The super-delegate system didn't make the race any fairer, to win a State but gain less delegates is hard for many people to accept as fair.
Many Bernie supporter's switched to Trump out of spite and disgust.
Which betrayed everything Bernie stood for, but I digress on that point.
To the point of the super-delegates....again, it's something that looks bad on paper (and they should get rid of) but was, again, meaningless. All the super-delegates in 2008 were behind Hillary as well. They all switched to Obama when he got more delegates from actual votes. The same thing would have happened to Bernie if he had been ahead in actual delegates. We know this because it is what took place 8 years before. It's horrible optics, but there is no way the super-delegates would have handed Hillary the nomination if there was a legitimate Bernie lead going into the convention. Because they didn't do it last time when they started out supporting her against Obama.
I think if the delegate system was fairer, Bernie would have gotten more momentum and there would have been less outrage among his supporters.
Conceivably the race may have been tighter, both for Bernie and Hillary, and Hillary and Trump if there were less dis-affected Bernie supporters.
Absolutely. Again, I supported Bernie. I knew his days were numbered after the string of Southern primaries, and despite his upset in Michigan, Ohio was the one he needed. There was simply no way for him to get the percentage of vote he needed in the remaining States to catch up. The media in all forms was invested in PRETENDING it was still as race, but it was essentially the same as asking a basketball team to make up a 25 point deficit going into the 4th quarter. It just doesn't happen.
I happen to think Bernie Sanders was about the most unimpeachable man who has ever ran for the Presidency in this country. His whole career has proven he is a true man of the people, he continues to prove it today. If not for his age, it would be a no-brainer that he should be the one to take on Trump in 2020. That said, the idea that one would be so upset about him losing the primary that they would switch to Trump says to me that it was alot of young people who had never experienced a primary loss before and didn't know how to channel the frustration. Bernie got a massive amount of concessions in the Democratic platform. He moved Hillary WAY to the left on the minimum wage and access to a college education. But there was a hardcore contingent of them who were all or nothing. And yeah, that, as much as anything else, swung Trump an election in which (by far) most of the country didn't even vote for him. Only about 100,000 votes in WI, PA, and MI combined swung it to him. And it isn't hard to imagine those votes came from disgruntled Bernie supporters. But again, this is EXACTLY the demographic group the Russian hacks were trying to suppress, and the reason I have always believed there almost HAD to have been collusion with the Trump campaign is because there is no reason to believe the Russian hackers would have had the knowledge to know what avenues to disseminate the fake news stories and leaks of legitimate beefs about the DNC to reach these voters (young and male, for the most part) without the expertise of Republican campaign operatives.
It was evident that Bernie wasn't going to win, as there was not enough support for him from black african-american communities or the rust-belt.
However that he could pose any sort of notable threat to Hillary is remarkable as he doesn't have nearly the amount of national fame, this should wake the party up and steer away from corporatism.
The pick of Tom Perez doesn't inspire enthusiasm here, many Bernie Supporters were once again dissapointed.
It was evident that Bernie wasn't going to win, as there was not enough support for him from black african-american communities or the rust-belt.
However that he could pose any sort of notable threat to Hillary is remarkable as he doesn't have nearly the amount of national fame, this should wake the party up and steer away from corporatism.
The pick of Tom Perez doesn't inspire enthusiasm here, many Bernie Supporters were once again dissapointed.
People are putting WAY too much stock into that DNC race. Tom Perez is fairly liberal, and Ellison is co-chair. It is essentially a joint operation with Perez getting the top slot because he barely won. The fact remains, however, that this last election gave birth to the myth that the DNC is far more powerful than it actually is. It won't matter a lick in 2018. The only thing on the ballot in 2018 is Trump.
According to a Faux News poll, Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in America.
That's probably why he was attacked on that same Conservative propaganda channel for not paying as much tax, he was not even in the top tax rate, on a $200,000 income compared to Trump’s rate on a $150 million income.
I am surprised to see how many don't care that Donna Brazille didn't allow a fair debate to take place and that there has been no accountability on the left for this kind of behavior. On principle, debates should be fair and if DNC swears to be neutral it should be. We can argue about whether or not it was a deciding factor in the race, but the fact remains, what they very clearly tried to do was break the rules in favor of Clinton, and not just in this way, and not just with this particular DNC head. To accept this without consequences is to reject democracy.
These practices in conjunction with their proven collusion against him (wikileaks is the real mvp of 2016) were more undemocratic and authoritarian and more a threat to real democracy than any sort of Russian hack, and yet they have successfully diverted blame for themselves by promoting this narrative.
