Post #418,938
7/17/17 3:30:11 PM
7/17/17 3:30:11 PM
|
Fair enough
And probably a good premise for congressional races. Just as there were clear differences between Hillary and Donnie, there are clear differences between the parties. (No, stop, don't say there aren't.)
But when you throw in "regardless of their politics" is where you're building your strawman. People saying to vote for the least-bad, or saying to vote party, are saying that specifically because of their politics.
You do realize that, don't you? Hmm, that's an interesting question. If you really believe people support a Democratic nominee just because they're a Democrat, what do you tell yourself about why people do that?
|
Post #418,939
7/17/17 4:03:27 PM
7/17/17 4:03:27 PM
|
I sure do think that.
I think anyone who calls themselves a Democrat who voted for Hillary did so exclusively because she listed herself as a Democrat. In the primaries, those who voted for Hillary voted for her because the other candidate "didn't have a chance to win", "was a purity pony", "wasn't even a Democrat!!111ONE!" held "pie in the sky positions" (read: the positions the rest of the Western world has already implemented and were, pre-Clinton Era, bedrock Democratic Party principles) or because she was a woman and gosh darnit, isn't it time we had a woman in the White House? In the general, they voted for her because she was the Democratic candidate and/or because she wasn't the Republican candidate and/or because she was a woman. I don't think Hillary's politics entered into the head of anyone who voted for her.
bcnu, Mikem
It's mourning in America again.
|
Post #418,940
7/17/17 4:11:16 PM
7/17/17 4:11:16 PM
|
That explains a lot
When people tell you repeatedly, thoughtfully, and in great detail that they do in fact consider her policies, and find them preferable to someone else's, you just know better.
|
Post #418,941
7/17/17 4:21:32 PM
7/17/17 4:21:32 PM
|
Those people are called Republicans. They just don't want to fess up in polite company.
bcnu, Mikem
It's mourning in America again.
|
Post #418,944
7/17/17 7:03:38 PM
7/17/17 7:03:38 PM
|
By Jove!, this sane discussion is a pukka partial-Reason
(re the I.G.M. ..never-mind the G.R.R. :-)
that I'll stick around These Parts for the duration ..despite wimpy-assed defectors to [??] ..some megalo-"Social"- [??] Site where they can merge with ... ...The unknowable-MIllions?
And it all Started via One Sandy Reed, her dissing of OS-2 aficionados (via the grift of InfoWorld's surrender to the script-kiddies of The Redmond Beast.) ALL that BS Opposed: by this band of provocateurs!!
We must never forget our Roots! dammit (While also remembering Ed Curry (just as Greg's sig included ... for lo, those er, Decades..))
Carrion
|
Post #418,946
7/17/17 8:27:19 PM
7/17/17 8:27:19 PM
|
You seem to be intentionally confusing things.
Yes, it was me who said (many times): Vote the Candidate in the Primary; Vote the Party in the General. It's shorthand. If the Democratic Party were to nominate David Duke or someone similarly unqualified and dangerous, I wouldn't vote for them because I had to somehow blindly follow my shorthand. It's useful shorthand for many situations because (as I've argued before) the majority party picks the leadership and the leadership decides the rules, committee assignments, determines what gets consideration for a vote, etc., etc. It's not some blind obedience to The Party. It's a recognition that as flawed as the Democratic Party is, it is the best real-world vehicle we have for a politics that preserves what's best about our government while simultaneously making it better. If someone tells you, "I always vote for the Democrat" that doesn't mean that is the full and complete extent of their reasoning. I don't think Hillary's politics entered into the head of anyone who voted for her. If you really believe that, then you haven't been paying attention at all. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #418,947
7/17/17 10:02:30 PM
7/17/17 10:02:30 PM
|
as you may be. The elction is over in 2020 there is a new one
According to news reports Soros and the Clintons are vetting who the next nominee is going to be. If the dem nominee is going to be perceived as a puppet of the Clinton gang, Podesta Wasserman and the other usual suspects and the media in full cry behind them vowing to crush trump, guess what? He gets another term. Time to put politics and handing out the goodies aside and get a message to the working class. The minorities can no longer be taken for granted. You are going to actually have to stand for something. If a dem shows up like Franken or Begich I will wholeheartedly get behind them. If it is more of the same meh, I will sit it out.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
|
Post #418,948
7/17/17 10:09:54 PM
7/17/17 10:09:54 PM
|
WND and the like will rot your brain. I've told you that for years now...
