in your primary to force a double conservative choice wouldn't happen.
If you remove super delegates.
And then you make everything open primaries.
Then you'll just have Democratic primaries with people like Huckabee running as a spoiler so you end up with a Red vs Red general election.
|
On December 21 2016 07:26 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 07:22 Introvert wrote:
The GOP primary system as it currently functions to help a well known establishment candidate win with a lower % of the vote. It's just less obvious because there are no super delegates.
I do find it funny that the party whining about the electoral college being undemocratic has super delegates though, that's pretty funny come to think of it. You'll have a hard time finding people around here who still support super delegates.
I do. they serve to help stop people like Trump from hijacking a party.
|
On December 21 2016 07:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 07:32 zlefin wrote:
super delegates seem rather pointless unless you intend to actually use them for something; and right now the policy seems to generally be to not use them.
They might have some value if used judiciously and rarely; but most people have too stupid a sense of democracy for that to work out well in practice.
I'd like to just ditch primaries altogether and just use approval voting.
I'd also like any system that favors picking moderates for president.
I should blame the politicians for not putting forth more proposals to avoid debacles as happened this election. Primaries are a new addition, and fairly recently at that. Before the parties would present someone based on who they wanted. Primaries were then added later. Superdelegates were a stopgap so that weird things like republicans voting in your primary to force a double conservative choice wouldn't happen. If you remove super delegates. And then you make everything open primaries. Then you'll just have Democratic primaries with people like Huckabee running as a spoiler so you end up with a Red vs Red general election.
I'm not sure why you're bringing up open primaries, as that's not what I talked about.
|
On December 21 2016 07:43 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 07:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 21 2016 07:32 zlefin wrote:
super delegates seem rather pointless unless you intend to actually use them for something; and right now the policy seems to generally be to not use them.
They might have some value if used judiciously and rarely; but most people have too stupid a sense of democracy for that to work out well in practice.
I'd like to just ditch primaries altogether and just use approval voting.
I'd also like any system that favors picking moderates for president.
I should blame the politicians for not putting forth more proposals to avoid debacles as happened this election. Primaries are a new addition, and fairly recently at that. Before the parties would present someone based on who they wanted. Primaries were then added later. Superdelegates were a stopgap so that weird things like republicans voting in your primary to force a double conservative choice wouldn't happen. If you remove super delegates. And then you make everything open primaries. Then you'll just have Democratic primaries with people like Huckabee running as a spoiler so you end up with a Red vs Red general election. I'm not sure why you're bringing up open primaries, as that's not what I talked about.
Superdelegates and Closed Primaries serve the same function; to maintain the party's stances and minimize the ability for populist influences from corrupting it. Both serve the same purpose of allowing Democrats to choose a fellow democrat to represent Democrats.
|
On December 21 2016 07:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 07:43 zlefin wrote:On December 21 2016 07:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 21 2016 07:32 zlefin wrote:
super delegates seem rather pointless unless you intend to actually use them for something; and right now the policy seems to generally be to not use them.
They might have some value if used judiciously and rarely; but most people have too stupid a sense of democracy for that to work out well in practice.
I'd like to just ditch primaries altogether and just use approval voting.
I'd also like any system that favors picking moderates for president.
I should blame the politicians for not putting forth more proposals to avoid debacles as happened this election. Primaries are a new addition, and fairly recently at that. Before the parties would present someone based on who they wanted. Primaries were then added later. Superdelegates were a stopgap so that weird things like republicans voting in your primary to force a double conservative choice wouldn't happen. If you remove super delegates. And then you make everything open primaries. Then you'll just have Democratic primaries with people like Huckabee running as a spoiler so you end up with a Red vs Red general election. I'm not sure why you're bringing up open primaries, as that's not what I talked about. Superdelegates and Closed Primaries serve the same function; to maintain the party's stances and minimize the ability for populist influences from corrupting it. Both serve the same purpose of allowing Democrats to choose a fellow democrat to represent Democrats.
yes, I know that. I just don't see what in my post it was responding to. doesn't really matter I guess though.
closed primaries also woudln't stop in-party populists.
|
On December 21 2016 07:58 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 07:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 21 2016 07:43 zlefin wrote:On December 21 2016 07:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 21 2016 07:32 zlefin wrote:
super delegates seem rather pointless unless you intend to actually use them for something; and right now the policy seems to generally be to not use them.
They might have some value if used judiciously and rarely; but most people have too stupid a sense of democracy for that to work out well in practice.
I'd like to just ditch primaries altogether and just use approval voting.
I'd also like any system that favors picking moderates for president.
