|
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 |
In Minnesota I just mailed in my ballot and was able to vote on both sides of the primary.
|
So a quick review of the rules(below) shows that if you vote for candidates from both parties, you vote isn’t counted.
https://www.sos.state.mn.us/elections-voting/how-elections-work/primary-election/
Partisan offices
Partisan offices will list a political party next to a candidate’s name on the ballot. All state and federal offices—such as U.S. representative or Minnesota senator—are partisan offices.
Partisan candidates will be listed in two columns on the front side of the primary ballot. One column will list the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party candidates. The other column will list the Republican Party candidates.
You can only vote for candidates from one political party. If you vote for candidates from both political parties, your votes will not count. You decide which one of the two parties you will vote for—Minnesota does not have political party registration.
Nonpartisan offices
Nonpartisan offices will not list a political party next to a candidate’s name on the ballot. For example, county, city, township and school board offices are nonpartisan.
Nonpartisan offices will be listed on the back side of the primary ballot. You can vote for any candidate. The candidates who get the most votes will be on the November general election ballot.
So I hope you stuck to one party or you could be bummed out.
|
On August 01 2018 03:25 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2018 03:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 01 2018 02:49 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 02:18 Dan HH wrote:On August 01 2018 01:54 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 01:47 Dan HH wrote:On August 01 2018 01:28 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 01:22 Dan HH wrote:On August 01 2018 00:35 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 00:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
This is the most pathetic possible excuse. Democrats are already pretty ineffective, going with "democrats have no influence over other democrats" is really grasping at straws at this point.
The party supports these mega donor set ups. No reason to suggest otherwise. They don’t. Political parties do not have any real power beyond the offices they are running for. They can’t kick out a candidate. They can’t tell them how to run their campaign. They can deny money, which isn’t that helpful if the candidate is getting more money from folks like the Kochs. They don’t control these candidates, especially when there are so many ways for a candidate to get funding to run their campaign these days. What would stop a party from kicking a member out and having someone else run as that party's candidate for that office? I get them preferring to turn a blind eye instead of losing an office but that's not the same as having no say over who runs under your name. The primaries are over, how do you kick someone out of the party? They can't legally remove them from the ballot. They can't legally change the ballot. They can't have someone else hold the party standard, what was what the primary was for. The political parties in the US are open facing, anyone can join and there is no system in place for revoking membership. If they could, the Republicans wouldn't have a Nazi running under their banner in the 2018 elections. Usually by voting on it, isn't that entirely up to a party's internal rules? Seems unlikely to me that there would be a law stopping political parties in the US from kicking members out, but it's possible so that's why I asked that question. In most places a party member can be removed at any point, even while in office, no office require someone to be a member of a party or to not change party membership. Sure, parties prefer to do that before submitting their candidates, but I think GH meant that these people should have been removed a long time ago not in the last moment before an election. Ok, let me put this another way. No one in the US has any power to remove anyone from a political party. There is no system in place to remove or add anyone, legally or otherwise. If someone says they are a Republican, they are a Republican. If someone says they are a Democrat, they are a Democrat. That is the entire system. Do you not have party registration? Without it you could for example vote in the primaries of both parties for the same office. It seems logical that you'd have to be registered to a party in order to have a say in their affairs. That's where the room for revoking someone's membership would be if parties were inclined to give themselves this ability. Many states have open primaries and anyone can vote for either party. The logical system that you are talking about does not exist in many states in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primaryWe have 50 different states, all who have their own rules, systems and even vote on different days. Each state party oversees how these primaries take place, with assistance from the state government. They can decide if the primary is open, closed and so on. The national party has limited say in how the state conducts itself. Our political parties are far more fragmented that the EU parties, mostly due to the size of our country and the nature of our government. I mean you know that my point has never been about "removing them from the party", if you don't play ball the party shoves you into useless committees, your legislation can never get cosponsors, if it does it never leaves committee, and so on and so on. The whole argument for the futility of third parties rests on the absolute control the 2 parties have on the system even if you elect a handful of third party people around the country. They don't need to kick someone out of the party, they can just make being a member have no benefit for them and they leave of their own accord. The bottom line is that taking Koch money is less disruptive to Democrat party hegemony than backing universal healthcare. Trying to make it seem the opposite is just disingenuous. Thanks caption obvious. One is passing sweeping legislation that will impact one of the largest parts of the US economy and has been the political third rail for politics for almost a decade. The other one is accepting a check form two rich dudes that suck. I don’t like the Koch brothers and don’t intend on voting for anyone that accepts money from them. But the national party leadership can’t do shit to anyone who accepts money from them.
Accepting money from the koch brothers used to be one of the worst things Democrats saw Republicans do, now it's just something politicians do. Get some koch money.
They could at least make as big a deal about it as they do when Republicans do it.
But that would require them to have some sort of sincere objection to these mega donors and their influence. But they don't. So can we stop pretending the reason they won't do anything is because they're even more powerless than they are?
