Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DMC

US Politics: Show Trials & Tribulations

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

The DNC will ensure he won't win

Ah yes, the all-powerful Illumin..I mean DNC.  They're so corrupt and influence Dem primary voters so much.  Ya know what, we really should try to figure out how they do that.  Let's break into their headquarters and..wait a second...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

When you are playing with potentially tight margins in key states vanishingly small on a national scale could be win or lose in state races.

If the Democrats eat themselves after it become blindingly obvious who the nominee will be (rigged caucuses or not) then they will deserve to be beaten a 2nd time by what should be a pretty easily beatable Trump. It's a different question as to whether the world will deserve that outcome. I do care what happens to the US people, but largely because you all are included in "the world" and I care very much what happens to the world. Ultimately we (collectively) will survive the damage that despots, tyrants and fascists do to society and the planet. But some of us (individually) will needlessly suffer greatly if their period of dominion is prolonged.

I do think that the most ardent of Sanders' supporters, though they will be initially very upset when he loses, can be won over when facing another term of Trump. I run in these socialist circles, and even those that are strictly for Sanders (because to them even Warren is too centrist) are progressive minded people. Once faced with another term of Trump and turning away refugees, locking children in cages, refusing to acknowledge climate change, trans bans in the military, I believe they will vote against him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DMC said:

Ah yes, the all-powerful Illumin..I mean DNC.  They're so corrupt and influence Dem primary voters so much.  Ya know what, we really should try to figure out how they do that.  Let's break into their headquarters and..wait a second...

Ah yes, the red herring. That is so relevant because positing the DNC can ensure something like this is so illuminati. If Bernie takes a commanding lead, here's what I want you to do. Takes notes. Watch how the DNC works through this. And when Sanders doesn't get the nom, come back and give us your analysis. Until then, it's moot. He's not winning. That's the point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While reading BernieBro posts I replace "Bernie" with "my precious" and the arguments track much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a feature, not a bug, for the Roberts Court though. 

Quote

 

The case of Parnas, though, speaks not only to the influence campaign that led to Trump’s impeachment and that now comes before the Senate; Parnas’ ability to buy his way into Trumpworld in the first place demonstrates once again just how wrong the Supreme Court got it in the case of Citizens United v. FEC, decided 10 years ago this month.

The Ukrainian-born, Florida-based Parnas is an unlikely insider. He has a history of failed businesses and unpaid debts; he even named one recent venture “Fraud Guarantee” to suppress fraud allegations against him in online search results.


But Parnas and an associate, Igor Fruman, managed to buy insider status by laundering $325,000 to Trump’s super PAC—and then leveraged that status to advance the private personal and political interests that are now central to the Ukraine scandal.

Such access-buying would’ve been difficult 10 years ago. Before Citizens United, there was no such thing as a super PAC.

The Supreme Court in Citizens United paved the way for those corporate-backed big money political groups, but did so with the promise that they would be “independent” of the candidates they support. That independence, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, guarded against any risk of “corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

It hasn’t worked out that way.

 

 

 

Quote

 

When Trump affords direct access to those big donors who give to his “approved” super PAC, that super PAC is anything but independent. And when six- or seven-figure donations can flow to the president’s super PAC, the $2,800 limit on candidate contributions is effectively meaningless: The money is going into two different pockets of the same coat, controlled by the same candidate and his agents.

In many ways, America First Action is not unique. Citizens United spawned hundreds of super PACs that effectively operate as shadow campaigns for candidates from both parties. Since 2010, spending by such outside groups has topped $4.5 billion, with much of that money coming from a tiny handful of ultrawealthy donors.

 

 

 

How Citizens United Led Directly to Trump’s Impeachment

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/citizens-united-john-roberts-trump-impeachment.html

Edited by Martell Spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zephyr Teachout had a Guardian article saying that Biden had a corruption problem, and I guess she's kind of a Bernie person, and Bernie apologized about the column for what it's worth on a bit more of this Dem-on-Dem stuff.  

 

Warren has also apparently said something to the effect of that she will go after the Trump admin if she wins and establish like a special DOJ task force to do so.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

And when Sanders doesn't get the nom, come back and give us your analysis. Until then, it's moot. He's not winning. That's the point. 

Agreed, this is very likely to be moot.  What are the mechanisms the DNC employs to deny Sanders the nomination?  The electoral process - i.e. caucuses vs. primaries - even though Bernie both theoretically and empirically has an advantage in the "less democratic" caucus method based on the intensity of his supporters?  The scheduling and qualifications for debates, of which Bernie has always qualified for?  The distribution of delegates, which is rightly proportional rather than winner take all?  Or is it those horrific superdelegates that have never actually played a role in choosing a nominee since their inception?  

