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
Ewww. No. Matter of fact, HELL, no.
It's bad enough dealing with people who have zero idea of how public policy or even basic government works, and you want to make it more open to people like Sanders?
New Survey coming this weekend!
You aren't helping this conversation. Please don't make us have to censure you like certain others.
![]()
![]()
Yes...Also No.
The simple reality is that Sanders represents a growing presence within the Democratic party, and if they don't give a little ground in the present they will only make things worse in the future. Because short of effectively abolishing the primary system and having the party bosses pick the candidate, eventually an insurgent candidate is going to overwhelm any defenses they put in place. But if they open things up on their own terms, then chances are that insurgent candidate won't be completely nutters.
And to be clear, what I'm talking about would be something like reducing, or even eliminating, superdelegates (at least on the first ballot). Which as far as I can tell wouldn't of actually changed the results of any Democratic Party convention since the modern primary system was instituted.
edited 9th Jun '16 7:04:36 PM by Falrinn
Tactical, your position is hardly the sanest I've seen. You've basically advocated for witch hunting for things that don't actually exist. For all his problems Sanders is not actually anything like the Tea Party, nor has he actually inspired a wave of political imitators to seek public office.
As for letting Sanders have more influence on the party; he's basically voiced what a lot of the voting public wants. And for all that he has blinders on regarding racial issues, he's got a pretty good point about economic issues. And there's a significant portion of the voting public that likes him. Trying to stamp out Sanders in the militant manner you've suggested (And yes, your language has veered into the militant) means ignoring huge amounts of the Democratic voter base. And that's political suicide.
No, he doesn't. Tactical seems to think he's the equivalent of the Tea Party, or that he's inspired such. Which is patently untrue, for reasons I've already stated.
For my part, I don't care so much about superdelegates. What I do care about is that caucuses as I've seen them operate seem inherently undemocratic as they require huge amounts of time in order to participate, which makes it much harder than necessary for many people.
edited 9th Jun '16 7:14:03 PM by AceofSpades
While I think Tactical Fox goes a little overboard I get where s/he is coming from. The issue with Sanders is not even his positions, but the fact that he wasn't a Democrat until recently. Not only that, but there's no guarantee that he's not going to go right back to being an Independent afterwards. If he does do that, then I really do object to giving him any sort of control over the party platform for the simple fact that if you want a say in how the party functions you should have to be a member of the party.
As to the Herbal Tea Party, they do exist. Fortunately they're just a very vocal minority who general don't vote and have little political power, in contrast to their namesake. They're certainly out there—just take a look at Sarandon—but they don't contribute much to the process and aren't much of a threat. The guys screaming "Bernie or Bust" are another example and placating them is not something I think the party should get into the business of, given that they tend to fall in love with whichever protest candidate comes along.
Now the actual left-wing of the Democratic Party? They're worth paying attention to. But they usually are paid attention to. As I said before, leftist candidates happen. Eugene McCarthy was one of the most prominent I can think of. And since they do run, they presumably get some concessions afterwards (and that's not counting those occasions when the leftist becomes the nominee). So the fact that that article thinks more concessions need to be made is something I would disagree with.
I'm all in favour of shutting down caucuses too. Problem is I can't imagine the hardcore Sanders fanboys are going to like that idea given that caucuses are where he did the best. A little while ago we had an article posted from Shaun King who was trying to insist that the caucuses proved Sanders was really winning—which is of course Insane Troll Logic at its finest. So I'm not thinking his fans are going to like the idea of ditching them.
edited 9th Jun '16 7:20:24 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
My main problem with Sanders (among many many other things) is that he failed to educate his base on how the political process works. He knows 100% that his plans are DOA, but he kept insisting that "The American People agree with you, all that's in the way is the Establishment."
Which is blatantly false considering A) Most Americans are moderates and B) His plans don't stack up to reality, regardless of ideology.
New Survey coming this weekend!Because that's something that every politician does on a regular basis? Seriously, if that's what you're mad at him for you need to be mad at all of them. Because I think most politicians tend to assume that anyone listening to them at least knows the basics of how the process works.
![]()
And while that makes logical sense, I think the main obstacle to changing such methods is that the people in those states tend not to care enough to do so. It takes a lot of social momentum to change the way a state chooses its officials. It's not just the people trying to keep it the same that have to be fought, it's the people that have mostly apathy about the situation. I think I've noted this before when talking about theoretically changing the way we vote to line/preferential voting.
edited 9th Jun '16 7:29:03 PM by AceofSpades
![]()
I think where Fox's point gains some legitimacy is that the Sanders supporters clearly didn't understand how the process works and despite it happening in state after state Sanders appears to have done very little to educate them. That's how you have what happened in New York, what happened in Nevada, etc, etc, with no apparent improvement.
Now maybe he tried really hard to educate them behind the scenes. Maybe the people he was trying to educate were just, for lack of a better term, thick as bricks. But even that would reflect poorly on him since he's the one who appointed them, and in any case, assuming stupidity isn't something we should be doing.
When lack of knowledge leads to violence on the part of his supporters I think it does become his job.
edited 9th Jun '16 7:33:42 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
There was a segment on Conan O'Brien about that last night. The cameraman was a Sanders supporter and kept insisting that there were "super-superdelegates" yet to be counted, that Hillary had cinched the nomination only if you go by "Wall Street math," and that "under Bernie, all numbers will be equal."
It wasn't really very funny, and went on for far too long... which is art imitating life, I guess.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.For that to be a point would require me to believe that it was caused specifically by not understanding the electoral process rather than being an angry jackass mad their candidate wasn't winning, or that this was specifically caused by Sanders in some way. While he made a fuss about the Nevada primary, the riot was the fault of the people who actually participated in it. That kind of stupid is not something that teaching someone about the electoral process can actually cure.
It is very difficult to go wrong by assuming that the person across from you is starkly ignorant about politics, especially when their ideology depends on it.
edited 9th Jun '16 8:07:48 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"It's the job of his supporters not to be violent jerks. That's not his job. If his campaign is clearly all about "rise up and be violent", then it's his fault. But he isn't anything like that.
So no, that's entirely on his supporters for acting inappropriate. Sanders is not responsible for their behavior here.
Shadow?Except Sanders' "revolution" relied on getting his supporters out to vote, as he at no time even alluded to violence that I can recall. Look, Sanders has his problems, but inciting people to violence even obliquely isn't one of them. He wanted a "vote out the bums" situation, not people throwing chairs.
It's possible to be a Sanders supporter and be against caucuses. One can feel that they make the system more undemocratic even if they're giving a preferred candidate of this election cycle a leg up. And I've got to tell you, sitting through one of those things is easily a deterrent to participating in future years.
"I have no fear, for fear is the little death that kills me over and over. Without fear, I die but once."I was not at any time implying that you had to like it, just thinking you were making a connection that doesn't necessarily exist in this particular situation. I've never at any time thought anyone had to like anything Sanders does or did. Hell, it's not like I care for him much.
edited 9th Jun '16 10:01:18 PM by AceofSpades
Did anyone else venture into the comments section of the Rolling Stone GOP eulogy Hamza posted up last page? It's thick stuff, but it was all worth it: I learned that Globalist plutocrats have socialist allies who hate our nations, and sometimes form plutocratic socialist empires. Also, Nationalism leads to freedom and liberty. So that's a relief.
edited 9th Jun '16 10:20:07 PM by Artificius
"I have no fear, for fear is the little death that kills me over and over. Without fear, I die but once."

How Trump is killing the GOP
The 224 People, Places and Things Donald Trump Has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List
edited 9th Jun '16 6:29:47 PM by hamza678
Now known as Cyber Controller