Democrats support the system of mega donors. The last 2 years have been fighting over it and the party leaders fought tooth and nail to keep the influence of mega donors around. Stop making excuses for them, or make better ones at least.
|
On August 01 2018 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2018 03:25 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 03:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 01 2018 02:49 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 02:18 Dan HH wrote:On August 01 2018 01:54 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 01:47 Dan HH wrote:On August 01 2018 01:28 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 01:22 Dan HH wrote:On August 01 2018 00:35 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
They don’t. Political parties do not have any real power beyond the offices they are running for. They can’t kick out a candidate. They can’t tell them how to run their campaign. They can deny money, which isn’t that helpful if the candidate is getting more money from folks like the Kochs. They don’t control these candidates, especially when there are so many ways for a candidate to get funding to run their campaign these days. What would stop a party from kicking a member out and having someone else run as that party's candidate for that office? I get them preferring to turn a blind eye instead of losing an office but that's not the same as having no say over who runs under your name. The primaries are over, how do you kick someone out of the party? They can't legally remove them from the ballot. They can't legally change the ballot. They can't have someone else hold the party standard, what was what the primary was for. The political parties in the US are open facing, anyone can join and there is no system in place for revoking membership. If they could, the Republicans wouldn't have a Nazi running under their banner in the 2018 elections. Usually by voting on it, isn't that entirely up to a party's internal rules? Seems unlikely to me that there would be a law stopping political parties in the US from kicking members out, but it's possible so that's why I asked that question. In most places a party member can be removed at any point, even while in office, no office require someone to be a member of a party or to not change party membership. Sure, parties prefer to do that before submitting their candidates, but I think GH meant that these people should have been removed a long time ago not in the last moment before an election. Ok, let me put this another way. No one in the US has any power to remove anyone from a political party. There is no system in place to remove or add anyone, legally or otherwise. If someone says they are a Republican, they are a Republican. If someone says they are a Democrat, they are a Democrat. That is the entire system. Do you not have party registration? Without it you could for example vote in the primaries of both parties for the same office. It seems logical that you'd have to be registered to a party in order to have a say in their affairs. That's where the room for revoking someone's membership would be if parties were inclined to give themselves this ability. Many states have open primaries and anyone can vote for either party. The logical system that you are talking about does not exist in many states in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primaryWe have 50 different states, all who have their own rules, systems and even vote on different days. Each state party oversees how these primaries take place, with assistance from the state government. They can decide if the primary is open, closed and so on. The national party has limited say in how the state conducts itself. Our political parties are far more fragmented that the EU parties, mostly due to the size of our country and the nature of our government. I mean you know that my point has never been about "removing them from the party", if you don't play ball the party shoves you into useless committees, your legislation can never get cosponsors, if it does it never leaves committee, and so on and so on. The whole argument for the futility of third parties rests on the absolute control the 2 parties have on the system even if you elect a handful of third party people around the country. They don't need to kick someone out of the party, they can just make being a member have no benefit for them and they leave of their own accord. The bottom line is that taking Koch money is less disruptive to Democrat party hegemony than backing universal healthcare. Trying to make it seem the opposite is just disingenuous. Thanks caption obvious. One is passing sweeping legislation that will impact one of the largest parts of the US economy and has been the political third rail for politics for almost a decade. The other one is accepting a check form two rich dudes that suck. I don’t like the Koch brothers and don’t intend on voting for anyone that accepts money from them. But the national party leadership can’t do shit to anyone who accepts money from them. Accepting money from the koch brothers used to be one of the worst things Democrats saw Republicans do, now it's just something politicians do. Get some koch money. They could at least make as big a deal about it as they do when Republicans do it. But that would require them to have some sort of sincere objection to these mega donors and their influence. But they don't. So can we stop pretending the reason they won't do anything is because they're even more powerless than they are? Democrats support the system of mega donors. The last 2 years have been fighting over it and the party leaders fought tooth and nail to keep the influence of mega donors around. Stop making excuses for them, or make better ones at least.
The vast majority of Americans don’t know or care who the Kochs, Mercers or any of these other billionaires are. It isn’t a issue that has impacted voters for the last 3 elections. I’m not making excuses, I’m telling you that no one in the US gives a fuck. Or not enough of a fuck to change their votes.
|
I'd wager that the Bernie/Ocasio-Cortez inspired wave that's coming may change your mind on that front 
|
On August 01 2018 04:44 farvacola wrote:I'd wager that the Bernie/Ocasio-Cortez inspired wave that's coming may change your mind on that front
Bring me that wave and then we can pick that fight. I’ll show up. But I am so tired of the calls for Democrats to stab themselves in the leg right before the race. Refuse the Koch money, win and then tell the rest of the party to get with the program. In that order. Save the internal grudge matches for after the election.
