Topic: Democrats are rigging primarys again? Well, yes. Because that's what they do
Anonymous A started this discussion 8 years ago #74,735
https://theintercept.com/2018/04/26/steny-hoyer-audio-levi-tillemann/
At least this guy is being honest about it, during this secretly taped meeting
At least this guy is being honest about it, during this secretly taped meeting
squeegee joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 14 minutes later[^] [v] #884,682
i don't really see how wanting to run candidates based on electability is controversial. especially for a private organization who's goal is to... organize and run electable candidates based on their platform.
am i wrong? or isn't that exactly within the purview of the party leadership, to ensure the direction of the party? what's the controversy here, that democrats aren't supporting left wing fringe lunatics? i'm sure the republicans would love it if they could call democrats socialists, so i'm pretty sure that's why they're the only ones who appear upset about this.
republicans are as welcome to as many roy moore's as they like, though, if they decide to follow through on their own and support every lunatic that tries to primary as a republican.
am i wrong? or isn't that exactly within the purview of the party leadership, to ensure the direction of the party? what's the controversy here, that democrats aren't supporting left wing fringe lunatics? i'm sure the republicans would love it if they could call democrats socialists, so i'm pretty sure that's why they're the only ones who appear upset about this.
republicans are as welcome to as many roy moore's as they like, though, if they decide to follow through on their own and support every lunatic that tries to primary as a republican.
WSD !m2cp3rR5zw joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #884,683
@previous (squeegee)
The problem is that no one really wants liberals in the democrat party but the liberals themselves. The left detest their economic views and the right detest their social views. What is the point, honestly?
The problem is that no one really wants liberals in the democrat party but the liberals themselves. The left detest their economic views and the right detest their social views. What is the point, honestly?
squeegee replied with this 8 years ago, 12 minutes later, 28 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #884,686
@previous (WSD !m2cp3rR5zw)
traditionally the parties have had liberal liberal sides and conservative sides, the hyper polarization of this era has worked to eradicate that in at least the republicans, they seem to be virulently-anti-liberal-anything. democrats at least have managed to, for better or worse, remain split. you want the parties to overlap in some ways, that's where consensus and compromise comes from. things are so fucking broken right now because republicans have pulled hard right in response to a very heavily center leaning democratic party. and I think that the democrats lean right as much as they do specifically BECAUSE the republicans are so far out there - they have to be to even get a single thing accomplished.
that's not to say that the democratic leadership isn't wrong, and that maybe a very hard left would be a better move socially, politically, economically, etc. but i think we're going to need to live with this for a while yet before far left leaning policies are going to be widely embraced.
let the conservatives steer for a while, and see where it gets us, and we'll see what kind of correction results. they got the wheel as much as they want to deny it. lol.
traditionally the parties have had liberal liberal sides and conservative sides, the hyper polarization of this era has worked to eradicate that in at least the republicans, they seem to be virulently-anti-liberal-anything. democrats at least have managed to, for better or worse, remain split. you want the parties to overlap in some ways, that's where consensus and compromise comes from. things are so fucking broken right now because republicans have pulled hard right in response to a very heavily center leaning democratic party. and I think that the democrats lean right as much as they do specifically BECAUSE the republicans are so far out there - they have to be to even get a single thing accomplished.
that's not to say that the democratic leadership isn't wrong, and that maybe a very hard left would be a better move socially, politically, economically, etc. but i think we're going to need to live with this for a while yet before far left leaning policies are going to be widely embraced.
let the conservatives steer for a while, and see where it gets us, and we'll see what kind of correction results. they got the wheel as much as they want to deny it. lol.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #884,687
@884,683 (WSD !m2cp3rR5zw)
> The problem is that no one really wants liberals in the democrat party but the liberals themselves. The left detest their economic views and the right detest their social views. What is the point, honestly?
there's no such party as democrat party genous
> The problem is that no one really wants liberals in the democrat party but the liberals themselves. The left detest their economic views and the right detest their social views. What is the point, honestly?
there's no such party as democrat party genous
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 37 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #884,688
> primarys
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #884,690
@884,682 (squeegee)It's the same playbook the right-wing has been running over and over. Trump has ties to Russia? We'll throw out "proof" Hillary sold Russia a bunch of uranium because she is really in bed with Russia. Questions about poll results? We'll promise proof that illegals were bussed in to vote and Democrats tried to fix the election. Puerto Rico doesn't have power? We'll spread around rumors that the Clintons stole all their money for infrastructure.
Now that people have a vague sense of worry because they've heard our elections may have been influenced, let's supply a narrative where it's all the Democrats that are doing it. It doesn't matter if it's all made of lies and misinformation as long as people keep seeing those things linked in the headlines and don't read too closely. As long as they keep saying "No you do that!" to every accusation, and saying it loudly enough, that's what people will hear.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 3 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #884,709
@OP
No surprise there, just more of the same from corporate dem scum. I'll still vote in the d primaries despite that because indulging in masochism is a fun pastime tho.
No surprise there, just more of the same from corporate dem scum. I'll still vote in the d primaries despite that because indulging in masochism is a fun pastime tho.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #884,733
@OP
Fuck you
Fuck you
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #884,741
@884,683 (WSD !m2cp3rR5zw)That's not borne out by any polling. See for example http://news.gallup.com/poll/201152/conservative-liberal-gap-continues-narrow-tuesday.aspx
The reason liberals are in control of the Democratic party is because the majority of democrats are liberal, and the ones who aren't are moderate or conservative. The actual number of people so left of liberal that they don't identify as liberal isn't super big.
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU double-posted this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #884,742
Also if the Democrats weren't allocating candidates based on political considerations they would be committing electoral malpractice.WSD !m2cp3rR5zw replied with this 8 years ago, 5 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #884,743
@884,741 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
By liberal I refer to the neoliberal sector of the Democrat party. Glorified neocons. We need social democrats and democratic socialists taking the party from their grasp.
By liberal I refer to the neoliberal sector of the Democrat party. Glorified neocons. We need social democrats and democratic socialists taking the party from their grasp.
(Edited 38 seconds later.)
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 8 years ago, 1 hour later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #884,760
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 8 years ago, 1 minute later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #884,761
@884,743 (WSD !m2cp3rR5zw)
there is no such party as the Democrat party
are you translating from another language
there is no such party as the Democrat party
are you translating from another language
Anonymous J replied with this 8 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #884,762
@previous (Sheila LaBoof)
> there is no such party as the Democrat party
>
> are you translating from another language
why are you doing this they're having a discussion about the Democrat party just let em
> there is no such party as the Democrat party
>
> are you translating from another language
why are you doing this they're having a discussion about the Democrat party just let em