I am surprised to see how many don't care that Donna Brazille didn't allow a fair debate to take place and that there has been no accountability on the left for this kind of behavior. On principle, debates should be fair and if DNC swears to be neutral it should be. We can argue about whether or not it was a deciding factor in the race, but the fact remains, what they very clearly tried to do was break the rules in favor of Clinton, and not just in this way, and not just with this particular DNC head. To accept this without consequences is to reject democracy.
These practices in conjunction with their proven collusion against him (wikileaks is the real mvp of 2016) were more undemocratic and authoritarian and more a threat to real democracy than any sort of Russian hack, and yet they have successfully diverted blame for themselves by promoting this narrative.
There actually isn't an argument to be made as to whether or not it decided the race. It didn't. It's simply an impossibility. I watched every one of those debates and I don't even remember the question on the death penalty, much less that Hillary Clinton knocked it so far out of the park that it buried Bernie where he couldn't recover.
I've gone into exhaustive detail about why the DNC had nothing to do with Bernie losing. Most of the stuff revealed by the emails took place after the race was 99% mathematically over. The Donna Brazile tipping-off of the death penalty question is the absolute WORST thing in that information, and it simply didn't amount to jack squat. And it's actually the Russian hack that manipulated the media (and a large portion of left-leaning media) into thinking the DNC was some sort of omnipotent kingmaker. They weren't. They aren't now. They won't be in the future. Should Donna Brazile have sent that email to the Clinton campaign?? Clearly not. It's insignificant in the scheme of things. If you want a real scandal regarding a debate, look into how columnist George Will somehow ended up with Jimmy Carter's stolen briefing book on debate prep and used it to coach Reagan on the upcoming debate in the 1980 campaign. THAT is a debate scandal with consequence. The idea that Hillary Clinton wouldn't be prepared in a split second to answer a question on the death penalty is preposterous. One of the main criticisms of her is how much of a rehearsed politician she is. People say alot of things about Hillary Clinton. Being ill-prepared for a debate is not one of them.
If you guys are really concerned about the future of the Democratic party suggest looking into Justice Democrats and reform it moving forward.
Get involved.
As @jjstraka34 says the Donna Brazile scandal is nothing. Compared that to the real world impactful corruption of Trump costing taxpayers millions of dollars by enriching himself by vacationing at Maralargo every weekend at ~$3M a vacation. Sending his sons on business trips for the company he owns while taxpayers pick up the dime. His choices of cabinet members are ridiculously corrupt and in bed with the industries they are supposed to be regulating etc etc etc
Its standard politics at this point. It is always entirely the fault of the opposing party, everything your chosen party does is "not as bad" or "insignificant". Note that I am not calling out a single side here, all parties are guilty of it.
Its standard politics at this point. It is always entirely the fault of the opposing party, everything your chosen party does is "not as bad" or "insignificant". Note that I am not calling out a single side here, all parties are guilty of it.
Dude, if the Democratic Party was trying to terminate the Department of Education, terminate the EPA, kick 24 million people off of their healthcare, make getting an abortion a felony, ban an entire group of people from entering the country based on their religion, I'd sure as hell be just as pissed at them as I am currently at the Republicans.
But they're not. The Republicans are getting dirt thrown at them because they're the ones putting all this through. Do I care about Donna Brazile's mishap or the DNC's treatment of her? Sure, but I don't care NEARLY AS MUCH about that as I do about potentially losing my healthcare, losing public schools, losing our national parks, losing my right to choose, losing my clean air and water... The list goes on and on.
It's not "standard party politics." (There's nothing "standard" about this administration.) It's just that these scandals have no comparison. Donna Brazile's actions show a horridly ill-thought-out mishap at best and a sliver of corruption at worst. The GOP healthcare plan will actually kill people if passed. If you honestly believe these issues deserve equal time and criticism, then I'm sorry, but you need to sort out your priorities.
(And I don't mean "you" as in specifically speaking to ThacoBell, I mean a generalized "you". Just so we're clear.)
This is why the sides disagree. You say the Republicans plan will kill people. That's only true if you believe the Federal government should be in charge of our healthcare. I don't. If it isn't the government's responsibility to begin with, they're not 'killing' anybody by getting rid of it. I'm sorry but I just don't agree with your logic.