|
On August 01 2018 04:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2018 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 01 2018 03:25 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 03:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 01 2018 02:49 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 02:18 Dan HH wrote:On August 01 2018 01:54 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 01:47 Dan HH wrote:On August 01 2018 01:28 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 01:22 Dan HH wrote:
[quote]
What would stop a party from kicking a member out and having someone else run as that party's candidate for that office? I get them preferring to turn a blind eye instead of losing an office but that's not the same as having no say over who runs under your name. The primaries are over, how do you kick someone out of the party? They can't legally remove them from the ballot. They can't legally change the ballot. They can't have someone else hold the party standard, what was what the primary was for. The political parties in the US are open facing, anyone can join and there is no system in place for revoking membership. If they could, the Republicans wouldn't have a Nazi running under their banner in the 2018 elections. Usually by voting on it, isn't that entirely up to a party's internal rules? Seems unlikely to me that there would be a law stopping political parties in the US from kicking members out, but it's possible so that's why I asked that question. In most places a party member can be removed at any point, even while in office, no office require someone to be a member of a party or to not change party membership. Sure, parties prefer to do that before submitting their candidates, but I think GH meant that these people should have been removed a long time ago not in the last moment before an election. Ok, let me put this another way. No one in the US has any power to remove anyone from a political party. There is no system in place to remove or add anyone, legally or otherwise. If someone says they are a Republican, they are a Republican. If someone says they are a Democrat, they are a Democrat. That is the entire system. Do you not have party registration? Without it you could for example vote in the primaries of both parties for the same office. It seems logical that you'd have to be registered to a party in order to have a say in their affairs. That's where the room for revoking someone's membership would be if parties were inclined to give themselves this ability. Many states have open primaries and anyone can vote for either party. The logical system that you are talking about does not exist in many states in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primaryWe have 50 different states, all who have their own rules, systems and even vote on different days. Each state party oversees how these primaries take place, with assistance from the state government. They can decide if the primary is open, closed and so on. The national party has limited say in how the state conducts itself. Our political parties are far more fragmented that the EU parties, mostly due to the size of our country and the nature of our government. I mean you know that my point has never been about "removing them from the party", if you don't play ball the party shoves you into useless committees, your legislation can never get cosponsors, if it does it never leaves committee, and so on and so on. The whole argument for the futility of third parties rests on the absolute control the 2 parties have on the system even if you elect a handful of third party people around the country. They don't need to kick someone out of the party, they can just make being a member have no benefit for them and they leave of their own accord. The bottom line is that taking Koch money is less disruptive to Democrat party hegemony than backing universal healthcare. Trying to make it seem the opposite is just disingenuous. Thanks caption obvious. One is passing sweeping legislation that will impact one of the largest parts of the US economy and has been the political third rail for politics for almost a decade. The other one is accepting a check form two rich dudes that suck. I don’t like the Koch brothers and don’t intend on voting for anyone that accepts money from them. But the national party leadership can’t do shit to anyone who accepts money from them. Accepting money from the koch brothers used to be one of the worst things Democrats saw Republicans do, now it's just something politicians do. Get some koch money. They could at least make as big a deal about it as they do when Republicans do it. But that would require them to have some sort of sincere objection to these mega donors and their influence. But they don't. So can we stop pretending the reason they won't do anything is because they're even more powerless than they are? Democrats support the system of mega donors. The last 2 years have been fighting over it and the party leaders fought tooth and nail to keep the influence of mega donors around. Stop making excuses for them, or make better ones at least. The vast majority of Americans don’t know or care who the Kochs, Mercers or any of these other billionaires are. It isn’t a issue that has impacted voters for the last 3 elections. I’m not making excuses, I’m telling you that no one in the US gives a fuck. Or not enough of a fuck to change their votes.
People care, they just know that neither party wants to stop it. Except those that continue to make excuses like yourself. You seem to still be buying the lip service from Democrats about not liking the mega donors they literally fought tooth and nail to keep.
|
Have any Democrats said they would take Koch money or is this all theoretical?
|
On August 01 2018 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2018 04:43 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 01 2018 03:25 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 03:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 01 2018 02:49 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 02:18 Dan HH wrote:On August 01 2018 01:54 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 01:47 Dan HH wrote:On August 01 2018 01:28 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
The primaries are over, how do you kick someone out of the party? They can't legally remove them from the ballot. They can't legally change the ballot. They can't have someone else hold the party standard, what was what the primary was for. The political parties in the US are open facing, anyone can join and there is no system in place for revoking membership. If they could, the Republicans wouldn't have a Nazi running under their banner in the 2018 elections. Usually by voting on it, isn't that entirely up to a party's internal rules? Seems unlikely to me that there would be a law stopping political parties in the US from kicking members out, but it's possible so that's why I asked that question. In most places a party member can be removed at any point, even while in office, no office require someone to be a member of a party or to not change party membership. Sure, parties prefer to do that before submitting their candidates, but I think GH meant that these people should have been removed a long time ago not in the last moment before an election. Ok, let me put this another way. No one in the US has any power to remove anyone from a political party. There is no system in place to remove or add anyone, legally or otherwise. If someone says they are a Republican, they are a Republican. If someone says they are a Democrat, they are a Democrat. That is the entire system. Do you not have party registration? Without it you could for example vote in the primaries of both parties for the same office. It seems logical that you'd have to be registered to a party in order to have a say in their affairs. That's where the room for revoking someone's membership would be if parties were inclined to give themselves this ability. Many states have open primaries and anyone can vote for either party. The logical