Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Although, that Parliamentary system does have some safeties against such unfair dismissal, one of the expelled MPs was basically immediately supported by his seat's local Tory organisation to be their candidate for MP, so it's not like it's an unilateral sacking that can't be gotten around.
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."No, it's weird to me personally because where I live parties are actual organisations you can apply for Membership in and also pay membership dues for. You get a Membership ID and everything.
You only get kicked out if you're visibly (and repeatedly) acting against what the party is supposed to stand for and even then it's not guaranteed (for example, it took three attempts to revoke Thilo Sarrazin's SPD Membership, even though the guy's a racist piece of shit).
So the whole of notion of "anyone can be part of a party simply by saying they are" seems weird from that perspective.
Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Sep 18th 2019 at 12:58:52 PM
We learn from history that we do not learn from historyIf you think that's weird, wait 'til you hear about Bernie Sanders. Despite this being his second attempt at claiming the Democratic party nomination, he's not actually a member of the party.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
Which is one of the main reasons for my dislike of the guy - he's only a Democrat when it suits him.
Though to be fair, it's not like the broken mess that is the American electoral system really leaves him other options, considering the last Independent to win a presidential election was George Washington (who basically ran unopposed).
Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Sep 18th 2019 at 3:13:11 PM
We learn from history that we do not learn from historyFun Fact: In the United States, there's only 1 Political Party that acts more like a European Political Party then just a loose collective like the US, and that's the Libertarian Party, where you do have to pay Membership fees to be an official part of the Party. Of course, because of how US Politics works, anyone can still claim to be a Libertarian and have not paid a single cent to the Party, they just wouldn't be officially recognized (unless they win a seat, then they might let it slide).
![]()
I don't understand that party loyalty attitude. Not you specifically, but I remember seeing Sanders bashing that was almost entirely to the tune of "he's not a Democrat" as if membership to the party was some kind of sacred pact he was disrespecting by standing for the Democratic nomination while being an independent Senator. Its the Democrats who end up choosing their candidate, if they want someone who happens to not be part of the party, why should that matter?
Also, I think he'd disagree with the "Democrat only when it suits him" - he'd probably point out he's always an independent, but as he largely aligns with the Democrats' progressive wing it makes far more sense for him to aim for the White House on the Democratic ticket than doing so independently. If the Democrats don't want him, they won't vote for him. If they do, what's the problem?
Edited by GoldenKaos on Sep 18th 2019 at 2:22:07 PM
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."It's a legit grievance. Sanders is basically the new guy who barges in and demands leadership of the whole organization despite spending most of his career bashing it.
Contrast with Labour's Jeremy Corbyn, who has been a member of Labour for decades and worked his way into leadership. That's probably why he's had more success than Sanders, relatively speaking.
And there's also the fact that he takes up the DNC's time and resources. So he's the new guy who barges in and demands leadership of the whole organization despite spending most of his career bashing it while also using their Wi-fi and drinking their coffee.
Edited by M84 on Sep 18th 2019 at 9:34:16 PM
Disgusted, but not surprised"Despite this being his second attempt at claiming the Democratic party nomination, he's not actually a member of the party."
He is, technically. The DNC changed the rules so that you have to actually be a Democrat to run for the nomination, so he officially signed up.
Note that since he didn't actually run as a Democrat in his senate race last year, he's still listed as an Independent. If that works for Vermont Democrats I'm not gonna judge.
![]()
![]()
And if Labour and the Democrats had the same kind of structure, I would get it.
But they don't, and as I understand it, almost anyone could stand for President as long as the American people vote them in. Trump being a prime example. It's not like Sanders would assume leadership of the party if he became President on their ticket. And since there are no rules to exclude Senators that sit independently, if he does become President on the Democratic ticket - it would be because the Democratic party wants him, surely? And if they don't want him, they'll choose someone else? So what's the problem?
I really don't get this tribal "look at this Johnny-come-lately strutting into our nomination - he ain't even a real Dem!" attitude. It feels childish to me. The democratic process will either wash him out or select him as candidate whichever way the Party feels about it.
Edited by GoldenKaos on Sep 18th 2019 at 2:38:35 PM
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."
Except the Johnny-Come-Late has also spent years lambasting the organization and relying on his "outsider" credentials. Him joining up just to be able to use their resources is blatant opportunism.
The fact that he immediately went back to being Independent after losing the nomination in 2016 didn't help.
He isn't a Democratic Party member in spirit. Nor does he want to be. He just wants to be President.
It's one of many reasons I do not respect him.
Edited by M84 on Sep 18th 2019 at 9:44:10 PM
Disgusted, but not surprisedSure?note And if the Dems have a problem with that they'll vote someone else in as candidate. It's not like criticism of the Dems is somehow unwarranted. Would it be better if he had been arguably hypocritical and made those same criticisms from within the party?
This entire line of grievance still smacks of petty tribalism to me I'm afraid.
Especially this kind of sentiment.
Edited by GoldenKaos on Sep 18th 2019 at 2:46:50 PM
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."![]()
This. Criticisms tend to have more merit when they are being made by people who are actually part of the organization and thus are privy to more going on inside it.
It's easy to criticize something if you set yourself apart from it, the way Sanders has done for decades.
Edited by M84 on Sep 18th 2019 at 9:54:57 PM
Disgusted, but not surprisedAh, so you think that he wouldn't have those criticisms if he had been within the party? Or that the criticisms are automatically less valid because he doesn't have the full picture? Or that they would have more weight were he a Democrat?
I still don't see what this has to do with griping about him riding the Dem ticket. It's still "he ain't one of us".
"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."And then he whines for months about the primary being rigged when Democrats wind up not voting for him.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.

That always struck me as odd, to be honest.
Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Sep 18th 2019 at 10:13:12 AM
We learn from history that we do not learn from history