Sounds like only Bernie believes in democracy

2/19/2020 10:51:58 PM

Yep its time to get the pitchforks ready for Milwaukee. Every candidate answered insinuating they would help to rig the convention to steal the nomination away from Bernie if he wins the most delegates (and votes).

No fucking way we should be willing to vote for anyone who answered that they will go against the will of the people in the nomination process.

2/19/2020 10:52:47 PM

I'll post this here instead of his cc thread but CNN's newest analyst AY started the night out with this

Quote :

"This is going to be the Mike Bloomberg debate. He’s new and rising."

2/19/2020 10:59:32 PM

#math

2/19/2020 11:00:45 PM

Quote :

"Ofc he is. They kinda sprung it on him."

Wut

2/19/2020 11:02:00 PM

At least Warren kinda showed up more this debate.

From what i saw, I’d rank performances:

Bernie
Warren
Klobachar/Pete
Biden
Bloomberg

2/19/2020 11:11:55 PM

Warren needs Bloomberg to keep beating up on

making the prediction now for a future horosho post hypothesizing that bloomberg is a sacrificial lamb candidate intentionally doing poorly to make Warren look good just so she can beat Sanders

2/19/2020 11:18:09 PM

Joe Biden himself already lowering expectations for SC on msnbc. This guy is toast

2/19/2020 11:26:38 PM

He's been done for a while now

[Edited on February 19, 2020 at 11:32 PM. Reason : Been done for a while imo]

2/19/2020 11:32:41 PM

I agree. First was at least top 3 in nevada and first in SC. Now i guess top 3 in Nevada and top 2 in SC? At what point does he just leave? Perhaps he just wants to collect delegates and screw delegate winner at convention?

2/19/2020 11:34:44 PM

They are literally telling us what they are doing and people still don't want to believe it. With this structure, they only have to beat Bernie collectively.

-Run as many candidates as possible to dilute Bernie's exposure from the start.
-Check all the identify boxes to provide as many alternatives and divide the party as much as possible
-Keep the candidates who are strong in specific states to dilute Bernie's delegate count.
-Use Trump as an excuse to ignore whats happening "shutup! we have to beat Trump"


I've been right about everything the last few years and they've been designing a fascist convention the entire time. I was more correct than even I expected. At least they are being translucent about it and not completely secretive. I first called it on February 25th 2017 when Tom Perez was elected chair. This has been in motion that long. It almost time to burn the whole thing down.

2/20/2020 1:36:04 AM

You were wrong about state being 11th place today

2/20/2020 6:46:05 AM

A lot of posts in this thread show the headwinds against ranked choice voting working nationally in the U.S. Too many people have it hard-wired in their head a plurality should equal win period, even if it's a minority. And that's how you get the bullshit notion someone "won" a primary when they have less than 30% of the vote.

(Maine is using it in the general this year, the Republicans are currently petitioning to get that removed. The Iowa and Nevada caucuses, Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, and Wyoming are using it in the Democratic primaries until all remaining candidates have more than 15%.)

[Edited on February 20, 2020 at 7:37 AM. Reason : /]

2/20/2020 7:31:05 AM

dtownral, ^^^ less than a day

2/20/2020 7:37:06 AM

love you E man

2/20/2020 8:32:18 AM

^^^
I don’t think anyone on this entire forum is against RCV. That’s now how the primary is set up.

2/20/2020 9:42:58 AM

Wow

https://twitter.com/yamiche/status/1230354408707371008?s=21

2/20/2020 10:21:33 AM

it's like the last 4 years never happened

2/20/2020 11:46:49 AM

^^^
that should say *not, btw

2/20/2020 11:52:49 AM

maybe sanders winning the delegate count is what it will take to get us RCV

(lol, jk, it wouldn't. if anything they will just rollback the very small delegate reforms we got from the URC and probably go even further and add more super-delegates)

2/20/2020 11:57:10 AM

https://thebulwark.com/the-smod-debate/

Quote :