system that you are talking about does not exist in many states in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primaryWe have 50 different states, all who have their own rules, systems and even vote on different days. Each state party oversees how these primaries take place, with assistance from the state government. They can decide if the primary is open, closed and so on. The national party has limited say in how the state conducts itself. Our political parties are far more fragmented that the EU parties, mostly due to the size of our country and the nature of our government. I mean you know that my point has never been about "removing them from the party", if you don't play ball the party shoves you into useless committees, your legislation can never get cosponsors, if it does it never leaves committee, and so on and so on. The whole argument for the futility of third parties rests on the absolute control the 2 parties have on the system even if you elect a handful of third party people around the country. They don't need to kick someone out of the party, they can just make being a member have no benefit for them and they leave of their own accord. The bottom line is that taking Koch money is less disruptive to Democrat party hegemony than backing universal healthcare. Trying to make it seem the opposite is just disingenuous. Thanks caption obvious. One is passing sweeping legislation that will impact one of the largest parts of the US economy and has been the political third rail for politics for almost a decade. The other one is accepting a check form two rich dudes that suck. I don’t like the Koch brothers and don’t intend on voting for anyone that accepts money from them. But the national party leadership can’t do shit to anyone who accepts money from them. Accepting money from the koch brothers used to be one of the worst things Democrats saw Republicans do, now it's just something politicians do. Get some koch money. They could at least make as big a deal about it as they do when Republicans do it. But that would require them to have some sort of sincere objection to these mega donors and their influence. But they don't. So can we stop pretending the reason they won't do anything is because they're even more powerless than they are? Democrats support the system of mega donors. The last 2 years have been fighting over it and the party leaders fought tooth and nail to keep the influence of mega donors around. Stop making excuses for them, or make better ones at least. The vast majority of Americans don’t know or care who the Kochs, Mercers or any of these other billionaires are. It isn’t a issue that has impacted voters for the last 3 elections. I’m not making excuses, I’m telling you that no one in the US gives a fuck. Or not enough of a fuck to change their votes. People care, they just know that neither party wants to stop it. Except those that continue to make excuses like yourself.
People 100% don't care. The dems made huge parts of elections about how bad the Kochs were... they got crushed
|
On August 01 2018 05:22 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2018 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 01 2018 04:43 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 01 2018 03:25 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 03:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 01 2018 02:49 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 02:18 Dan HH wrote:On August 01 2018 01:54 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 01:47 Dan HH wrote:
[quote]
Usually by voting on it, isn't that entirely up to a party's internal rules? Seems unlikely to me that there would be a law stopping political parties in the US from kicking members out, but it's possible so that's why I asked that question.
In most places a party member can be removed at any point, even while in office, no office require someone to be a member of a party or to not change party membership. Sure, parties prefer to do that before submitting their candidates, but I think GH meant that these people should have been removed a long time ago not in the last moment before an election. Ok, let me put this another way. No one in the US has any power to remove anyone from a political party. There is no system in place to remove or add anyone, legally or otherwise. If someone says they are a Republican, they are a Republican. If someone says they are a Democrat, they are a Democrat. That is the entire system. Do you not have party registration? Without it you could for example vote in the primaries of both parties for the same office. It seems logical that you'd have to be registered to a party in order to have a say in their affairs. That's where the room for revoking someone's membership would be if parties were inclined to give themselves this ability. Many states have open primaries and anyone can vote for either party. The logical system that you are talking about does not exist in many states in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primaryWe have 50 different states, all who have their own rules, systems and even vote on different days. Each state party oversees how these primaries take place, with assistance from the state government. They can decide if the primary is open, closed and so on. The national party has limited say in how the state conducts itself. Our political parties are far more fragmented that the EU parties, mostly due to the size of our country and the nature of our government. I mean you know that my point has never been about "removing them from the party", if you don't play ball the party shoves you into useless committees, your legislation can never get cosponsors, if it does it never leaves committee, and so on and so on. The whole argument for the futility of third parties rests on the absolute control the 2 parties have on the system even if you elect a handful of third party people around the country. They don't need to kick someone out of the party, they can just make being a member have no benefit for them and they leave of their own accord. The bottom line is that taking Koch money is less disruptive to Democrat party hegemony than backing universal healthcare. Trying to make it seem the opposite is just disingenuous. Thanks caption obvious. One is passing sweeping legislation that will impact one of the largest parts of the US economy and has been the political third rail for politics for almost a decade. The other one is accepting a check form two rich dudes that suck. I don’t like the Koch brothers and don’t intend on voting for anyone that accepts money from them. But the national party leadership can’t do shit to anyone who accepts money from them. Accepting money from the koch brothers used to be one of the worst things Democrats saw Republicans do, now it's just something politicians do. Get some koch money. They could at least make as big a deal about it as they do when Republicans do it. But that would require them to have some sort of sincere objection to these mega donors and their influence. But they don't. So can we stop pretending the reason they won't do anything is because they're even more powerless than they are? Democrats support the system of mega donors. The last 2 years have been fighting over it and the party leaders fought tooth and nail to keep the influence of mega donors around. Stop making excuses for them, or make better ones at least. The vast majority of Americans don’t know or care who the Kochs, Mercers or any of these other billionaires are. It isn’t a issue that has impacted voters for the last 3 elections. I’m not making excuses, I’m telling you that no one in the US gives a fuck. Or not enough of a fuck to change their votes. People care, they just know that neither party wants to stop it. Except those that continue to make excuses like yourself. People 100% don't care. The dems made huge parts of elections about how bad the Kochs were... they got crushed
They absolutely care, they don't want Soros or Kochs not the petty partisan bullshit that just doesn't want the other party to have billionaire sponsors.