Hillary won the popular vote in 2016. She's retired now.
Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #418,971
7/18/17 10:28:54 PM
7/18/17 10:28:54 PM
|
havent read wnd since I called farah out on BS and he wouldnt budge
that was back when Bill Clinton was president. My post had nothing to do with Hillarys retirement. Just her machine's death grip on the democratic party. I suppose to you Tammany was just a social club
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
|
Post #419,015
7/19/17 10:08:18 PM
7/19/17 10:08:18 PM
|
I call bullshit
havent read wnd since I called farah out on BS and he wouldnt budge…that was back when Bill Clinton was president You’ve linked to WND several times since I first wandered into IWT, and that was at the end of 2002. Or are you telling us that you’ve referred to and linked to pages you haven’t actually read? skeptically,
|
Post #419,016
7/19/17 10:24:19 PM
7/19/17 10:24:19 PM
|
I dont care if you have insensitive testicles
if I have linked there it was from other linked articles. I had a couple of emails back and forth with Farah then said fuckit. Like other opinion makers from Madow to Limberg it sounds plausible until they pontificate about a subject you know very well and one realize that if their head is so far up there ass on that subject, how can you trust the other opinions? On the squabble with Farah, he almost admitted he was wrong but stuck to his guns for his "readership" at that point I was no longer in that group.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
|
Post #418,952
7/18/17 9:03:00 AM
7/18/17 9:03:00 AM
|
box has a point.
There are many, many people who feel the way he does. Look, we want (mostly) the same thing. Neither of us want oligarchy. That said, it can be reasonably argued that we've always had it, just not to this extent. But I completely agree with you that it, historically, had been the Democratic Party that mitigated some of the worst of our economic system. That all changed. When Jimmy Carter was nominated and I was working on my Democratic Party's Congressional candidate's campaign *and* Jimmy Carter's, nearly everyone I worked with lamented that the ticket wasn't reversed. We all knew that Carter was much further to the Right on a lot of issues that we cared about. But the alternatives were unthinkable (most notably Reagan as Gerald Ford could be a Democrat today).
Look at the legislation that was passed in the 1960's and tell me how much of that you think the Democratic Party today would have even suggested. VISTA, the Job Core, Headstart, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, the Education Act (established the first federally funded scholarships), the Open Housing Act, the Low Income Housing Bill, not to mention NASA. Can you honestly tell me the New Democratic Party would have introduced *any* of that? NASA took two Democratic Presidents, but the rest *all* happened under ONE Democratic President. That all this happened in my first decade of life obviously helped establish my view of the Democratic Party. The complete asshats that followed I can barely stomach. I know it is not the political party it used to be and so does everyone else. And when I say "everyone", I mean the people who now call themselves "Independents" or choose to sit out the process because no one is advocating for truly Democratic principles anymore. Well, okay, there was that Old Socialist Guy, but he was crazy, right?
The first half-step Right was Carter, then Bill Clinton bolted Right and took the entire party along with him. Then Obama (the assassination King) kept the pace up, betraying the people who'd swallowed his "Hope for Change" message in 2008. Acknowledging this wild Right swing over the past 40 years is the first step toward correcting it and if you think the Right's influence on the party has waned, think again. Who is it that is the DNC Chief today?
There are reasons why the Democratic Party has gone from being the party of the majority of registered voters by a margin of sometimes better than two to one, to trailing Independents by 7 percentage points. The party abandoned its core principles. I'll concede "they're still better than the other guys" but that's not saying very much. If you want people like box and me and the millions of Independents out there to support the lesser evil, the DNC better put a candidate on the ticket next time who looks, sounds and most importantly, acts like the Democrats of my childhood. These Eisenhower Republicans are not going to cut it anymore. Not for a great many of us. And that doesn't bode well for any of us.
bcnu, Mikem
It's mourning in America again.
|
Post #418,957
7/18/17 1:32:33 PM
7/18/17 1:32:33 PM
|
Meh.
Everyone isn't going to agree.
Times change. Tell me about the equivalent to Obamacare that Johnson passed. Etc.
As long as you continue to see the glass as 90% empty when a Democrat is in office, rather than recognizing that the Democrats prevented the Teabaggers from smashing the glass to bits and sent us down the road to dehydration and death, then you're going to be disappointed. :-/
The (slightly) more liberal guy was flawed - he had little to no support among women and minorities. (Shall we talk about the NRA?) A Democrat can't win without their support. And he didn't (ignoring the fact, for the moment, that he's still not a Democrat). He's got huge baggage (his writings, his interviews, where are his taxes?, what are his campaign's ties to Putin?, his inability to explain how he would "break up the banks", etc.). And too many voters (I'm among them) don't agree with his thesis that everything in politics is economics and that all the bad thing about economics can be fixed in Washington or that McConnell "looking out his window" at a big rally is the way to actually make progress.
But we're just going around in circles.
Who do you like in 2020, and think could actually win? I dunno. I think Bernie is too old and too damaged. You? Surely out of 100+M Democrats there's someone out there that you think could get 66+M popular votes and 270 EC votes. (Not just someone whose policies you like, but someone who could actually win.)
Is there a dark horse out there? I remember being surprised when Silverlock (IIRC) came out early for Obama before he even announced (IIRC). But he was right.
Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #418,961
7/18/17 2:15:21 PM
7/18/17 2:15:21 PM
|
Re: Tell me about the equivalent to Obamacare that Johnson passed.
You cannot be serious. Really? Well, you're right. Johnson didn't get "the equivalent to Obamacare" passed, he got two things vastly superior passed and I included them above. Medicare and Medicaid ring any bells? ;0)
Who do I think would be a good candidate in 2020? I honestly don't know. I've heard some grumblings about nobody being "obvious" already, but geez, man, it's four years out. I would have loved Jerry Brown but he,like Sanders, is too old now. And Jerry's drifted a little Right over the years as well, although nowhere near as far Right as the rest of the party. Some have suggested Gavin Newsom, but I don't know if I could support him or not - nothing against him, I just don't know a lot about him.
I'm coming to conclude that this whole self-government experiment is an epic failure and total disaster. 538's still got (today!) Drumpf at 39% approval. How much more evidence of the American People's inability to properly govern themselves does one need? :-\
bcnu, Mikem
It's mourning in America again.
|
Post #418,965
7/18/17 4:01:27 PM
7/18/17 4:01:27 PM
|
Medicare and Medicaid grew into great programs. They didn't start that way.
|
Post #418,972
7/18/17 10:32:44 PM
7/18/17 10:32:44 PM
|
already gave you two, begich and franken
both are workers, both understand how a budget works and they are likeable people
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
|
Post #418,978
7/19/17 3:02:48 AM
7/19/17 3:02:49 AM
|
I like Franken a lot. Don't know Begich much at all. We'll see.
|
Post #419,358
7/31/17 6:17:23 AM
7/31/17 6:17:23 AM
|
Yeah, the champions of do-not-WANT-to-understand supporting each other.
Shouldn't both of you want to reconsider your view just because of the appaling ally you find you're lumping yourselves in with?
-- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi(Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
|
Post #419,368
7/31/17 8:30:51 AM
7/31/17 8:30:51 AM
|
Sanders is "an appauling ally"?
bcnu, Mikem
It's mourning in America again.
|
Post #419,357
7/31/17 6:14:19 AM
7/31/17 6:14:19 AM
|
And it's obvious-enough shorthand that to not understand it, you have to WANT to not understand it.
|