"Let’s put this in perspective: It’s true that last night’s debate was unusually entertaining, which would be great if our democracy was a reality television show. I had actually planned to only watch the first hour, since I hate debates and find them mind-bendingly boring. But I decided to stay on for the whole damn thing. And I have some contrarian thoughts. The conventional code of punditry requires us to make judgments about which of the candidates on the stage won or lost. But that seems to miss the point rather dramatically, because at the end of the night, the only candidate for president standing relatively unscathed was the one person they should have been talking about: Donald Trump. Consider that Trump’s impeachment trial was just last month; that he has launched a revenge tour that includes daily attacks on the rule of law; is in open conflict with his attorney general; and that he has just handed out pardons to a bunch of sleazy cronies. None of these things—none of them!—were even mentioned. How is that possible? It was as if the Democratic debate took place in an alternative non-Trump universe where the word-count on Amy Klobuchar’s healthcare plan was more important than breakdown of the republic. Trump was barely mentioned and when he was, he existed mostly as a prop for the candidates to claim they were the best equipped to beat him. As I clicked off the TV, I made one last note: “We are so fuqqed. As in royally.”"

2/20/2020 12:04:00 PM

I disagree that they needed to talk about Trump. We talk about Trump a lot. Trump will be the focus of the general. We know all democrats hate trump.

The candidates needed to show who they were, and they really did last night.

2/20/2020 12:09:51 PM

^^^I highly recommend you go read your "pledged delegates" related posts in the 2016 primary thread. Your whiplash on policy and positions is basically on par with Earl at this point.

Of course it wasn't just you. You were just regurgitating Bernie's stated position at the time:
https://www.vox.com/2016/4/19/11465392/bernie-sanders-superdelegates

Quote :

"They began talking about it in March, arguing that if they could finish the primaries strong, then even if they trailed Clinton in delegates they could use their strong poll numbers, tremendous small-donor fundraising, and general momentum to persuade superdelegates to switch sides and hand them the nomination."

[Edited on February 20, 2020 at 12:15 PM. Reason : Its like your values just revolve around "whatever is good for Bernie at any given time"]

2/20/2020 12:14:05 PM

oh hes not gonna like that comment

2/20/2020 12:28:26 PM

For the record, I also thought it was a bad idea then. And the campaign never pursued it. So hopefully no one else does either

2/20/2020 12:35:49 PM

Dang Ryan beat me to it

2/20/2020 12:37:18 PM

i used to be okay with a party picking the candidate however they want, but in the context that there just needs to be a lot more parties (or not just used to, i still think that makes sense). with only 2 parties however it should be as democratic a process as possible.

[Edited on February 20, 2020 at 12:51 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2020 12:43:30 PM

^There are more than 2 parties and its time to stop pretending there are only 2.


I just went back to the thread myself and in addition to confirming my own consistency over the years. I found some real prophetic nuggets.

Quote :

"UJustWait84 All American 24955 Posts user info edit post It only seems like sports because a bunch of people are complaining about the rules and being poor sports about the current political process which has essentially been the same for years. We tried to tell you it was over months ago, but you wouldn't listen. 6/7/2016 7:29:05 PM No we knew it was over months ago and that was the problem. It was over years ago. We know its been this wat for a very long time and thats also why we are so passionate. 6/7/2016 8:00:21 PM UJustWait84 All American 24955 Posts user info edit post LOL whatever man. You said the bottom was falling out for Clinton after Bernie won a few inconsequential states in a row. You and other Bernie Babies worshiped him and refused to listen to any logic. Time to wake the fuck up and get with program. The bottom DID fall out for clinton. She might not even beat trump now and should beat him by 25. "

The inconsequential states ujustwait was talking about were WISCONSIN AND MICHIGAN

Quote :

"lol cnn going hard with the size 72 font CLINCHED as a last minute effort to supress the vote in california."

So now I remember. In 2016, they did the supedelegates first and used bar graphs showing Hillary with a massive, almost insurmountable lead before the primaries started. They used shenanigans and coinflips and the usual to steal iowa, got trounced in new hampshire and then had a bunch of conservative southern states make her the "presumptive nominee" after super tuesday. They then pounded the "insurmountable lead" and crammed bar graphs onto the screen the rest of the way to keep Bernie people from turning out.

We don't know if Bernie would have won, but the register dumps, iowa shenaningans, and constant media narrative supressed the vote enough to make him lose.

This time, they build a smarter system for making it look like he got a fair shot.