This is what the Democrats seem to stubbornly refuse to understand.
On August 01 2018 05:22 Mercy13 wrote:
Have any Democrats said they would take Koch money or is this all theoretical?
They have for a while.
|
On August 01 2018 05:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2018 05:22 IyMoon wrote:On August 01 2018 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 01 2018 04:43 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 01 2018 03:25 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 03:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 01 2018 02:49 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 02:18 Dan HH wrote:On August 01 2018 01:54 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Ok, let me put this another way.
No one in the US has any power to remove anyone from a political party. There is no system in place to remove or add anyone, legally or otherwise. If someone says they are a Republican, they are a Republican. If someone says they are a Democrat, they are a Democrat. That is the entire system. Do you not have party registration? Without it you could for example vote in the primaries of both parties for the same office. It seems logical that you'd have to be registered to a party in order to have a say in their affairs. That's where the room for revoking someone's membership would be if parties were inclined to give themselves this ability. Many states have open primaries and anyone can vote for either party. The logical system that you are talking about does not exist in many states in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primaryWe have 50 different states, all who have their own rules, systems and even vote on different days. Each state party oversees how these primaries take place, with assistance from the state government. They can decide if the primary is open, closed and so on. The national party has limited say in how the state conducts itself. Our political parties are far more fragmented that the EU parties, mostly due to the size of our country and the nature of our government. I mean you know that my point has never been about "removing them from the party", if you don't play ball the party shoves you into useless committees, your legislation can never get cosponsors, if it does it never leaves committee, and so on and so on. The whole argument for the futility of third parties rests on the absolute control the 2 parties have on the system even if you elect a handful of third party people around the country. They don't need to kick someone out of the party, they can just make being a member have no benefit for them and they leave of their own accord. The bottom line is that taking Koch money is less disruptive to Democrat party hegemony than backing universal healthcare. Trying to make it seem the opposite is just disingenuous. Thanks caption obvious. One is passing sweeping legislation that will impact one of the largest parts of the US economy and has been the political third rail for politics for almost a decade. The other one is accepting a check form two rich dudes that suck. I don’t like the Koch brothers and don’t intend on voting for anyone that accepts money from them. But the national party leadership can’t do shit to anyone who accepts money from them. Accepting money from the koch brothers used to be one of the worst things Democrats saw Republicans do, now it's just something politicians do. Get some koch money. They could at least make as big a deal about it as they do when Republicans do it. But that would require them to have some sort of sincere objection to these mega donors and their influence. But they don't. So can we stop pretending the reason they won't do anything is because they're even more powerless than they are? Democrats support the system of mega donors. The last 2 years have been fighting over it and the party leaders fought tooth and nail to keep the influence of mega donors around. Stop making excuses for them, or make better ones at least. The vast majority of Americans don’t know or care who the Kochs, Mercers or any of these other billionaires are. It isn’t a issue that has impacted voters for the last 3 elections. I’m not making excuses, I’m telling you that no one in the US gives a fuck. Or not enough of a fuck to change their votes. People care, they just know that neither party wants to stop it. Except those that continue to make excuses like yourself. People 100% don't care. The dems made huge parts of elections about how bad the Kochs were... they got crushed They absolutely care, they don't want Soros or Kochs not the petty partisan bullshit that just doesn't want the other party to have billionaire sponsors. This is what the Democrats seem to stubbornly refuse to understand. Show nested quote +On August 01 2018 05:22 Mercy13 wrote:
Have any Democrats said they would take Koch money or is this all theoretical? They have for a while.
Let me rephrase... Nobody who doesn't actively follow politics cares. I bet I could ask 20 of my friends who all vote, but don't get active who the Kochs are and maybe 3 would know
|
On August 01 2018 05:22 Mercy13 wrote:
Have any Democrats said they would take Koch money or is this all theoretical?
The Kochs have been threatening to support the Democrats and push the democrats to fight against progressives(more than current) and people who want to regulate the banking industry. They are not happy with the Republicans and Trump’s trade practices.