"I may have cheated in the race, but it didn't affect the outcome." "I may have cheated in the race, but my opponent was doomed to lose anyway." Those explanations wouldn't work in real life, and they shouldn't work here. The point is that they- many players in the DNC as well as many members of the media such as the ones contacting Clinton campaign managers for review before stories about them were released- cheated. And without some sort of penalty they will do it again the next time a Bernie Sanders or other non-establishment guy comes along. If they can successfully scapegoat their way out of it they would have no reason to believe they couldn't do it again.
I don't find the President taking vacations particularly egregious, no, that always seems to be a partisan thing, Fox News hated on Obama's vacations and now it's the reverse.
"I may have cheated in the race, but it didn't affect the outcome." "I may have cheated in the race, but my opponent was doomed to lose anyway." Those explanations wouldn't work in real life, and they shouldn't work here. The point is that they- many players in the DNC as well as many members of the media such as the ones contacting Clinton campaign managers for review before stories about them were released- cheated. And without some sort of penalty they will do it again the next time a Bernie Sanders or other non-establishment guy comes along. If they can successfully scapegoat their way out of it they would have no reason to believe they couldn't do it again.
I don't find the President taking vacations particularly egregious, no, that always seems to be a partisan thing, Fox News hated on Obama's vacations and now it's the reverse.
These things are not equal.
Obama's vacations were peanuts compared to Trumps weekly vacations. And Melania staying in NYC instead of the White House is costing a fortune as well. Instead of all those ridiculous budget cuts to the elderly and poor he could stop taking vacations and get Melania to stay in the White House.
"These things are not equal." This is kind of my point. It doesn't matter what the issue is, both sides will find ways to dismiss their own missteps while doggedly pursuing the other groups.
Maybe it's time to get rid of all of the trappings of our government altogether. What with secret service agents having to watch all these bozos 24/7, and their bloated lifetime pensions it's just getting too expensive.
Obama apparently spent $97 million after 8 years. Trump spent $10 million as of February 22, just 1 month into his term. Obama took 217 vacation days after 8 years; I don't see an exact number for the number of days Trump has taken off so far.
We can dismiss criticism as politically motivated--"they only complain when the other guy is doing it"--or we can compare actual data.
That being said, I don't actually mind if Trump spends a lot of time off the job, and leaves other people to handle things in his absence. The only part that bothers me is the monetary cost.
Obama apparently spent $97 million after 8 years. Trump spent $10 million as of February 22, just 1 month into his term. Obama took 217 vacation days after 8 years; I don't see an exact number for the number of days Trump has taken off so far.
I am surprised to see how many don't care that Donna Brazille didn't allow a fair debate to take place and that there has been no accountability on the left for this kind of behavior. On principle, debates should be fair and if DNC swears to be neutral it should be. We can argue about whether or not it was a deciding factor in the race, but the fact remains, what they very clearly tried to do was break the rules in favor of Clinton, and not just in this way, and not just with this particular DNC head. To accept this without consequences is to reject democracy.
These practices in conjunction with their proven collusion against him (wikileaks is the real mvp of 2016) were more undemocratic and authoritarian and more a threat to real democracy than any sort of Russian hack, and yet they have successfully diverted blame for themselves by promoting this narrative.
I agree.
For many observers, political discussion amounts to very little since it really consists of political partisanship, with sides digging in and simply wishing to exaggerate and chase stereotypes of the other side.
Wikileaks shows clear evidence of political, Government and systematic corruption where political parties, supposed to represent the people, are more concerned with retaining their own power and shutting out those not in their inner-circle.
It is everything we complain about literally practically every day, It's quite literally a miracle that a group is managing to expose the dark inner workings Government, but because it doesn't help 'my side' not only is it swept under the rug, A group clearly trying to hold Government accountable and actually showing evidence of corruption is now said to be an agent of Russia.
Gee wonderful, I have to rely on an Agent of Russia to get some transparency of my own Government, What is my position again? Wanting transparency of the Government or now I don't care about this stuff anymore and engage in Geo-political struggle with Russia, The kind of things that lead to proxy wars.
I despise Proxy wars, but should i be ok with it now because of MUHH RUSSIA?
This is why the sides disagree. You say the Republicans plan will kill people. That's only true if you believe the Federal government should be in charge of our healthcare. I don't. If it isn't the government's responsibility to begin with, they're not 'killing' anybody by getting rid of it. I'm sorry but I just don't agree with your logic.
The entire rest of the civilized world has government healthcare, and we spend far more of our budget on it than any of them. Are the chances better that we are right or they are??
The conditions that make Government Health-care work, isn't because it is Government-run. Looking at the wrong things when concluding whether to have it in America and what form it should be.