I should blame the politicians for not putting forth more proposals to avoid debacles as happened this election. Primaries are a new addition, and fairly recently at that. Before the parties would present someone based on who they wanted. Primaries were then added later. Superdelegates were a stopgap so that weird things like republicans voting in your primary to force a double conservative choice wouldn't happen. If you remove super delegates. And then you make everything open primaries. Then you'll just have Democratic primaries with people like Huckabee running as a spoiler so you end up with a Red vs Red general election. I'm not sure why you're bringing up open primaries, as that's not what I talked about. Superdelegates and Closed Primaries serve the same function; to maintain the party's stances and minimize the ability for populist influences from corrupting it. Both serve the same purpose of allowing Democrats to choose a fellow democrat to represent Democrats. yes, I know that. I just don't see what in my post it was responding to. doesn't really matter I guess though. closed primaries also woudln't stop in-party populists.
I'm assuming its not supposed to.
What's popular within the party would be seen as good, what's popular outside the party would be seen as suspect.
For example, the Democrats shouldn't accept what Donald Trump says at good just because he has a populist movement.
|
On December 21 2016 07:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 07:32 zlefin wrote:
super delegates seem rather pointless unless you intend to actually use them for something; and right now the policy seems to generally be to not use them.
They might have some value if used judiciously and rarely; but most people have too stupid a sense of democracy for that to work out well in practice.
I'd like to just ditch primaries altogether and just use approval voting.
I'd also like any system that favors picking moderates for president.
I should blame the politicians for not putting forth more proposals to avoid debacles as happened this election. Primaries are a new addition, and fairly recently at that. Before the parties would present someone based on who they wanted. Primaries were then added later. Superdelegates were a stopgap so that weird things like republicans voting in your primary to force a double conservative choice wouldn't happen. If you remove super delegates. And then you make everything open primaries. Then you'll just have Democratic primaries with people like Huckabee running as a spoiler so you end up with a Red vs Red general election.
Okay, primaries are supposed to be a long pep-rally for the establishment choice. Brought in because people liked the idea of thinking they were influencing the outcome, and it helped generate money and organize.
Superdelegates have 0 to do with Republicans voting in a primary. That's just a total fabrication. (Should add they nominated a pro-fracking, bank friendly, proud moderate, hawk, so if that's what they were for, they failed).
The idea that we would get a Huckabee winning the Democratic nomination is flat out stupid. Any argument that uses such fear should be disregarded with haste.
Huckabee would do about as well as Jim Webb did (provided Democrats don't put up the least favorable candidate they've ever run again).
EDIT: Also, can Joe Manchin just put the R next to his name already? "We need to declare a war on drugs" is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've heard from a Senator this year.
|
On December 21 2016 08:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 07:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 21 2016 07:32 zlefin wrote:
super delegates seem rather pointless unless you intend to actually use them for something; and right now the policy seems to generally be to not use them.
They might have some value if used judiciously and rarely; but most people have too stupid a sense of democracy for that to work out well in practice.
I'd like to just ditch primaries altogether and just use approval voting.
I'd also like any system that favors picking moderates for president.
I should blame the politicians for not putting forth more proposals to avoid debacles as happened this election. Primaries are a new addition, and fairly recently at that. Before the parties would present someone based on who they wanted. Primaries were then added later. Superdelegates were a stopgap so that weird things like republicans voting in your primary to force a double conservative choice wouldn't happen. If you remove super delegates. And then you make everything open primaries. Then you'll just have Democratic primaries with people like Huckabee running as a spoiler so you end up with a Red vs Red general election. Okay, primaries are supposed to be a long pep-rally for the establishment choice. Brought in because people liked the idea of thinking they were influencing the outcome, and it helped generate money and organize. Superdelegates have 0 to do with Republicans voting in a primary. That's just a total fabrication. (Should add they nominated a pro-fracking, bank friendly, proud moderate, hawk, so if that's what they were for, they failed). The idea that we would get a Huckabee winning the Democratic nomination is flat out stupid. Any argument that uses such fear should be disregarded with haste. Huckabee would do about as well as Jim Webb did (provided Democrats don't put up the least favorable candidate they've ever run again). EDIT: Also, can Joe Manchin just put the R next to his name already? "We need to declare a war on drugs" is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've heard from a Senator this year. https://twitter.com/TheLeadCNN/status/811327667840675841
Primaries becoming Pep Rallies is because of what the people asked for. Just a several decades ago the "primaries" was just the DNC announcing who will be running in the general. Took about a day to release the news, a week for it to circulate, and boom--process over.
The primaries becoming what it is now is because non-liberals wanted it to be a circus.
|
Joe Manchin is a perfect example of the kind of democratic party milennials will feel no reason to vote for. Someone giving any amount of praise for a war on drugs in 2016 is a disaster. People across the country are going through college and learning every reason the war on drugs is awful socially, financially and psychologically. So they graduate, feel engaged and wanting to make a difference, then see senators of their supposed party saying we need to declare war on drugs. And we should have a chair that Obama wants instead of Sanders.
The head in the sand mentality is insane.
|
On December 21 2016 08:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2016 08:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 21 2016 07:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 21 2016 07:32 zlefin wrote:
super delegates seem rather pointless unless you intend to actually use them for something; and right now the policy seems to generally be to not use them.
They might have some value if used judiciously and rarely; but most people have too stupid a sense of democracy for that to work out well in practice.
I'd like to just ditch primaries altogether and just use approval voting.
I'd also like any system that favors picking moderates for president.
I should blame the politicians for not putting forth more proposals to avoid debacles as happened this election. Primaries are a new addition, and fairly recently at that. Before the parties would present someone based on who they wanted. Primaries were then added later. Superdelegates were a stopgap so that weird things like republicans voting in your primary to force a double conservative choice wouldn't happen. If you remove super delegates. And then you make everything open primaries. Then you'll just have Democratic primaries with people like Huckabee running as a spoiler so you end up with a Red vs Red general election. Okay, primaries are supposed to be a long pep-rally for the establishment choice. Brought in because people liked the idea of thinking they were influencing the outcome, and it helped generate money and organize. Superdelegates have 0 to do with Republicans voting in a primary. That's just a total fabrication. (Should add they nominated a pro-fracking, bank friendly, proud moderate, hawk, so if that's what they were for, they failed). The idea that we would get a Huckabee winning the Democratic nomination is flat out stupid. Any argument that uses such fear should be disregarded with haste. Huckabee would do about as well as Jim Webb did (provided Democrats don't put up the least favorable candidate they've ever run again). EDIT: Also, can Joe Manchin just put the R next to his name already? "We need to declare a war on drugs" is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've heard from a Senator this year. https://twitter.com/TheLeadCNN/status/811327667840675841 Primaries becoming Pep Rallies is because of what the people asked for. Just a several decades ago the "primaries" was just the DNC announcing who will be running in the general. Took about a day to release the news, a week for it to circulate, and boom--process over. The primaries becoming what it is now is because non-liberals wanted it to be a circus.
Primaries are what they are because that's what the parties and the networks wanted. But they aren't what the media or the party purports them to be.
I presume you didn't address the other points because you realized your error.
On December 21 2016 08:42 Mohdoo wrote:
Joe Manchin is a perfect example of the kind of democratic party milennials will feel no reason to vote for. Someone giving any amount of praise for a war on drugs in 2016 is a disaster. People across the country are going through college and learning every reason the war on drugs is awful socially, financially and psychologically. So they graduate, feel engaged and wanting to make a difference, then see senators of their supposed party saying we need to declare war on drugs. And we should have a chair that Obama wants instead of Sanders.
The head in the sand mentality is insane.
He takes it to another level by missing the last 40+ years of the ongoing war on drugs. Not to mention he is neglecting the science when it comes to treating people in his own state (who are getting devastated by big pharma).
|
On December 21 2016 08:42 Mohdoo wrote:
Joe Manchin is a perfect example of the kind of democratic party milennials will feel no reason to vote for. Someone giving any amount of praise for a war on drugs in 2016 is a disaster. People across the country are going through college and learning every reason the war on drugs is awful socially, financially and psychologically. So they graduate, feel engaged and wanting to make a difference, then see senators of their supposed party saying we need to declare war on drugs. And we should have a chair that Obama wants instead of Sanders.
The head in the sand mentality is insane.
Manchin is from one of the most GOP states in the nation at the federal level. If he wasn't GOP-lite he would instantly lose elections, and he's still better than almost any republican senators.
That said the actions of his daughter make him a laughable messenger on ANYTHING related to pharmaceuticals. (She was in charge of the company that began price gouging on epi-pens).
|
opiod epidemics are a serious serious problem in rural communities and areas. I live in one and its a massive problem. but yeah calling it a war on drugs doesn't help. I don't know what the solution is.
|
On December 21 2016 08:57 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
opiod epidemics are a serious serious problem in rural communities and areas. I live in one and its a massive problem. but yeah calling it a war on drugs doesn't help. I don't know what the solution is.
You go at it from both ends and you treat addiction as the health care issue it is, not a criminal one. Any conversation that doesn't include chin-checking big-pharma (the people selling more drugs, and killing more people) isn't serious.
Just wrap your mind around how heroin dealers are imagined in America, then realize that big pharma's version of heroin kills almost 2x as many people.
I know Joe Manchin isn't that stupid. Which means he's got ulterior motives here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
