Are you concerned about replacement?

AssHatZombie said:
i stopped reading then.
Click to expand...

Well, try to master you emotions long enough to read to the end. I'm curious what you make of the argument that even with a hostile superpower hacking to reveal the DNC's dirty laundry, we had almost no evidence of party interference in the election.

By comparison, consider the GOP's efforts to protect Trump from challenge in 2020. That's what it looks like when a party fixes the primary for someone. They voted to give undivided support for Trump and, to prevent him from potentially getting embarrassed by a more traditional Republican in the voting, a bunch of states canceled contests altogether, or moved to winner-takes-all delegate systems, and the party declined to hold even a single debate.

By comparison, Sanders (despite never having actually been a Democrat) was given access to all the ballots, every state held a primary, there wasn't a move to winner-takes-all to avoid allowing Sanders to build a substantial minority of delegates, and they had plenty of debates. It was a completely run-of-the-mill primary process, and Clinton won it.
 
0b2a2a07a12fc029-png.995671
 
Mina said:
Well, try to master you emotions long enough to read to the end. I'm curious what you make of the argument that even with a hostile superpower hacking to reveal the DNC's dirty laundry, we had almost no evidence of party interference in the election.

By comparison, consider the GOP's efforts to protect Trump from challenge in 2020. That's what it looks like when a party fixes the primary for someone. They voted to give undivided support for Trump and, to prevent him from potentially getting embarrassed by a more traditional Republican in the voting, a bunch of states canceled contests altogether, or moved to winner-takes-all delegate systems, and the party declined to hold even a single debate.

By comparison, Sanders (despite never having actually been a Democrat) was given access to all the ballots, every state held a primary, there wasn't a move to winner-takes-all to avoid allowing Sanders to build a substantial minority of delegates, and they had plenty of debates. It was a completely run-of-the-mill primary process, and Clinton won it.
Click to expand...

there's plenty of evidence.

it wasnt's russia.

your stuck in a propaganda loop.

the dems screwed bernie and all dems.

here's debbie wasserman schultz getting booed for being an awful lying cheating scumbag.

 
Dutch Uncle said:
Thanks, Mina. I concede you are a fervent supporter of the Democratic Party
Click to expand...

I'm not. I have no strong feelings about the party one way or the other. However, I am a fervent supporter of the truth. In 2016, many of my fellow Sanders supporters ended up disappointed about the loss, and like Trump supporters four years later, they went searching for conspiracy theories to explain away that loss, claiming it was the result of some nefarious maneuvers, rather than simply the other candidate being more popular.

I think, in both cases, one key dynamic was driving that (beyond just the natural tendency for fans of losing teams to blame bad officiating for a loss). In each case, a lot of those people lived in cultural bubbles, where almost everyone they knew had a similar mindset. A lot of those Sanders supporters knew only fellow Sanders supporters, and nobody who liked Clinton, just as a lot of Trump supporters knew only fellow Trump supporters, and nobody who like Biden. So, in each case, the official results seemed really at odds with the reality in their own bubble world. That encourages a conspiratorial mindset.

I think that's part of how I differed from them. Although I was a Sanders supporter, and knew a lot of others who liked him, I also run in racially diverse social circles, where Sanders wasn't very popular. And I work in a professional setting where even a lot of liberals didn't like him. I wasn't, say, a white suburbanite young person working at Starbucks, where everyone around me was as excited about Sanders as I was. I saw that Sanders was having a lot of trouble appealing to people outside of his base, and so when the results started coming back reflected just what the polls told us was coming, it didn't surprise me. I knew that Black voters, older voters, etc., were going to turn out for Clinton in big numbers, because I knew those people.

Although you and I can disagree on the level of corruption within the Clinton Clan
Click to expand...

Clinton was never my cup of tea, because she's fairly conservative. But, I never considered her corrupt. In fact, if I had to bet on ANY major politician not having any particularly scary skeletons in her closet, it would be Clinton.
After all, the Republicans and corporate media spent 30 years rummaging through those closets looking for skeletons and found nothing.

