• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Should we fear the Democratic Party?

Seems to me that the current situation (neither Biden nor Sanders seeming to have a clear majority) screams for a Ranked-Choice kind of candidate selection.
 
Venom said:
It's not so much by policy as it is by convention. I don't know of anything written down that says the candidate with the most delegates by July must be chosen, probably 'cause it doesn't exist.

But within recent memory that's the way it has been. And it's not something the electorate will easily forget if there is a break from it.
Click to expand...

Most of the electorate did not support the person. What are they supposed to know that will be difficult for them to forget?
 
Delvo said:
<snip for brevity>
Click to expand...
Continuing in the same vein...

Or the guy who, when asked the one question he should have been prepared to field above all other questions, launched into a defense of Fidel Castro.

That was the moment that confirmed that Bernie is the disaster I feared he was.
 
Last edited:
Trump and pals seem to have succeeded with the "socialism" scare. They tell the base that giving healthcare to people will lead to socialism, and the American Dream is dead. You can't get rich and move up the ladder! We need to tell them that died a few decades back. Capital trumps labor like never before. It's in a book. But good luck with your plumbing/mowing/snow plowing business anyway.
The book on the capital thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century
 
"No matter how popular Sanders is with progressives, if we nominate him we'll lose the election. We can't afford to lose the election. Please help us nominate someone else."

"No."

"Then we'll have to nominate someone else without you. Sorry, but we really can't afford to lose the election."

"If you nominate anyone else, we'll stay home and you’ll lose the election anyway."

"Do you understand that would destroy the party?"

"Do you understand that you're forcing us to destroy the party? This is all your fault, if you think about it."
 
varwoche said:
Continuing in the same vein...

Or the guy who, when asked the one question he should have been prepared to field above all other questions, launched into a defense of Fidel Castro.

That was the moment that confirmed that Bernie is the disaster I feared he was.
Click to expand...

I heard Bernie say good things about the Cuban health care system and school system, not about Fidel Castro who he described as a dictator. But maybe it was me who was hearing what I wanted to hear. Then again, maybe it was you.
 
uke2se said:
I heard Bernie say good things about the Cuban health care system and school system, not about Fidel Castro who he described as a dictator. But maybe it was me who was hearing what I wanted to hear. Then again, maybe it was you.
Click to expand...
A difference without a distinction.
 
Yeah, if not fear then at least concern: they might not be able to beat the bat-excrement crazy radical Republican party that is hell-bent on destroying the post-war Western order.
 
varwoche said:
A difference without a distinction.
Click to expand...

A massive difference and a clear distinction to anyone interested in actually listening to the words that are spoken.

Jesus Christ, it's enough that right wingers spread lies about Democratic candidates. Other Democrats don't need to start as well.
 
Last edited:
uke2se said:
I heard Bernie say good things about the Cuban health care system and school system, not about Fidel Castro who he described as a dictator. But maybe it was me who was hearing what I wanted to hear. Then again, maybe it was you.
Click to expand...

Castro was a dictator. Saying good things about the dictatorship is saying good things about the dictator. That's why it's called a dictatorship.
 
varwoche said:
A difference without a distinction.
Click to expand...

WRONG. And that is one of the most puerile and destructive forms of jingoism. Real-world historical figures are not cartoonish superheroes or villains; praising Mahatma Gandhi's philosophy of passive resistance does not require sugarcoating his racism and sexism. Nor does acknowledging Napoleon Bonaparte's legal and social reforms equate to ignoring the fact the he caused the needless and senseless deaths of millions.
 
uke2se said:
A massive difference and a clear distinction to anyone interested in actually listening to the words that are spoken.

Jesus Christ, it's enough that right wingers spread lies about Democratic candidates. Other Democrats don't need to start as well.
Click to expand...
Imho this is a steaming pile of bs and then some.
 
uke2se said:
Then your opinion is wrong. Simple as.
Click to expand...

Not only are you wrong by definition - dictatorship, remember? - you're wrong in a more subtle but much more important way as well.

The only reason for Bernie to bring up Cuba at all in this context is if he favors the Cuban dictatorship. Otherwise, what's he saying? "I'll make America more like Cuba, but only the good parts." In other words, not more like Cuba at all. There are plenty of other countries to hold up as policy goals, that don't start with "I know it's a dictatorship, but..."

Bernie could talk about the UK. Or France. Scandinavia. Germany. Taiwan. Australia. Iceland. Canada. All these places ostensibly have better health care and education than the US. All of them could be held up as models, without having to excuse or acknowledge any dictatorship.

But Bernie talks about Cuba. Why? Is he playing Policy Debate on Hard Mode, for extra points? No, of course not. Bernie talks about Cuba because he doesn't want America to be more like Canada or the UK. He wants it to be more like Cuba.

And also, the Castro regime was a dictatorship. You can't praise the policies of the regime without praising the dictator responsible for those policies. It's why Castro never relenquished power: He wanted to be responsible for everything. Why would you deny him that?
 
theprestige said:
Bernie could talk about the UK. Or France. Scandinavia. Germany. Taiwan. Australia. Iceland. Canada. All these places ostensibly have better health care and education than the US. All of them could be held up as models, without having to excuse or acknowledge any dictatorship.

But Bernie talks about Cuba. Why? Is he playing Policy Debate on Hard Mode, for extra points? No, of course not. Bernie talks about Cuba because he doesn't want America to be more like Canada or the UK. He wants it to be more like Cuba.
Click to expand...
WRONG. This particular kerfuffle stems from questions specifically posed to Sanders about Cuba. But nice attempt at fabrication.
 
Last edited:
varwoche said:
A difference without a distinction.
Click to expand...

How did you feel about Obama lauding Cuba's literacy program without even qualifying saying that Cuba was a dictatorship?

Because Sanders prefaced his "defense of Castro" by saying Cuba was an authoritarian state.
 
Last edited:
If Bernie has MANY more delegates that anyone else, but not 51%, he should get the nomination.

However, if its a close race and NOBODY is near the majority mark, then negotiations are fair. Like if its 36% Bernie, 33% Biden, 31% Warren.

There is a reason why they require the winner to have a majority of Pledged Delegates, and that's to prevent a Hitler or Stalin figure from winning the nomination.
 
dudalb said:
It's as bad as anything I have seen from a die hard Trump supporter.
Dear Leader is above criticism....
Click to expand...
=dudalb said:
The sad thing is that Bernie's supporters don't see how badly stuff like this hurts Bernie.
They are living in their own little fishbowl.
Click to expand...
The sad thing is how individuals who post on a skeptics' board and at least pretend to support the Democratic party actively promulgate this sort of asinine misrepresentation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom