American Politics

[Bobby Hundreds]

As if they'd allow Sanders to get with in a pubes width of becoming president and that's just the democratic party, they all love the power and wealth of the current state of things. I reckon the top brass at the democrat party have far more in common with Trump than Sanders. Honestly I'm at the point where I dont think positive change can ever happen.

[Red Phoenix]

 

[Red Phoenix]

 

[Jose Jones]

Funny how the left can’t stand a gay guy and have to denigrate him at every turn.

Not only are they proven misogynists from their hatred of Hilary, they are terrible anti-semites and now obvious homophobes too.

 

[Red Phoenix]

 

[SasaS]

18 hours ago, Bobby Hundreds said:

As if they'd allow Sanders to get with in a pubes width of becoming president and that's just the democratic party, they all love the power and wealth of the current state of things. I reckon the top brass at the democrat party have far more in common with Trump than Sanders. Honestly I'm at the point where I dont think positive change can ever happen.

One thing I still don't quite understand since Sanders appeared on the scene, why is he and his followers trying to take over the Democratic Party instead of building up there own, Democratic Socialist Party?

 

I get that it's a two-party system and they want to use the infrastructure, but ultimately, it will always cause a lot of friction. Sanders doesn't have a problem with fundraising, and they mostly have very little in common with what was always a centrist or a center-right party at best. He was not even a member until five years ago, if I'm not mistaken. It was never a party with strong left-wing identity, unlike Labour in the UK.

[Red Phoenix]

1 hour ago, SasaS said:

One thing I still don't quite understand since Sanders appeared on the scene, why is he and his followers trying to take over the Democratic Party instead of building up there own, Democratic Socialist Party?

 

Yeah that'd be a great idea! It'll ensure years more of Republican rule as the votes are split between Dems and the new party. If the Rep guy wasn't Trump maybe it'd be a hackable thought, but you know that if he did that now there'd be complete chaos.

 

Billionaire funded Butthead is fine though! No comment on that guy, let's just go on about Sanders and why he shouldn't even be in the Dem party.

 

But yes, in an ideal world/situation I agree with you. And I think Corbyn should've done the fucking same because Labour are about as shite as the US Dems are.

[sir roger]

Buttegieg could single-handedly revive the ' Corporate ' thread we used to have on here.

 

He sounds like every bullshitter sent from Head Office to lecture us with soundbites and gobbledegook when I was in finance.

[SasaS]

6 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Yeah that'd be a great idea! It'll ensure years more of Republican rule as the votes are split between Dems and the new party. If the Rep guy wasn't Trump maybe it'd be a hackable thought, but you know that if he did that now there'd be complete chaos.

 

Billionaire funded Butthead is fine though! No comment on that guy, let's just go on about Sanders and why he shouldn't even be in the Dem party.

 

But yes, in an ideal world/situation I agree with you. And I think Corbyn should've done the fucking same because Labour are about as shite as the US Dems are.

 

I assume by "billionaire funded Butthead" you mean Pete Butisomething? He does appear to be more in line what Democrats used to be until recently.

 

To me, this new way of progressives sometimes looks like Corbyn or somebody and his followers joining Lib Dems and then attacking its politicians for being centrist liberals.

[sir roger]

Labour should never have been anything like the Lib Dems , so it was stolen by the right wing rather than t'other way around.

 

The Democrats is a slightly different case but politics evolves, so why would you condemn many millions of people to not having any representation in politics by having nothing available beyond the war-mongering likes of Hillary Clinton and the stale liberalism of Biden.

 

 

[SasaS]

9 minutes ago, sir roger said:

Labour should never have been anything like the Lib Dems , so it was stolen by the right wing rather than t'other way around.

 

The Democrats is a slightly different case but politics evolves, so why would you condemn many millions of people to not having any representation in politics by having nothing available beyond the war-mongering likes of Hillary Clinton and the stale liberalism of Biden.

 

But people keep saying the "Blairites" or centrists should leave the Labour party if they don't agree with the left direction, because Labour was always the left, socialist labour party. Here, the party was "stolen" in the past, but with Democrats, the politics "evolves".

Democrats were never a party of the left. If millions of people don't like the stale liberalism or war-mongering you mention, they can vote for the party which is free of that. Like Libertarians do. Why would zhe Democratic Socialist Party mean there is nothing avalable for them? If majority want that, it will replace Democrats in a big tent two-party system. Or simply abolish it in practice, which would be true evolution of politics. Republicans could then split into far right and center right etc.

[sir roger]

3 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

But people keep saying the "Blairites" or centrists should leave the Labour party if they don't agree with the left direction, because Labour was always the left, socialist labour party. Here, the party was "stolen" in the past, but with Democrats, the politics "evolves".

Democrats were never a party of the left. If millions of people don't like the stale liberalism or war-mongering you mention, they can vote for the party which is free of that. Like Libertarians do. Why would zhe Democratic Socialist Party mean there is nothing avalable for them? If majority want that, it will replace Democrats in a big tent two-party system. Or simply abolish it in practice, which would be true evolution of politics. Republicans could then split into far right and center right etc.

I don't want Blairites or centrists to leave the party , I just think it is hypocritical for them to deliberately obliterate any socialist representation & then start squawking about broad churches when they lose a bit of power. 

[Red Phoenix]

1 hour ago, SasaS said:

 

I assume by "billionaire funded Butthead" you mean Pete Butisomething? He does appear to be more in line what Democrats used to be until recently.

 

To me, this new way of progressives sometimes looks like Corbyn or somebody and his followers joining Lib Dems and then attacking its politicians for being centrist liberals.

 

Yep I meant Butthead. And if the Lib Dems were the only other main party in a two party country like the US I'd agree, but they're not. Dems try to appeal to the left (even if they're lying), so if people on the left vote for them and then a dem socialist like Sanders, it's their own fault for lying in the first place. If it wasn't they should never have pretended to care.

 

But of course they had to pretend to care so they could keep any other potential parties that'd actually represent people more fairly from becoming viable in the first place.

[TheHowieLama]

1 hour ago, SasaS said:

Democrats were never a party of the left.

We have won twice in 40 years - both times young centrist candidates.

[Red Phoenix]

15 minutes ago, TheHowieLama said:

We have won twice in 40 years - both times young centrist candidates.

 

Four more years of Trump if it's rigged against Sanders would be truly insane. The first round of Trump was hackable as he was unknown in power. He's had years now though and there should be no excuse for messing around in primaries like this. Sanders has already had it rigged against him in the past so if the Dems would rather screw themselves and most of the rest over allowing Trump another term by fixing primaries yet again, or even helping rig the election if he gets through, it could all start getting really out of hand.

 

Not that they care though, they think of themselves first and their greed then just try to keep the masses from revolting as best they can I suppose.

 

 

[SasaS]

1 hour ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Four more years of Trump if it's rigged against Sanders would be truly insane. The first round of Trump was hackable as he was unknown in power. He's had years now though and there should be no excuse for messing around in primaries like this. Sanders has already had it rigged against him in the past so if the Dems would rather screw themselves and most of the rest over allowing Trump another term by fixing primaries yet again, or even helping rig the election if he gets through, it could all start getting really out of hand.

 

Not that they care though, they think of themselves first and their greed then just try to keep the masses from revolting as best they can I suppose.

 

What do you mean fixing primaries yet again? Sanders lost last time, he lost the popular vote, he lost by the number of delegates.
 

[Red Phoenix]

1 hour ago, SasaS said:

What do you mean fixing primaries yet again? Sanders lost last time, he lost the popular vote, he lost by the number of delegates.

 

Maybe you moved to a different planet before the DNC leaks proved that the DNC had been rigging it against Sanders.

 

It was worldwide news and the start of Russiagate because the Clinton campaign blamed it all on Russia instead of talking about it honestly.

 

It was widely accepted as rigged and one of the biggest stories of 2016.

 

The DNC chair resigned because of it.

 

The next person to take over wrote about how the Clinton campaign controlled DNC finances, strategy and staffing in an agreement signed in 2015, almost a year before she won the nomination.

 

And still we have people pretending it never happened.

[SasaS]

14 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Maybe you moved to a different planet before the DNC leaks proved that the DNC had been rigging it against Sanders.