[Edited on February 20, 2020 at 1:12 PM. Reason : wow wisconsin and michigan were "inconsequential" to democrats back in 2016. o the arrogance]

2/20/2020 1:10:18 PM

Bloomberg needs to form a new party for centrist, pro-choice Republicans and take Hillary Clinton with him. That's really all either has ever been.

2/20/2020 1:22:44 PM

Good read from Lawfare on the Democratic presidential candidates' points of view on judiciary independence and president's role on law enforcement. They go into what each candidate has said and campaigns on after discussing what Trump has done and the role of 1970s reform and the 1976 presidential election where Carter hammered on it after Watergate.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/2020-presidential-candidates-stay-mostly-quiet-law-enforcement-independence

Quote :

"We reviewed a wide range of materials from the campaigns of Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. (Cory Booker and Kamala Harris had already dropped out of the race by the time we began research.) Overall, we found that Biden, Klobuchar and Warren have placed the greatest weight on the question of Justice Department independence and related issues, though they give this issue less airtime than did Carter. Buttigieg and Sanders spend even less time on these matters. And Michael Bloomberg, as far as we can tell, has not engaged on these issues at all: His website contains no mentions of them, and he has not participated in any debates so far."

Biden:

Quote :

"Biden’s campaign website includes a section on “Government Reform,” where he proposes to, among other things, issue an executive order “directing that no White House staff or any member of [Biden’s] administration may initiate, encourage, obstruct, or otherwise improperly influence specific Justice Department investigations or prosecutions for any reason”; expand the jurisdiction of the Justice Department inspector general; strengthen whistleblower protections; and mandate reporting to Congress on the reasoning behind “any change in position on a significant legal issue.” In response to a New York Times survey on the candidates’ views of executive power, Biden endorsed a “comprehensive review” of OLC opinions barring indictment of a sitting president."

Klobuchar: agrees with Biden a lot, instruct Justice to withdraw OLC's opinions prohibiting indictment of a sitting president, issue guidance to Justice to not intervene in transmission of a whistleblower complaint to Congress, mention commitment to providing additional protections for special counsels, although Cory Booker twice co-sponsored a bill to do this and none of the Democratic Senators running for president including Klobuchar joined it

Buttigieg: plays on the idea of restoring "unity" after Trump, but does not provide anything about what this mean for Justice and rule-of-law reforms, and does not discuss the issue on the campaign trail either

Sanders:

Quote :

"Of the more left-leaning candidates, Warren is far more focused on these issues than Sanders—though, notably, both recently signed on to a Senate letter demanding Attorney General Barr’s resignation. Sanders spends little time on Trump in his speeches, debate performances and website, apart from declaring Trump to be “the most corrupt president ever.” His answers to the New York Times survey are not particularly detailed and contain no concrete recommendations, though he indicates that he would be “open to proposals to increase presidential accountability.”"

Warren:

Quote :

"She has issued two “plans” digging into post-Trump reforms, one focused on ensuring that “no president is above the law” and the second focused on “making the executive branch free from corruption,” among other things. But these plans spend little time on rule-of-law or law enforcement independence as such, centering instead on more traditional Warren concerns like curbing the influence of lobbyists and corporations and seeking diversity among presidential appointees. Warren has also committed to withdrawing the OLC memos on presidential indictability and backed legislation to clarify Congress’s intent that the president is indictable and may be charged with obstruction of justice. Recently, in advocating for congressional oversight of the executive branch following Trump’s acquittal, she emphasized her proposal to institute an independent “Justice Department Task Force” to “investigate corruption during the Trump administration and to hold government officials accountable for illegal activity.” It’s worth noting that—ironically, for a package of proposals aimed at restoring Justice Department integrity—Warren is promising as president to direct prosecutors to look for crimes committed by specific individuals. This appears to us only somewhat less problematic than former candidate Kamala Harris’s suggestion while campaigning that, during a Harris administration, Trump would be prosecuted for obstruction of justice. Both proposals are a long way from Trump-led chants of “Lock her up” and Trump’s public demands that the Justice Department investigate and prosecute his political enemies. But they still cross into the murky territory of political involvement in prosecutorial decision-making. For that matter, Warren’s and Klobuchar’s promises to instruct OLC to withdraw its memos on presidential indictability risk furthering the perception—magnified by the aggressive and often questionable positions the office has taken under the Trump administration—that OLC does not provide good-faith legal advice on issues of high priority but is rather a mere arm of presidential power."

Bloomberg: has said nothing about it either on his campaign website or out campaigning

[Edited on February 20, 2020 at 1:48 PM. Reason : /]

2/20/2020 1:46:42 PM

Quote :

"Warren’s and Klobuchar’s promises to instruct OLC to withdraw its memos on presidential indictability risk furthering the perception—magnified by the aggressive and often questionable positions the office has taken under the Trump administration—that OLC does not provide good-faith legal advice on issues of high priority but is rather a mere arm of presidential power." "

How many times do the dipshits at Lawfare have to be burnt by their “very serious lawyer friends that work in the whitehouse are very serious and are making very serious decisions” before they wisen the fuck up.

2/20/2020 2:22:47 PM

Quote :

"^There are more than 2 parties and its time to stop pretending there are only 2."

adorable

2/20/2020 2:30:07 PM

It does kind of draw on one of my main criticisms of both parties as they practice in Congress is neither really believe in doing much in the way of work, or reform. If I went to every single member of Congress and asked them "do you believe a president from the party opposite yours should have infallibility from being eligible for criminal prosecution during his term?", you might get some principled "yes" votes but it's going to be way less than a third of each body I imagine. So therefore this would be one of the easiest constitutional amendments ever. You could even get Republicans on board by saying it would only take effect at the earliest Inauguration Day 2025 (the two-term limit constitutional amendment for presidents was for example enacted during Truman's presidency but did not apply to Truman). But each party's leadership is incapable of looking past their navels.

Congress is compared to 50 years ago in terms of power not a coequal branch of power to the executive, but they're largely at fault for the reason why, and that is why the Article V Constitutional Convention is even a thing.

[Edited on February 20, 2020 at 2:37 PM. Reason : /]

2/20/2020 2:36:33 PM

https://twitter.com/alxthomp/status/1230578396486230016?s=21

I don’t know how Warren supporters can justify supporting her at this point (other than the confused #stillwithher crowd). Pretty obvious she cares more about herself winning than growing the progressive movement.

2/20/2020 3:27:20 PM

If "neither democrat nor republican" was a party, it would win damn near every election. There are two parties because people only choose to support 2 parties. In essence, we are getting exactly what we signed up for.

My ultimate hot take is that if major numbers of people were willing to vote for a 3rd or 4th party, we would have 3 or 4 major parties.

2/20/2020 3:28:13 PM

Not going to happen until we elect Dems that support RCV

Even PSL is supporting Bernie. Greens should wise up and do the same.

2/20/2020 3:32:23 PM

Quote :

" Pretty obvious she cares more about herself winning than growing the progressive movement."

they all care more about winning than growing any kind of movement. Bernie, too.

2/20/2020 3:55:01 PM

I think most green are seriously considering it and some never will. There is currently a 49 page thread on the closed green message board

Quote :

""Q:If Sanders is the nominee and many greens vote for him, how will that affect green party ballot access for the next election""

A bulleted summary of high-merit points being made. Bold the ones I subscribe to

-Electing Bernie won't change the downward spiral of the democrat party
-Is sacrificing the future of the green party worth it?
-The green party is flawed anyway, and us voting for bernie would make them improve
-after sander's revolution, the democratic party would essentially become the green party
-Its tempting but we shouldn't take the bait
-Waste of time discussing since Sanders isn't getting the nomination
-We need to get the green party ready for the massive amounts of people coming soon
-We don't have time to wait. real greens put the planet over party and vote bernie NOW
-bernie can't beat trump. democrats won't help him.
-Stein lost 100,000 votes to Hillary compared to other Pennsylvania greens...and for what? We would be a major party by now if we stayed focused instead of looking for shortcuts over the past 20 years
-Bernie's foreign policy and voting record is too problematic. we must resist.