If there are no overt/transparent mechanisms the DNC can or historically ever has activated to deny the highest vote-getting candidate the nomination, then we must be talking about informal influence, right?  Which naturally leads to conspiratorial explanations - the DNC is funneling cash to their preferred candidates, or staffers, or coordinating with the media, or...I dunno, sure you can come up with more.  In which case, this must be quite organized to coordinate behind the scenes, so let's contract some plumbers and find out what those fuckers are up to!  Nixon 2020!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, DMC said:

Agreed, this is very likely to be moot.  What are the mechanisms the DNC employs to deny Sanders the nomination?  The electoral process - i.e. caucuses vs. primaries - even though Bernie both theoretically and empirically has an advantage in the "less democratic" caucus method based on the intensity of his supporters?  The scheduling and qualifications for debates, of which Bernie has always qualified for?  The distribution of delegates, which is rightly proportional rather than winner take all?  Or is it those horrific superdelegates that have never actually played a role in choosing a nominee since their inception?  

If there are no overt/transparent mechanisms the DNC can or historically ever has activated to deny the highest vote-getting candidate the nomination, then we must be talking about informal influence, right?  Which naturally leads to conspiratorial explanations - the DNC is funneling cash to their preferred candidates, or staffers, or coordinating with the media, or...I dunno, sure you can come up with more.  In which case, this must be quite organized to coordinate behind the scenes, so let's contract some plumbers and find out what those fuckers are up to!  Nixon 2020!

It's funny, libs will totally believe Republicans suppress votes, but when you say Dems do it too? Conspiracy theory. You sound like a Republican defending voter suppression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Simon Steele said:

It's funny, libs will totally believe Republicans suppress votes, but when you say Dems do it too? Conspiracy theory. You sound like a Republican defending voter suppression.

There's evidence of the GOP suppressing votes - through institutional and formal means.  Where's the evidence the DNC is doing so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, there's whole books written on it, but here's an article from 2015 that talks about how the Democratic Party suppresses the vote: 

FiveThirtyEight looking at subversive, less noticeable ways: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-democrats-suppress-the-vote/

Here's a 2018 CNN article (yes, even CNN writes about this) chronicling how Dems suppress primary voting: https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/19/opinions/democrats-need-reform-new-york-primary-weaver/index.html

My favorite quote from the CNN article is strikingly similar to arguments I see from some posters on this board: "Some inside the Democratic Party retort that only someone who signs up for the donkey-emblazoned membership card should be allowed to vote in the primaries even if it means young people and disproportionately young people of color are locked out. They ignore how strikingly similar this argument is to those Republicans use to justify onerous voter ID laws."

 

Edited by Simon Steele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Simon Steele said:

FiveThirtyEight looking at subversive, less noticeable ways: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-democrats-suppress-the-vote/

Here's a 2018 CNN article (yes, even CNN writes about this) chronicling how Dems suppress primary voting: https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/19/opinions/democrats-need-reform-new-york-primary-weaver/index.html

LOL, thought you might give me the first link.  The 538 article is talking about off-cycle local elections, and the Democrats' interest in keeping general election turnout low by scheduling those contests in such random times.  That's literally about as far away from a presidential primary contest as you can get in this country's electoral system.  It is a ridiculously irrelevant example to pose as supporting evidence.

The second link points out the issues with New York's registration rules, which are important.  But, the DNC does not control registration dates/requirements for any given states, and more importantly, your own CNN article states:

Quote

It is so obviously a tool of voter suppression that the national Democratic Unity reform commission - comprised of members picked by Clinton, Sanders and the DNC -- unanimously voted to authorize the DNC to sanction the New York Democratic Party.

So, yeah, still waiting on that evidence...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, DMC said:

LOL, thought you might give me the first link.  The 538 article is talking about off-cycle local elections, and the Democrats' interest in keeping general election turnout low by scheduling those contests in such random times.  That's literally about as far away from a presidential primary contest as you can get in this country's electoral system.  It is a ridiculously irrelevant example to pose as supporting evidence.

The second link points out the issues with New York's registration rules, which are important.  But, the DNC does not control registration dates/requirements for any given states, and more importantly, your own CNN article states:

So, yeah, still waiting on that evidence...

They did it. It's right there in both links. You rationalizing is super Republican of you but you're the type who just can't ingest new info. Like a republican. I'll add, you whitewashing what kinds of elections are okay to suppress is pretty icky considering that people who are most impacted by these forms of suppression, whether it be left or right suppression, are poor people of color and typically marginalized voices. So, defend it all you want. It is truly a despicable thing to try and validate.

Edit: Don't forget to highlight the first part of your pulled quote: "It is so obviously a tool of voter suppression that the national Democratic Unity reform commission - comprised of members picked by Clinton, Sanders and the DNC -- unanimously voted to authorize the DNC to sanction the New York Democratic Party."

 

Edited by Simon Steele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Simon Steele said:

They did it. It's right there in both links. You rationalizing is super Republican of you but you're the type who just can't ingest new info. Like a republican.

 

I like how you think either of those links are new info for me.  The Sanders campaign has been pushing for New York to extend their registration deadlines, which I'm all for.  But (and JFC this is so GOV 101), registration rules are not set by the DNC.  Even purging voters from the rolls, which happened in NYC, was done by the NYC Board of Elections.  You are assuming coordination on behalf of the the DNC with these either the state parties (which is reasonable), a state's Boards of Elections (which is less reasonable), or even a state's legislature which can set those type of rules as well (which is entirely unreasonable).

Different states have different types of primary systems - here's a rundown.  Each state also sets its own rules on registration deadlines, early voting, vote by mail, all those aspects that hopefully encourage turnout.  I'm all for same-day registration and vote by mail (empirical research has decidedly shown early voting has a null effect on increasing turnout), sign me up!  In fact, I've volunteered for organizations advocating these changes.  And it's true, both the Democratic and Republican parties have an interest in "suppressing" these types of changes that might unduly encourage turnout because they want to perpetuate the two-party system.  Important points to emphasize, all. 

Except, Bernie Sanders is running - and did in 2016 - in the Democratic primary.  He was subject to the same damn rules every other Democratic candidate was in terms of open/closed/semi-closed primaries, registration deadlines, early voting schedules.  If those rules are suddenly changed, or voter are purged from the rolls?  Sure, that's suspicious.  But New York's registration rules didn't suddenly change.  There was the NYC purging voters, and that should be dealt with and investigated, but that's the only example I'm aware of. 

More importantly, all of this is based on the assumption not only that changing these rules would lead to increased voter turnout (which is dubious at best), but that Sanders will disproportionately benefit from this increase in turnout to significantly alter the distribution of delegates - which is almost certainly not the case considering the decidedly marginal effect these more open turnout rules have on increasing turnout.  Most importantly, acting like the effort - or lack thereof - to change voting rules to make it more accessible is part and parcel of some conspiracy on behalf of the DNC to deny Bernard Sanders the nomination is why this is so absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DMC said:

I like how you think either of those links are new info for me.  The Sanders campaign has been pushing for New York to extend their registration deadlines, which I'm all for.  But (and JFC this is so GOV 101), registration rules are not set by the DNC.  Even purging voters from the rolls, which happened in NYC, was done by the NYC Board of Elections.  You are assuming coordination on behalf of the the DNC with these either the state parties (which is reasonable), a state's Boards of Elections (which is less reasonable), or even a state's legislature which can set those type of rules as well (which is entirely unreasonable).

Different states have different types of primary systems - here's a rundown.  Each state also sets its own rules on registration deadlines, early voting, vote by mail, all those aspects that hopefully encourage turnout.  I'm all for same-day registration and vote by mail (empirical research has decidedly shown early voting has a null effect on increasing turnout), sign me up!  In fact, I've volunteered for organizations advocating these changes.  And it's true, both the Democratic and Republican parties have an interest in "suppressing" these types of changes that might unduly encourage turnout because they want to perpetuate the two-party system.  Important points to emphasize, all. 

Except, Bernie Sanders is running - and did in 2016 - in the Democratic primary.  He was subject to the same damn rules every other Democratic candidate was in terms of open/closed/semi-closed primaries, registration deadlines, early voting schedules.  If those rules are suddenly changed, or voter are purged from the rolls?  Sure, that's suspicious.  But New York's registration rules didn't suddenly change.  There was the NYC purging voters, and that should be dealt with and investigated, but that's the only example I'm aware of. 

More importantly, all of this is based on the assumption not only that changing these rules would lead to increased voter turnout (which is dubious at best), but that Sanders will disproportionately benefit from this increase in turnout to significantly alter the distribution of delegates - which is almost certainly not the case considering the decidedly marginal effect these more open turnout rules have on increasing turnout.  Most importantly, acting like the effort - or lack thereof - to change voting rules to make it more accessible is part and parcel of some conspiracy on behalf of the DNC to deny Bernard Sanders the nomination is why this is so absurd.

I know you've already read everything in the world, and I broadened my point from presuming the DNC and corrected to the Democratic party in general posts ago. Either way, your views exemplify your privilege. Hell, you're damn near arguing this is okay because of tradition. Yikes.

 

Edited by Simon Steele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Simon Steele said:

Either way, your views exemplify your privilege.

Yep, I am privileged to know how the rules of elections actually work.  Can't deny that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DMC said:

Yep, I am privileged to know how the rules of elections actually work.  Can't deny that.

White male privilege to spell it out for you, but this is the way those of privilege typically react when confronted with by it. Deflect, defer to tradition, act as an authority by segmenting the other's argument to create out of context moves of superiority over your lessers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Simon Steele said:

White male privilege to spell it out for you, but this is the way those of privilege typically react when confronted with by it. Deflect, defer to tradition, act as an authority by segmenting the other's argument to create out of context moves of superiority over your lessers. 

I get it.  You don't have any way to substantively respond to my arguments - and just frankly facts - so you cry white male privilege.  It's pretty routine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

White male privilege to spell it out for you, but this is the way those of privilege typically react when confronted with by it. Deflect, defer to tradition, act as an authority by segmenting the other's argument to create out of context moves of superiority over your lessers. 

Really, he's acting superior because your arguments are complete shit. 

It is entirely reasonable to say New York needs better rules. Because they do!

It is entirely fallacious to say 'the DNC is the reason New York's rules are the way they are'. Because the Democratic NATIONAL committee is not responsible for the rules set in the STATE of New York. You get that the DNC doesn't have a whole lot of sway in how states run their systems, right? Like, at all? 

Furthermore, it's not the Democratic party that controls this either - they have to work with Republicans in order to get the rules of the state fixed. And again - this is something that's largely state-controlled, even more so now that SCOTUS repealed the VRA. 

What I find even more amusing about this argument is that in 2016, the more restrictive a voting system was, the more likely it was that it would be in favor of Sanders. Caucuses - which are significantly more restrictive than primaries, especially to parents, working class, and minorities - went significantly to Sanders. Not always, as some posters will point out, but significantly. When we have data - like with Washington, which has an open primary and an open caucus - the votes in the more open spot went to Clinton by a significant margin, enough where the state would have gone to Clinton instead of Sanders. 

If you really really cared about this - you would decry every single caucus out there and support open primaries everywhere. But you almost certainly don't. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Caucuses - which are significantly more restrictive than primaries, especially to parents, working class, and minorities - went significantly to Sanders.

Yeah I tried to mention this at the beginning of all that shit, but here's a link to clarify.  Normatively, I disagree with you on caucuses should be abolished.  I think they're a great feature of democracy in action, at best.  But they should be held on the weekends - or more ideally a voting holiday - in order to negate the disproportionate turnout tendencies.  That's how you remedy that, which is both an easy fix and unfortunately very unlikely to happen anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Really, he's acting superior because your arguments are complete shit. 

It is entirely reasonable to say New York needs better rules. Because they do!

It is entirely fallacious to say 'the DNC is the reason New York's rules are the way they are'. Because the Democratic NATIONAL committee is not responsible for the rules set in the STATE of New York. You get that the DNC doesn't have a whole lot of sway in how states run their systems, right? Like, at all? 

Furthermore, it's not the Democratic party that controls this either - they have to work with Republicans in order to get the rules of the state fixed. And again - this is something that's largely state-controlled, even more so now that SCOTUS repealed the VRA. 

What I find even more amusing about this argument is that in 2016, the more restrictive a voting system was, the more likely it was that it would be in favor of Sanders. Caucuses - which are significantly more restrictive than primaries, especially to parents, working class, and minorities - went significantly to Sanders. Not always, as some posters will point out, but significantly. When we have data - like with Washington, which has an open primary and an open caucus - the votes in the more open spot went to Clinton by a significant margin, enough where the state would have gone to Clinton instead of Sanders. 

If you really really cared about this - you would decry every single caucus out there and support open primaries everywhere. But you almost certainly don't. 

 

Look, I typically find your posts to be aggressive, belittling, and of little use to me. So, let's just not, yeah?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...