I doubt the Democrats bite as a whole, but there are a few that might take them up of the offer. All candidates raise money for their own election bids, so no one can stop them from taking it. Its rich people throwing their money around and trying people to take it.
|
On August 01 2018 05:26 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2018 05:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 01 2018 05:22 IyMoon wrote:On August 01 2018 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 01 2018 04:43 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 01 2018 03:25 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 03:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 01 2018 02:49 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 02:18 Dan HH wrote:
[quote]
Do you not have party registration? Without it you could for example vote in the primaries of both parties for the same office. It seems logical that you'd have to be registered to a party in order to have a say in their affairs. That's where the room for revoking someone's membership would be if parties were inclined to give themselves this ability. Many states have open primaries and anyone can vote for either party. The logical system that you are talking about does not exist in many states in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primaryWe have 50 different states, all who have their own rules, systems and even vote on different days. Each state party oversees how these primaries take place, with assistance from the state government. They can decide if the primary is open, closed and so on. The national party has limited say in how the state conducts itself. Our political parties are far more fragmented that the EU parties, mostly due to the size of our country and the nature of our government. I mean you know that my point has never been about "removing them from the party", if you don't play ball the party shoves you into useless committees, your legislation can never get cosponsors, if it does it never leaves committee, and so on and so on. The whole argument for the futility of third parties rests on the absolute control the 2 parties have on the system even if you elect a handful of third party people around the country. They don't need to kick someone out of the party, they can just make being a member have no benefit for them and they leave of their own accord. The bottom line is that taking Koch money is less disruptive to Democrat party hegemony than backing universal healthcare. Trying to make it seem the opposite is just disingenuous. Thanks caption obvious. One is passing sweeping legislation that will impact one of the largest parts of the US economy and has been the political third rail for politics for almost a decade. The other one is accepting a check form two rich dudes that suck. I don’t like the Koch brothers and don’t intend on voting for anyone that accepts money from them. But the national party leadership can’t do shit to anyone who accepts money from them. Accepting money from the koch brothers used to be one of the worst things Democrats saw Republicans do, now it's just something politicians do. Get some koch money. They could at least make as big a deal about it as they do when Republicans do it. But that would require them to have some sort of sincere objection to these mega donors and their influence. But they don't. So can we stop pretending the reason they won't do anything is because they're even more powerless than they are? Democrats support the system of mega donors. The last 2 years have been fighting over it and the party leaders fought tooth and nail to keep the influence of mega donors around. Stop making excuses for them, or make better ones at least. The vast majority of Americans don’t know or care who the Kochs, Mercers or any of these other billionaires are. It isn’t a issue that has impacted voters for the last 3 elections. I’m not making excuses, I’m telling you that no one in the US gives a fuck. Or not enough of a fuck to change their votes. People care, they just know that neither party wants to stop it. Except those that continue to make excuses like yourself. People 100% don't care. The dems made huge parts of elections about how bad the Kochs were... they got crushed They absolutely care, they don't want Soros or Kochs not the petty partisan bullshit that just doesn't want the other party to have billionaire sponsors. This is what the Democrats seem to stubbornly refuse to understand. On August 01 2018 05:22 Mercy13 wrote:
Have any Democrats said they would take Koch money or is this all theoretical? They have for a while. Let me rephrase... Nobody who doesn't actively follow politics cares. I bet I could ask 20 of my friends who all vote, but don't get active who the Kochs are and maybe 3 would know
That there is a small group of people with oversized fortune and influence and that it comes at the cost of exploitation and oppression of the many is one of the most simple and straightforward arguments to make.
People can tell right away that neither party has any intention (all of you have said as much countless times here) to change the system they are dependent on, be it fptp, or money in politics.
So given they can't vote third party (else it be a waste), and neither party has any intention of changing the status quo, what's left?
The circular, treadmill like rhetoric you guys regurgitate in defense of a system that chucked you overboard 30 years ago blows my mind.
|
On August 01 2018 05:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2018 05:26 IyMoon wrote:On August 01 2018 05:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 01 2018 05:22 IyMoon wrote:On August 01 2018 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 01 2018 04:43 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 01 2018 03:25 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 03:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 01 2018 02:49 Plansix wrote:[quote] Many states have open primaries and anyone can vote for either party. The logical system that you are talking about does not exist in many states in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primaryWe have 50 different states, all who have their own rules, systems and even vote on different days. Each state party oversees how these primaries take place, with assistance from the state government. They can decide if the primary is open, closed and so on. The national party has limited say in how the state conducts itself. Our political parties are far more fragmented that the EU parties, mostly due to the size of our country and the nature of our government. I mean you know that my point has never been about "removing them from the party", if you don't play ball the party shoves you into useless committees, your legislation can never get cosponsors, if it does it never leaves committee, and so on and so on. The whole argument for the futility of third parties rests on the absolute control the 2 parties have on the system even if you elect a handful of third party people around the country. They don't need to kick someone out of the party, they can just make being a member have no benefit for them and they leave of their own accord. The bottom line is that taking Koch money is less disruptive to Democrat party hegemony than backing universal healthcare. Trying to make it seem the opposite is just