Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Oh, yeah. They'll do their best to shaft him like they did in 2016 and pick another horrendous candidate like Hillary Clinton. Although, luckily enough I don't think there's anyone quite that bad this time around.
The amorphous "they" do not pick anything, the primary voters do.
Originally posted by cdtm
They broke their own rules to do it, and argued in a court of law that they're a private corporation, and can do whatever they want. To which a judge agreed.The party of the people, ladies and gentlemen.
Yeah, no.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yeah, [b]no. [/B]
This is pretty much splitting hairs, imo. It's arguing the deck wasn't stacked against Sanders specifically, while arguing all the ways Clinton had a major advantage in terms of being favored by party leaders, being given veto power pre primary (Which the article admits is unusual), and essentially already being earmarked as the poster child as far back as 2014.
This still amounts to Bernie being sandbagged out, when he really should have won the nomination.
And trying to argue the effectiveness of such tactics is ironically hypocritical, considering this same publication has argued the value of Russian meddling in the election.
Originally posted by cdtm
This is pretty much splitting hairs, imo. It's arguing the deck wasn't stacked against Sanders [b]specifically, while arguing all the ways Clinton had a major advantage in terms of being favored by party leaders, being given veto power pre primary (Which the article admits is unusual), and essentially already being earmarked as the poster child as far back as 2014.This still amounts to Bernie being sandbagged out, when he really should have won the nomination.
And trying to argue the effectiveness of such tactics is ironically hypocritical, considering this same publication has argued the value of Russian meddling in the election. [/B]
You mean to tell me that a life-long Democrat who is raising money for down-ticket candidates is favored by party leaders over an Independent who is running for the party nomination but is not donating to down-ticket candidates? You don't say!
That has zero to do with the fairness of the process or the outcome. The only party leaders who over-ruled the will of primary voters did so for Sanders, and he still lost by millions of votes.
It is not a conspiracy, it is math.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yeah, [b]no. [/B]
But that's not what democratic leaders of Democratic Party stated.
The leaked DNC e-mails also show this bias.
To deny these facts is to deny reality. Remember, partisan supporters like you blindly support their party lines regardless of how obvious the facts are.
Clinton's campaign took care of the party's debt and “put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which [Clinton] expected to wield control of its operations.” She described Clinton's control of the DNC as a “cancer.”Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Clinton's campaign, told her the DNC was (these are Brazile's words) “fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp.”
She “couldn’t write a news release without passing it by Brooklyn.”
Then-Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, whose pressured resignation after the leaked emails left Brazile in charge as interim chairwoman, “let Clinton’s headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired” because she didn't want to tell the party's leaders how dire the DNC's financial situation was. Brazile says Wasserman Schultz arranged a $2 million loan from the Clinton campaign without the consent of party officers like herself, contrary to party rules.
Brazile sums it up near the end: “If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.”
None of this is truly shocking. In fact, Brazile is largely writing about things we already knew about. The joint fundraising agreement between the Clinton campaign and the DNC was already known about and the subject of derision among Sanders's supporters. But it's worth noting that Sanders was given a similar opportunity and passed on using it, as Brazile notes.
There were also those emails from the DNC hack released by WikiLeaks that showed some at the DNC were hardly studiously neutral. One email chain discussed bringing Sanders's Jewish religion into the campaign, others spoke of him derisively, and in one a lawyer who worked for both Clinton and the DNC advised the committee on how to respond to questions about the Clinton joint fundraising committee. The emails even cast plenty of doubt on Brazile's neutrality, given she shared with the Clinton campaign details of questions to be asked at a pair of CNN forums for the Democratic candidates in March 2016, before she was interim chair but when she was still a DNC official. Brazile, who was a CNN pundit at the time, lost her CNN job over that.
Even CNN, who was/is latched so incredibly tightly on the Hillary-Teat of corruption, admits that the DNC's support and approach to the Hillary campaign should have sent alarm bells off because Sanders won in the most importants areas that cost Hillary, and the Dems, the 2016 election:
In hindsight, there were many many many alarm bells for Democrats.Sanders ran strong and beat Clinton in states like Michigan and Wisconsin, parts of the Democratic wall she would go on to lose in November.
He trounced her among young Democratic voters, who did not show up for her the same way they did for Obama.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/04/politics/bernie-sanders-2016-election-donna-brazile/index.html
AMAZING!
What IF Sanders got months and months of tremendous support and money from the Democratic Party like Hillary got? But Hillary's money really helped her get and keep power. It's always about money.
I would have really liked to see Sanders in office in 2016, over Trump. If I could get a candidate that blends the best of a strong libertarian and someone like Yang or Sanders, that would be best. But that's impossible.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
How would you propose blending "strong libertarianism" with Yang? What would that look like? How would the policy proposals be different?
Off the top of my head, WITH LINKS:
1. UBI of $1500 a month minimum but adjusted to match current per diem numbers used for federal employees and contractors (if they already have a system that they use for standard of living calculations, why can't everyone else?)
-Contrast this with Yang's proposal of $1,000
https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/
2. Abolish ICE and the DEA
-Contrast this with Yang's lack of policy around this
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/
3. Fair Tax Plan
-Contrast this with a lack of policy around this and, instead, where he continues to add more money around the existing system with small, but some good, updates to the existing tax system:
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/making-taxes-fun/
4. Anti-Corruption Act
-Contrast this with a lack of direct support for all articles of the Anti-Corruption Act. He focuses more on the Office of the President of the United States. He suggest rank choice voting, as well.
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/prevent-regulatory-capture-and-corruption/
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/rankedchoice/
And here is the full text of the law, which has been passed many times around the US, already:
https://anticorruptionact.org/whats-in-the-act/
5. Reverse militarization of law enforcement and greatly reform asset forfeiture laws:
-Contrast this with Yang's lack of either in his policies:
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/
6. Actually follow the 4th amendment and get rid of unconstitutional spy laws (Patriot Act) and spy programs being run against the American People.
-Contrast this with Yang's lack of support around these policies:
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/
7. Eliminate victimless crimes, carte blanche. Decriminalize a lot of things.
-Contrast this with some measures Yang Brings up and I actually disagree with wasting more taxpayer dollars on the negligible and near-nonexistent white supremacist crime (it's useless, wasteless, virtue signaling):
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/reduce-mass-incarceration/
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/legalization-of-marijuana/
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/cashbail/
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/fight-white-nationalism-extremism/
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/decriminalizeopioids/
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/every-cop-gets-camera/
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/algorithmic-trading-fraud/
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/holding-pharmaceutical-companies-accountable/
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/economic-crime/
This will actually take far longer than I care to type.
There's also education (several great ideas but some go too far), military stuff (many great ideas but he fails to capture ending all foreign wars and almost all foreign soil occupations like libertarians want), and he even has some corruption in there such as bailing out malls when they close down (not kidding).
You may have expected a poorly thought-out answer so you could point out the idiocy of a position like mine. I think you expected to ask 3 "gotcha" questions to point out yet another person who was ignorant of Yang's policies. That's fair: many people on the interwebz just say blanket stupid things about Sanders or Yang but don't know anything. But Yang is a politician I educated myself on when he seemed like we had several overlapping positions.
I view Yang as a 60% candidate. He matches with me on 60% of really important issues but goes too far in some areas or not far enough in others. He certainly matches with me better than any other main Democrat running, for sure.
Originally posted by dadudemon
You may have expected a poorly thought-out answer so you could point out the idiocy of a position like mine. I think you expected to ask 3 "gotcha" questions to point out yet another person who was ignorant of Yang's policies. That's fair: many people on the interwebz just say blanket stupid things about Sanders or Yang but don't know anything. But Yang is a politician I educated myself on when he seemed like we had several overlapping positions.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
What's not fair here is this presumption of bad faith. What about my question called for such a defensive response?
I disagree that it was in bad faith.
I also disagree that it was a defensive response.
Put away your assumptions for just a moment and consider a different perspective; you may not feel like you need to be so defensive like this.
The key take-away from my statement that you should be focusing on is this:
I think you expected to ask 3 "gotcha" questions to point out yet another person who was ignorant of Yang's policies. That's fair: many people on the interwebz just say blanket stupid things about Sanders or Yang but don't know anything.
Because one very common theme I see on the internet about nearly anyone who is critical of Yang is just pure ignorance. And you clearly asked your questions to differentiate between another pile of shit opinion or someone actually having an informed opinion.
From my perspective, you were seeking to accomplish one of two outcomes:
1. Prove I'm just another Yang-hating moron so you could demonstrate that and move on to better topics.
2. Demonstrate that there is quite a bit of nuance to discuss and there are alternatives to consider.
Either way, your desired outcome is a win-win from your perspective. I wanted to draw attention to that. See, you didn't need to be defensive! 😄 😄 😄 😄
A better response from you would read something like, "That's right, b*tch, you better outline your talking points. uhuh "
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Well, I appreciate that you took the time to properly answer the question, but my interest in inquiring further is kind of shot now.
Don't worry, I already threw in the towel. It takes far too long to outline all of this stuff. A better format is an actual discussion (I mean humans talking to humans with their actual mouths, not keyboards) - we cannot cover the gamut of a political movement vs. all the political positions of a presidential candidate. That's just too much to ask someone with a job and pooping to do.
Republicans are taking notes and tactics right from the UK conservatives handbook, they're now aiming their own "you hate Jews!" laser at none other than Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders has an anti-Semitism problem
Bernie Sanders may be ethnically Jewish, but his campaign is rapidly turning out to be the most anti-Semitic in decades. -snip
Originally posted by Robtard
Republicans are taking notes and tactics right from the UK conservatives handbook, they're now aiming their own "you hate Jews!" laser at none other than Bernie Sanders.Bernie Sanders has an anti-Semitism problem
Bernie Sanders may be ethnically Jewish, but his campaign is rapidly turning out to be the most anti-Semitic in decades. -snip
I wonder how that makes the progressive Jewish Americans feel who own the leftist media and are at information war with the GOP?
Wait, found the perfect gif for that: