|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States42008 Posts
On September 23 2021 00:59 LegalLord wrote:
Democrats were certainly willing to play dirty where it matters, like stopping Bernie Sanders from winning the nomination. I can only conclude that they aren't willing to do so for legislation because though they notionally support some of the things they say they do, it isn't actually very high on their priority list.
This myth needs to die. Bernie wasn’t winning the nomination from regular delegates. Clinton was simply more popular which isn’t that surprising because she’s a very experienced and recognized political figure. He wasn’t cheated, he just lost. The superdelegates didn’t help him but he would have needed their support to overturn the regular delegates which he was also not winning.
|
I think hes referring to the most recent primary, where all the moderates dropped out at the same time to consolidate behind Biden
|
On September 23 2021 01:35 Zambrah wrote:
I think hes referring to the most recent primary, where all the moderates dropped out at the same time to consolidate behind Biden
That myth also needs to die, then. The fact that politically-similar candidates step down to not dilute the moderate-liberal vote doesn't mean that anyone was playing dirty. If I were a moderate-liberal, I would be quite pleased with the completely reasonable, normal strategy of making sure that all the moderate-liberals don't split their constituents so much that someone else wins. It's exactly why Dems don't want an extra Dem to run third-party, and why Repubs don't want an extra Repub to run third-party. No dirtiness involved; just good vs. bad strategy.
|
All of the big kids teaming up to bully the underdog is just a bad look, especially when its a moment of competence for a party that really struggles to accomplish anything against their actual important Republican rivals.
|
On September 23 2021 01:39 Zambrah wrote:
All of the big kids teaming up to bully the underdog is just a bad look, especially when its a moment of competence for a party that really struggles to accomplish anything against their actual important Republican rivals.
Bernie was the second-biggest kid after Biden...
|
The Big Kids is the Democrat Moderates as a bloc, theyre the ones by and large in charge of the Democrats as a party, the Progressive bloc is comparatively small and maligned
|
On September 23 2021 01:42 Zambrah wrote:
The Big Kids is the Democrat Moderates as a bloc, theyre the ones by and large in charge of the Democrats as a party, the Progressive bloc is comparatively small and maligned
Why should the less-popular kids beat the more-popular kids in a popularity contest?
|
On September 23 2021 00:33 Shingi11 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2021 00:17 KwarK wrote:On September 22 2021 22:56 JimmiC wrote:
Could blue states just use the Texas framework for their shit and force the supreme court to destroy it all? To paraphrase Michelle Obama “when they go low we talk about how shitty that was but never retaliate”. While i agree that is an admirable sentiment its also why we are slipping into a religious sharia state. That idea only works when the other side gives a dam about the rules. As of know those rules only exist for the dems. How far back to dems let the country slip into the middle ages trying to take the high road.
Nothing is admirable about bending over and losing every single fight.
|
On September 23 2021 01:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2021 01:42 Zambrah wrote:
The Big Kids is the Democrat Moderates as a bloc, theyre the ones by and large in charge of the Democrats as a party, the Progressive bloc is comparatively small and maligned Why should the less-popular kids beat the more-popular kids in a popularity contest?
Its like rooting for the big rich sports team to win. Yes, they should likely win, they spend all of the money on the best players with the best training, but when they have to pull out all of the stops to beat a significantly weaker underdog its just kind of sad.
|
On September 23 2021 01:42 Zambrah wrote:
The Big Kids is the Democrat Moderates as a bloc, theyre the ones by and large in charge of the Democrats as a party, the Progressive bloc is comparatively small and maligned Not to mention the little niggling fact that Bernie isn't even actually a Democrat.
Shockingly some in the Democratic party might not be thrilled about an outsider, even one that is somewhat aligned with their position, becoming the defacto head of the party.
|
Even if he was a Democrat in name they still wouldn't want him anywhere near the presidency
|
I think they "played dirty" but they also explicitly argued in court that they played clean and there was essentially no such thing as "dirty" anyway so it's a moot point really imo.
We could have—and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That’s not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right. I think the relevant part is connected to this
If I were a moderate-liberal, I would be quite pleased with the completely reasonable, normal strategy of making sure that all the moderate-liberals don't split their constituents
Democrats are a moderate party that chose a moderate leader (2 primaries in a row) who is governing with a moderate house and senate adopting a moderate strategy.
This is what "winning with moderates" is.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 23 2021 01:35 Zambrah wrote:
I think hes referring to the most recent primary, where all the moderates dropped out at the same time to consolidate behind Biden
Brainstorming about if they could use Bernie's religion against him isn't a bad example either. I know that most of the so-called "moderate" folks in the Democratic party would ride plausible deniability as far as it goes and insist that "the myth" of playing dirty needs to die, though.
|
On September 23 2021 01:58 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2021 01:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 23 2021 01:42 Zambrah wrote:
The Big Kids is the Democrat Moderates as a bloc, theyre the ones by and large in charge of the Democrats as a party, the Progressive bloc is comparatively small and maligned Why should the less-popular kids beat the more-popular kids in a popularity contest? Its like rooting for the big rich sports team to win. Yes, they should likely win, they spend all of the money on the best players with the best training, but when they have to pull out all of the stops to beat a significantly weaker underdog its just kind of sad.