disingenuous. Thanks caption obvious. One is passing sweeping legislation that will impact one of the largest parts of the US economy and has been the political third rail for politics for almost a decade. The other one is accepting a check form two rich dudes that suck. I don’t like the Koch brothers and don’t intend on voting for anyone that accepts money from them. But the national party leadership can’t do shit to anyone who accepts money from them. Accepting money from the koch brothers used to be one of the worst things Democrats saw Republicans do, now it's just something politicians do. Get some koch money. They could at least make as big a deal about it as they do when Republicans do it. But that would require them to have some sort of sincere objection to these mega donors and their influence. But they don't. So can we stop pretending the reason they won't do anything is because they're even more powerless than they are? Democrats support the system of mega donors. The last 2 years have been fighting over it and the party leaders fought tooth and nail to keep the influence of mega donors around. Stop making excuses for them, or make better ones at least. The vast majority of Americans don’t know or care who the Kochs, Mercers or any of these other billionaires are. It isn’t a issue that has impacted voters for the last 3 elections. I’m not making excuses, I’m telling you that no one in the US gives a fuck. Or not enough of a fuck to change their votes. People care, they just know that neither party wants to stop it. Except those that continue to make excuses like yourself. People 100% don't care. The dems made huge parts of elections about how bad the Kochs were... they got crushed They absolutely care, they don't want Soros or Kochs not the petty partisan bullshit that just doesn't want the other party to have billionaire sponsors. This is what the Democrats seem to stubbornly refuse to understand. On August 01 2018 05:22 Mercy13 wrote:
Have any Democrats said they would take Koch money or is this all theoretical? They have for a while. Let me rephrase... Nobody who doesn't actively follow politics cares. I bet I could ask 20 of my friends who all vote, but don't get active who the Kochs are and maybe 3 would know That there is a small group of people with oversized fortune and influence and that it comes at the cost of exploitation and oppression of the many is one of the most simple and straightforward arguments to make. People can tell right away that neither party has any intention (all of you have said as much countless times here) to change the system they are dependent on, be it fptp, or money in politics. So given they can't vote third party (else it be a waste), and neither party has any intention of changing the status quo, what's left? The circular, treadmill like rhetoric you guys regurgitate in defense of a system that chucked you overboard 30 years ago blows my mind.
Since when did I defend it? I was just saying the real world doesn't care
|
On August 01 2018 05:36 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2018 05:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 01 2018 05:26 IyMoon wrote:On August 01 2018 05:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 01 2018 05:22 IyMoon wrote:On August 01 2018 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 01 2018 04:43 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 04:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 01 2018 03:25 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 03:06 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I mean you know that my point has never been about "removing them from the party", if you don't play ball the party shoves you into useless committees, your legislation can never get cosponsors, if it does it never leaves committee, and so on and so on. The whole argument for the futility of third parties rests on the absolute control the 2 parties have on the system even if you elect a handful of third party people around the country.
They don't need to kick someone out of the party, they can just make being a member have no benefit for them and they leave of their own accord.
The bottom line is that taking Koch money is less disruptive to Democrat party hegemony than backing universal healthcare. Trying to make it seem the opposite is just disingenuous. Thanks caption obvious. One is passing sweeping legislation that will impact one of the largest parts of the US economy and has been the political third rail for politics for almost a decade. The other one is accepting a check form two rich dudes that suck. I don’t like the Koch brothers and don’t intend on voting for anyone that accepts money from them. But the national party leadership can’t do shit to anyone who accepts money from them. Accepting money from the koch brothers used to be one of the worst things Democrats saw Republicans do, now it's just something politicians do. Get some koch money. They could at least make as big a deal about it as they do when Republicans do it. But that would require them to have some sort of sincere objection to these mega donors and their influence. But they don't. So can we stop pretending the reason they won't do anything is because they're even more powerless than they are? Democrats support the system of mega donors. The last 2 years have been fighting over it and the party leaders fought tooth and nail to keep the influence of mega donors around. Stop making excuses for them, or make better ones at least. The vast majority of Americans don’t know or care who the Kochs, Mercers or any of these other billionaires are. It isn’t a issue that has impacted voters for the last 3 elections. I’m not making excuses, I’m telling you that no one in the US gives a fuck. Or not enough of a fuck to change their votes. People care, they just know that neither party wants to stop it. Except those that continue to make excuses like yourself. People 100% don't care. The dems made huge parts of elections about how bad the Kochs were... they got crushed They absolutely care, they don't want Soros or Kochs not the petty partisan bullshit that just doesn't want the other party to have billionaire sponsors. This is what the Democrats seem to stubbornly refuse to understand. On August 01 2018 05:22 Mercy13 wrote:
Have any Democrats said they would take Koch money or is this all theoretical? They have for a while. Let me rephrase... Nobody who doesn't actively follow politics cares. I bet I could ask 20 of my friends who all vote, but don't get active who the Kochs are and maybe 3 would know That there is a small group of people with oversized fortune and influence and that it comes at the cost of exploitation and oppression of the many is one of the most simple and straightforward arguments to make. People can tell right away that neither party has any intention (all of you have said as much countless times here) to change the system they are dependent on, be it fptp, or money in politics. So given they can't vote third party (else it be a waste), and neither party has any intention of changing the status quo, what's left? The circular, treadmill like rhetoric you guys regurgitate in defense of a system that chucked you overboard 30 years ago blows my mind. Since when did I defend it? I was just saying the real world doesn't care
They do care. There's nothing they can do according to liberals/Democrats.
|
On August 01 2018 05:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2018 05:22 Mercy13 wrote:
Have any Democrats said they would take Koch money or is this all theoretical? The Kochs have been threatening to support the Democrats and push the democrats to fight against progressives(more than current) and people who want to regulate the banking industry. They are not happy with the Republicans and Trump’s trade practices. I doubt the Democrats bite as a whole, but there are a few that might take them up of the offer. All candidates raise money for their own election bids, so no one can stop them from taking it. Its rich people throwing their money around and trying people to take it.
personally i'd take the money, then after the election i'd block the david koch's phone number. the way i see it, money is money, it's how you spend it that matters.
|
On August 01 2018 05:44 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2018 05:27 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 05:22 Mercy13 wrote:
Have any Democrats said they would take Koch money or is this all theoretical? The Kochs have been threatening to support the Democrats and push the democrats to fight against progressives(more than current) and people who want to regulate the banking industry. They are not happy with the Republicans and Trump’s trade practices. I doubt the Democrats bite as a whole, but there are a few that might take them up of the offer. All candidates raise money for their own election bids, so no one can stop them from taking it. Its rich people throwing their money around and trying people to take it. personally i'd take the money, then after the election i'd block the david koch's phone number. the way i see it, money is money, it's how you spend it that matters.
How can you justify fighting AGAINST corporate interests to your constituents while taking corporate money? If you can't win without that money, you either have to accept losing until the country is sick to death of the other side, or compromise on why you're running for office in the first place. The latter choice precipitates a race to the bottom.
|
On August 01 2018 05:47 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2018 05:44 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 01 2018 05:27 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 05:22 Mercy13 wrote:
Have any Democrats said they would take Koch money or is this all theoretical? The Kochs have been threatening to support the Democrats and push the democrats to fight against progressives(more than current) and people who want to regulate the banking industry. They are not happy with the Republicans and Trump’s trade practices. I doubt the Democrats bite as a whole, but there are a few that might take them up of the offer. All candidates raise money for their own election bids, so no one can stop them from taking it. Its rich people throwing their money around and trying people to take it. personally i'd take the money, then after the election i'd block the david koch's phone number. the way i see it, money is money, it's how you spend it that matters. How can you justify fighting AGAINST corporate interests to your constituents while taking corporate money? If you can't win without that money, you either have to accept losing until the country is sick to death of the other side, or compromise on why you're running for office in the first place. The latter choice precipitates a race to the bottom.
I’m going to bet he is joking and doesn’t believe that is a viable plan. Its kinda funny to think about, however.
|
On August 01 2018 05:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2018 05:47 kollin wrote:On August 01 2018 05:44 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 01 2018 05:27 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 05:22 Mercy13 wrote:
Have any Democrats said they would take Koch money or is this all theoretical? The Kochs have been threatening to support the Democrats and push the democrats to fight against progressives(more than current) and people who want to regulate the banking industry. They are not happy with the Republicans and Trump’s trade practices. I doubt the Democrats bite as a whole, but there are a few that might take them up of the offer. All candidates raise money for their own election bids, so no one can stop them from taking it. Its rich people throwing their money around and trying people to take it. personally i'd take the money, then after the election i'd block the david koch's phone number. the way i see it, money is money, it's how you spend it that matters. How can you justify fighting AGAINST corporate interests to your constituents while taking corporate money? If you can't win without that money, you either have to accept losing until the country is sick to death of the other side, or compromise on why you're running for office in the first place. The latter choice precipitates a race to the bottom. I’m going to bet he is joking and doesn’t believe that is a viable plan. Its kinda funny to think about, however.
He's not the only person to have pitched it as an idea in this thread, and the alternative is even worse/funnier: take Koch money and, instead of blocking their number, actually capitulate to their desires. Either way, it doesn't seem worth it.
|
On August 01 2018 05:54 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2018 05:51 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 05:47 kollin wrote:On August 01 2018 05:44 ticklishmusic wrote:On August 01 2018 05:27 Plansix wrote:On August 01 2018 05:22 Mercy13 wrote:
Have any Democrats said they would take Koch money or is this all theoretical? The Kochs have been threatening to support the Democrats and push the democrats to fight against progressives(more than current) and people who want to regulate the banking industry. They are not happy with the Republicans and Trump’s trade practices. I doubt the Democrats bite as a whole, but there are a few that might take them up of the offer. All candidates raise money for their own election bids, so no one can stop them from taking it. Its rich people throwing their money around and trying people to take it. personally i'd take the money, then after the election i'd block the david koch's phone number. the way i see it, money is money, it's how you spend it that matters. How can you justify fighting AGAINST corporate interests to your constituents while taking corporate money? If you can't win without that money, you either have to accept losing until the country is sick to death of the other side, or compromise on why you're running for office in the first place. The latter choice precipitates a race to the bottom. I’m going to bet he is joking and doesn’t believe that is a viable plan. Its kinda funny to think about, however. He's not the only person to have pitched it as an idea in this thread, and the alternative is even worse/funnier: take Koch money and, instead of blocking their number, actually capitulate to their desires. Either way, it doesn't seem worth it.
I really do agree. But I think you are under estimating the humorous allure held by the political equivalent of dine and dash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