I'd like to think Sanders isn't corrupt, for instance, but I've got to admit he's never had an independent counsel spend millions of dollars and vast legal powers inadvertently confirming that. He's never had to turn over tens of thousands of emails so his enemies could go line-by-line through them looking for any dirt to use against him. He's never had a hostile superpower go to work for his opponent trying to serve up any damaging material they could hack their way to. His appearance of being a clean politician is without intense scrutiny. Clinton's appearance of being a clean politician is despite what is arguably the most scrutiny any politician in history has ever endured. I find that impressive.

Also, while I had my issues with Clinton's policy ideas, I liked her campaign style. In 2016, she very much focused on trying not to burn bridges on the left. Her campaign never ran a single negative ad against Sanders. She was fairly consistently complimentary of Sanders, and was constantly offering olive branches to his supporters to try to make sure the party could come together after the primary to beat Trump. That takes a certain self-discipline, when you're getting pounded daily by attacks. I respected that.

Not a New Yorker but know who Al Sharpton is.
Click to expand...

I just find it amusing that Sharpton and Trump followed such similar paths. Both started out known only in NY tabloids. Each got national attention when each seized on a lurid crime story in the Big Apple, back in the 1980's, to gain the spotlight. Each turned out to be on the wrong side of the story (Sharpton called for prosecution of Tawana Brawley's supposed attackers, and the attack turned out to be a hoax, while Trump called for the state to kill some suspected attackers of a NY Central Park jogger.... men who, we later found out, were innocent of the crime). Each became a media hound, spending the 90s and early 2000s hopping on whatever TV show would give them attention. Each was known as much for ridiculous hair and bizarre televised rants as anything. Each had been eager to forge a career as a Democratic politician. But where Sharpton stuck with the Democrats and had his political career fizzle out fast, as voters rejected his clownishness, Trump eventually swapped to the GOP where clownishness is lovingly embraced.

Sorry, ma'am, but there's a lot of insider Democratic evidence to the contrary. There's a reason why many Democratic leaders were happy to see the Clinton's lock on the party broken.
Click to expand...

They never had a lock on the party. For example, in 2008, despite the actual Democratic primary voters giving Clinton more votes than Obama, the party made Obama the nominee.

You're a staunch Democrat and I'm an Independent.
Click to expand...

I'm a staunch independent. Your talk of "unity" rings hollow when you're actively trolling someone for an emotional response that way. I told you I'm an independent and always have been registered that way, right at the top of post 137, in response to your claim I'm a staunch Democrat. Then you went right back to "conceding" I'm a Democrat. That's not something someone does when pursuing unity. It's the work of a troll who hopes he can get a rise out of someone with dishonest rhetoric, which obviously is a willfully divisive tactic.
 
anatta said:
cant common on all the Russian dezinformatsia interwoven into this post;
except to remind a reality check is a "strong-man" was what Russia needed after western stooge/drunk Yeltsin, and what Russians still do -at least upto this war.
Click to expand...

Strong Man methods sometimes work well in the short term, as with Stalin, Mussolini, or Hitler (or Mobutu, Suharto, Marcos, Ceausescu, Mugabe, and so on).. But it's a dead end, and eventually it always ends very badly. A mere drunken incompetent, like Yeltsin, is something a country can bounce back from pretty quickly, but when you have an brutal kleptocrat like Putin, it destroys the national character and leads to a place that can take a generation to recover from.
 
Mina said:
....They never had a lock on the party. For example, in 2008, despite the actual Democratic primary voters giving Clinton more votes than Obama, the party made Obama the nominee.

I'm a staunch independent. Your talk of "unity" rings hollow when you're actively trolling someone for an emotional response that way. I told you I'm an independent and always have been registered that way, right at the top of post 137, in response to your claim I'm a staunch Democrat. Then you went right back to "conceding" I'm a Democrat. That's not something someone does when pursuing unity. It's the work of a troll who hopes he can get a rise out of someone with dishonest rhetoric, which obviously is a willfully divisive tactic.
Click to expand...

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree on Hillary's ownership of the DNC. I'm going by Donna Brazile's comments. As former DNC chairperson, she'd know.
:thup: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774/

Almost all the Trumpers claim to be Independents. I don't believe them either since their posts indicate bias, not political independence. :)

If you truly believe me to be a troll, then you might consider doing like many JPP Trumpers have done....or claimed to have done; put my name on this list: https://www.justplainpolitics.com/profile.php?do=ignorelist :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top