"Pulling out all the stops" refers to... unifying voters who have a similar political alignment? That doesn't sound unfair. I wanted Bernie to win - I voted for him in the primary - but he simply didn't have the votes. We should find ways to appeal to more voters, instead of making excuses that Bernie lost because the establishment was being unfair by not throwing the election.
|
On September 23 2021 02:05 GreenHorizons wrote:I think they "played dirty" but they also explicitly argued in court that they played clean and there was essentially no such thing as "dirty" anyway so it's a moot point really imo. Show nested quote +We could have—and we could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. That’s not the way it was done. But they could have. And that would have also been their right. I think the relevant part is connected to this Show nested quote +If I were a moderate-liberal, I would be quite pleased with the completely reasonable, normal strategy of making sure that all the moderate-liberals don't split their constituents Democrats are a moderate party that chose a moderate leader (2 primaries in a row) who is governing with a moderate house and senate adopting a moderate strategy. This is what "winning with moderates" is.
I agree that that's what the Democratic party generally is, which is why it's not at all surprising that Bernie, a non-moderate, didn't win.
|
For everyone who ever defended Flynn, he is on shows promoting covid conspiracy theories. I remember a couple people here defending him, so I am grinning hard over here.
|
On September 23 2021 02:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2021 01:58 Zambrah wrote:On September 23 2021 01:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 23 2021 01:42 Zambrah wrote:
The Big Kids is the Democrat Moderates as a bloc, theyre the ones by and large in charge of the Democrats as a party, the Progressive bloc is comparatively small and maligned Why should the less-popular kids beat the more-popular kids in a popularity contest? Its like rooting for the big rich sports team to win. Yes, they should likely win, they spend all of the money on the best players with the best training, but when they have to pull out all of the stops to beat a significantly weaker underdog its just kind of sad. "Pulling out all the stops" refers to... unifying voters who have a similar political alignment? That doesn't sound unfair. I wanted Bernie to win - I voted for him in the primary - but he simply didn't have the votes. We should find ways to appeal to more voters, instead of making excuses that Bernie lost because the establishment was being unfair by not throwing the election.
Yes, all of the candidates that have their own unique appeals and charms (none of the moderates had these things imo, but theoretically they had these things to other people) and interest in being nominated as the candidate of the Democrats for the presidency dropping out in service of propping up one person is a shitty thing to do, we should want a wide contest where people only drop out when they're proven to be in a truly dead end campaign, not because the established bloc didn't like how their odds were looking.
The moderate Democrats had to pull a maneuver to drop out their serious candidates to consolidate behind one to beat an underdog, sorry but thats sad. Not to mention that if Bernie was such an impossibility to win then why did they have everyone drop out to beat him? His odds were probably still not great, but clearly they were good enough to force the Democrats to make a concerted effort to stop him.
I wish Democrats were willing to behave with this kind of procedural ruthlessness, oh, I dont know, maybe Republicans? Imagine that world, where they treated Republicans like that, we'd have an expanded Supreme Court that wasn't about to overturn Roe v. Wade, and have a Congress capable of passing good shit.
|
Email leaks show the Clinton campaign conspired with CNN and other major news networks to prop Clinton up, tear Bernie down, and push "weak" candidates in the GOP primary like Donald Trump, whom they literally called the pied piper. There was also the Nevada delegates fiasco in 2016. There's also the issue of the 2016 DNC selling a t-shirt with an anti-Semitic depiction of Bernie. The DNC also argued in court after the 2016 primary that they are allowed to rig their own elections.
If you don't think something shady happened in at least the 2016 Democratic primary, your head is in the sand.
|
On September 23 2021 03:45 StasisField wrote:
Email leaks show the Clinton campaign conspired with CNN and other major news networks to prop Clinton up, tear Bernie down, and push "weak" candidates in the GOP primary like Donald Trump, whom they literally called the pied piper. There was also the Nevada delegates fiasco in 2016. There's also the issue of the 2016 DNC selling a t-shirt with an anti-Semitic depiction of Bernie. The DNC also argued in court after the 2016 primary that they are allowed to rig their own elections.
If you don't think something shady happened in at least the 2016 Democratic primary, your head is in the sand.
Dumdums like to say “but it wasn’t illegal!!!” as if slavery didn’t used to be legal
|
On September 23 2021 03:45 StasisField wrote:
Email leaks show the Clinton campaign conspired with CNN and other major news networks to prop Clinton up, tear Bernie down, and push "weak" candidates in the GOP primary like Donald Trump, whom they literally called the pied piper. There was also the Nevada delegates fiasco in 2016. There's also the issue of the 2016 DNC selling a t-shirt with an anti-Semitic depiction of Bernie. The DNC also argued in court after the 2016 primary that they are allowed to rig their own elections.
If you don't think something shady happened in at least the 2016 Democratic primary, your head is in the sand.
What I'd like to hear from the progressive wing is if Bernie was cheated and it was this obvious why did he run in the democratic primary again in 2020?
The moderate Democrats had to pull a maneuver to drop out their serious candidates to consolidate behind one to beat an underdog, sorry but thats sad. Not to mention that if Bernie was such an impossibility to win then why did they have everyone drop out to beat him? His odds were probably still not great, but clearly they were good enough to force the Democrats to make a concerted effort to stop him.
The democrats consolidated behind one candidate so they didn't end up like the Republicans in 2016 with Trump beating out a split vote between Cruz, Kasich, and Rubio.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