[Edited on February 20, 2020 at 4:19 PM. Reason : I'd estimate about 10% of green are anti-Bernie]

[Edited on February 20, 2020 at 4:22 PM. Reason : you're always gonna have a fringe element]

2/20/2020 4:15:44 PM

^^
Not sure how you can make that claim considering only Warren has

1. Personally attacked the other progressive in the race, as well as his supporters (Bernie didn’t do this when he was behind)
2. Said she would support a second round of voting if Bernie is leading in delegates, putting a progressive victory in jeopardy
3. Accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars (more by now I’m sure, spending $800k in Nevada) in SuperPAC money to defeat the other progressive (after attacking him for PAC support)
4. Attacked the other candidate for not releasing full medical records, which she has not done, and which could damage him in the general, because Trump will not
5. Remained in the race despite having no path to the nomination, serving only to make it more difficult for a progressive to win

[Edited on February 20, 2020 at 4:20 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2020 4:19:09 PM

If warren and others keep asking for the long form medical records does it become okay to make the comparison to birthers, or do we still pretend like that comparison is offensive?

2/20/2020 4:43:42 PM

there’s no pretending because it’s an offensive comparison

2/20/2020 4:49:59 PM

short form birth certificate vs long form birth certificate, short form health records vs long form health records
#fakeoutrage

2/20/2020 5:18:16 PM

I, too, like to strip all context surrounding an issue when trying to support my argument

2/20/2020 5:21:27 PM

keep that fake outrage strong

2/20/2020 5:22:01 PM

Warren is always going to have more quotes to attack bc i THINK she is the only candidate to talk off the cuff to press every day (please correct if this is wrong) . Maybe it is gets her in trouble but I think that kind of openness is a very strong quality. Bernie has prob taken far fewer questions about Warren then vice versa.

Quote :

"1. Personally attacked the other progressive in the race, as well as his supporters (Bernie didn’t do this when he was behind) I don't think this is true? He talked about the "capitalist" thing which she said but isn't really a policy based criticism and also said her supporters were only "more affluent" 2. Said she would support a second round of voting if Bernie is leading in delegates, putting a progressive victory in jeopardy if it weren't for super delegates I'm not even sure why this would be controversial? You think a plurality should win? How low a percentage of delegates would you consider enough solidify a nominee? And of course Bernie said the same in 2016 3. Accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars (more by now I’m sure, spending $800k in Nevada) in SuperPAC money to defeat the other progressive (after attacking him for PAC support) not sure how it's possible to "accept" SPAC support, but yea i wish she had completely disowned them (can you legally do that? Would that seem fake?) 4. Attacked the other candidate for not releasing full medical records, which she has not done, and which could damage him in the general, because Trump will not I don't really have a defense here, the whole thing is kinda silly imo, and up to varying definitions of what "full records" means. It's also a very mild "attack" 5. Remained in the race despite having no path to the nomination, serving only to make it more difficult for a progressive to win. I remember when Warren was polling far ahead of Sanders the criticisms of him staying in the the race despite polling much lower and having no path"

^I like Sanders and think his medical records should be off the table bc it could hurt if he's the nominee and he's probably already released enough. But health concerns are absolutely valid, if maybe a little ageist, especially for someone who JUST had a heart attack. The birth certificate line was outright racist with no validity. Not sure it's an "offensive" comparison but it's a dumb one.

[Edited on February 20, 2020 at 5:24 PM. Reason : E]

[Edited on February 20, 2020 at 5:28 PM. Reason : E]

2/20/2020 5:23:06 PM

like the birth certificate thing, bernie sanders HAS released his records

they show that he is very healthy and the MI was minor

[Edited on February 20, 2020 at 5:32 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2020 5:31:36 PM

Yea i said that. It's a silly attack that's either partisan or uninformed but it's not the same as a racist conspiracy theory.

2/20/2020 5:34:32 PM

i'm trying to walk you through the comparison

2/20/2020 5:35:28 PM

Similarities /= same

The intent of the comparison is to say "asking for this is as offensive as asking for that." I think that is a false correlation.

[Edited on February 20, 2020 at 5:40 PM. Reason : E]

2/20/2020 5:38:59 PM

Exactly right, it wasnt offensive because comparisons are pointing out similarities and not claiming things to be exactly equal.

[Edited on February 20, 2020 at 5:46 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2020 5:45:20 PM