Obama apparently spent $97 million after 8 years. Trump spent $10 million as of February 22, just 1 month into his term. Obama took 217 vacation days after 8 years; I don't see an exact number for the number of days Trump has taken off so far.
We can dismiss criticism as politically motivated--"they only complain when the other guy is doing it"--or we can compare actual data.
That being said, I don't actually mind if Trump spends a lot of time off the job, and leaves other people to handle things in his absence. The only part that bothers me is the monetary cost.
I normally wouldn't give a shit about this, but Trump was flapping his gums on FOX News MANY times during the Obama years bitching about how much Obama was on vacation (which, by the way, was less than Bush). Trump has flown down to his estate in Florida (a club where he is still charging membership fees by the way, basically monetizing access to the President, it's blatant corruption) EVERY SINGLE WEEKEND since he was elected. There is no reason to think he won't do this every weekend for the rest of his term. Furthermore, since the Obamas didn't have a business empire, security was confined to the White House for the majority of the time, because the Obama family actually LIVED in the White House like every damn Presidential family up til now. Trump is using it as a weekday office. So are also massive security operations going on at Mar-A-Lago and Trump Tower. There is talk that Palm Beach may have to increase their local taxes to cover the costs of Trump being down there every weekend. Like everything else about what Trump is doing, it has no precedent. The Obamas were actually a nuclear family who lived in the one house that is provided to the First Family, and obviously Camp David has always been there for the President as well. THe costs aren't even going to be close.
The conditions that make Government Health-care work, isn't because it is Government-run. Looking at the wrong things when concluding whether to have it in America and what form it should be.
You've said this before but basically, again, just say that America is "unique" and that it won't work. We already do this for everyone over 65 (at least til Paul Ryan gets his way) and all veterans. It would work just fine if people were willing to do it. Americans are "unique" in this regard. Uniquely blind and misinformed.
Comments
Many Bernie supporter's switched to Trump out of spite and disgust.
To the point of the super-delegates....again, it's something that looks bad on paper (and they should get rid of) but was, again, meaningless. All the super-delegates in 2008 were behind Hillary as well. They all switched to Obama when he got more delegates from actual votes. The same thing would have happened to Bernie if he had been ahead in actual delegates. We know this because it is what took place 8 years before. It's horrible optics, but there is no way the super-delegates would have handed Hillary the nomination if there was a legitimate Bernie lead going into the convention. Because they didn't do it last time when they started out supporting her against Obama.
That said, they should get rid of them.
Conceivably the race may have been tighter, both for Bernie and Hillary, and Hillary and Trump if there were less dis-affected Bernie supporters.
I happen to think Bernie Sanders was about the most unimpeachable man who has ever ran for the Presidency in this country. His whole career has proven he is a true man of the people, he continues to prove it today. If not for his age, it would be a no-brainer that he should be the one to take on Trump in 2020. That said, the idea that one would be so upset about him losing the primary that they would switch to Trump says to me that it was alot of young people who had never experienced a primary loss before and didn't know how to channel the frustration. Bernie got a massive amount of concessions in the Democratic platform. He moved Hillary WAY to the left on the minimum wage and access to a college education. But there was a hardcore contingent of them who were all or nothing. And yeah, that, as much as anything else, swung Trump an election in which (by far) most of the country didn't even vote for him. Only about 100,000 votes in WI, PA, and MI combined swung it to him. And it isn't hard to imagine those votes came from disgruntled Bernie supporters. But again, this is EXACTLY the demographic group the Russian hacks were trying to suppress, and the reason I have always believed there almost HAD to have been collusion with the Trump campaign is because there is no reason to believe the Russian hackers would have had the knowledge to know what avenues to disseminate the fake news stories and leaks of legitimate beefs about the DNC to reach these voters (young and male, for the most part) without the expertise of Republican campaign operatives.
However that he could pose any sort of notable threat to Hillary is remarkable as he doesn't have nearly the amount of national fame, this should wake the party up and steer away from corporatism.
The pick of Tom Perez doesn't inspire enthusiasm here, many Bernie Supporters were once again dissapointed.
That's probably why he was attacked on that same Conservative propaganda channel for not paying as much tax, he was not even in the top tax rate, on a $200,000 income compared to Trump’s rate on a $150 million income.
http://www.cc.com/episodes/pzad99/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-march-16--2017---donna-brazile-season-22-ep-22079
Interview starts at 15:30.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-immigration-mexicans-exclusive-idUSKBN16O2W3
Hopefully the situation isn't big.
http://www.news.com.au/world/paris-orly-airport-evacuated-after-reports-of-shots-fired/news-story/042556e9a1bf92aff7a5eada519d0143
I'm also very interested in the mid-term results now that some of the gerrymandering shenanigans have been found unconstitutional.
http://billmoyers.com/story/federal-court-rules-texas-gerrymandering-unconstitutional/
These practices in conjunction with their proven collusion against him (wikileaks is the real mvp of 2016) were more undemocratic and authoritarian and more a threat to real democracy than any sort of Russian hack, and yet they have successfully diverted blame for themselves by promoting this narrative.
I've gone into exhaustive detail about why the DNC had nothing to do with Bernie losing. Most of the stuff revealed by the emails took place after the race was 99% mathematically over. The Donna Brazile tipping-off of the death penalty question is the absolute WORST thing in that information, and it simply didn't amount to jack squat. And it's actually the Russian hack that manipulated the media (and a large portion of left-leaning media) into thinking the DNC was some sort of omnipotent kingmaker. They weren't. They aren't now. They won't be in the future. Should Donna Brazile have sent that email to the Clinton campaign?? Clearly not. It's insignificant in the scheme of things. If you want a real scandal regarding a debate, look into how columnist George Will somehow ended up with Jimmy Carter's stolen briefing book on debate prep and used it to coach Reagan on the upcoming debate in the 1980 campaign. THAT is a debate scandal with consequence. The idea that Hillary Clinton wouldn't be prepared in a split second to answer a question on the death penalty is preposterous. One of the main criticisms of her is how much of a rehearsed politician she is. People say alot of things about Hillary Clinton. Being ill-prepared for a debate is not one of them.
Get involved.
As @jjstraka34 says the Donna Brazile scandal is nothing. Compared that to the real world impactful corruption of Trump costing taxpayers millions of dollars by enriching himself by vacationing at Maralargo every weekend at ~$3M a vacation. Sending his sons on business trips for the company he owns while taxpayers pick up the dime. His choices of cabinet members are ridiculously corrupt and in bed with the industries they are supposed to be regulating etc etc etc
But they're not. The Republicans are getting dirt thrown at them because they're the ones putting all this through. Do I care about Donna Brazile's mishap or the DNC's treatment of her? Sure, but I don't care NEARLY AS MUCH about that as I do about potentially losing my healthcare, losing public schools, losing our national parks, losing my right to choose, losing my clean air and water... The list goes on and on.
It's not "standard party politics." (There's nothing "standard" about this administration.) It's just that these scandals have no comparison. Donna Brazile's actions show a horridly ill-thought-out mishap at best and a sliver of corruption at worst. The GOP healthcare plan will actually kill people if passed. If you honestly believe these issues deserve equal time and criticism, then I'm sorry, but you need to sort out your priorities.
(And I don't mean "you" as in specifically speaking to ThacoBell, I mean a generalized "you". Just so we're clear.)
I don't find the President taking vacations particularly egregious, no, that always seems to be a partisan thing, Fox News hated on Obama's vacations and now it's the reverse.
Obama's vacations were peanuts compared to Trumps weekly vacations. And Melania staying in NYC instead of the White House is costing a fortune as well. Instead of all those ridiculous budget cuts to the elderly and poor he could stop taking vacations and get Melania to stay in the White House.
Melania’s NYC Digs Cost Nearly As Much As Trump’s Budget Cuts
I vote we become an autonomous collective.
We can dismiss criticism as politically motivated--"they only complain when the other guy is doing it"--or we can compare actual data.
That being said, I don't actually mind if Trump spends a lot of time off the job, and leaves other people to handle things in his absence. The only part that bothers me is the monetary cost.
For many observers, political discussion amounts to very little since it really consists of political partisanship, with sides digging in and simply wishing to exaggerate and chase stereotypes of the other side.
Wikileaks shows clear evidence of political, Government and systematic corruption where political parties, supposed to represent the people, are more concerned with retaining their own power and shutting out those not in their inner-circle.
It is everything we complain about literally practically every day, It's quite literally a miracle that a group is managing to expose the dark inner workings Government, but because it doesn't help 'my side' not only is it swept under the rug, A group clearly trying to hold Government accountable and actually showing evidence of corruption is now said to be an agent of Russia.
Gee wonderful, I have to rely on an Agent of Russia to get some transparency of my own Government, What is my position again? Wanting transparency of the Government or now I don't care about this stuff anymore and engage in Geo-political struggle with Russia, The kind of things that lead to proxy wars.
I despise Proxy wars, but should i be ok with it now because of MUHH RUSSIA?
Looking at the wrong things when concluding whether to have it in America and what form it should be.