 

It was worldwide news and the start of Russiagate because the Clinton campaign blamed it all on Russia instead of talking about it honestly.

 

It was widely accepted as rigged and one of the biggest stories of 2016.

 

The DNC chair resigned because of it.

 

The next person to take over wrote about how the Clinton campaign controlled DNC finances, strategy and staffing in an agreement signed in 2015, almost a year before she won the nomination.

 

And still we have people pretending it never happened.

It wasn't rigged. They supported Clinton since she was their preferred candidate and Sanders was a bit of an imposter, an also-ran who suddenly appeared from outside the party and turned into a serious contender, in a race which was to be Hillary's procession towards a nomination and eventual win as the first women president. When he lost, his mostly unhinged delegates tried to install him as a nominee at the party convention, where even he was barely able to contain them and was eventually booed as a traitor of his own campaign. Ever since we have this religious view of his candidacy from his aggressive support where people simply cannot accept the fact that there may be some who don't want to vote for him, it's always conspiracies, manipulations, lies etc. It's tedious. He has no cross-over appeal and consequently very little chance of beating Trump.

[Red Phoenix]

31 minutes ago, SasaS said:

It wasn't rigged. They supported Clinton since she was their preferred candidate and Sanders was a bit of an imposter, an also-ran who suddenly appeared from outside the party and turned into a serious contender, in a race which was to be Hillary's procession towards a nomination and eventual win as the first women president. When he lost, his mostly unhinged delegates tried to install him as a nominee at the party convention, where even he was barely able to contain them and was eventually booed as a traitor of his own campaign. Ever since we have this religious view of his candidacy from his aggressive support where people simply cannot accept the fact that there may be some who don't want to vote for him, it's always conspiracies, manipulations, lies etc. It's tedious. He has no cross-over appeal and consequently very little chance of beating Trump.

 

It was rigged, Butthead Bro.

 

That post is crazy, you denying it was even rigged right at the start makes me feel like it'd be a waste of time responding properly so I'll pass. "Booed as a traitor of his own campaign" though, yeah I think that might be accurate from some. Denying it was rigged though is insanely wrong.

[SasaS]

1 minute ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

It was rigged, Butthead Bro.

I've barely heard of him before he won in Iowa. Didn't even know he was gay until I saw there were accusations of homophobia. Had him totally confused with that Texas guy who quit some time ago.

I'm a Klobuchar Bro.

[Red Phoenix]

19 minutes ago, SasaS said:

I've barely heard of him before he won in Iowa. Didn't even know he was gay until I saw there were accusations of homophobia. Had him totally confused with that Texas guy who quit some time ago.

I'm a Klobuchar Bro.

 

Oh ffs not her. Better than Butthead though I guess haha.

 

Homophobia will be used too, it'll be the same as it would've been with sexism if Bernie's main rival was a woman. Anything to deflect from how bad he'd actually be. If there's no natural homophobia or little of it, they'll probably manufacture some too for the headlines if Bernie's doing well enough.

 

I guess you meant Beto too who dropped out? Just had to google him to remember his name. He once played in a punk band though and at least gave up early on, so I have a bit of respect there.

[Red Phoenix]

From NY Times :

Quote

DES MOINES — With the results of the Iowa caucuses still unclear after nearly a week, the state Democratic Party this weekend was furiously re-examining results from 95 precincts, about 5 percent of the total.

But when the party delivers its updated results, which it has promised to do on Monday, they may hardly reassure candidates and voters. Internal emails from Saturday night reveal that the party will not correct even blatant errors in the official handwritten tally sheets from individual precincts.

Those records, known as “caucus math worksheets,” could not be changed even if they contained mistakes, according to the lawyer for the Iowa Democratic Party, because they were a legal record and altering them would be a crime.

“The incorrect math on the Caucus Math Worksheets must not be changed to ensure the integrity of the process,” wrote the party lawyer, Shayla McCormally, according to an email sent by Troy Price, the chairman of the party, to its central committee members. The lawyer said correcting the math would introduce “personal opinion” into the official record of results.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/09/us/politics/iowa-caucuses-democrats.html

Correcting math = personal opinion.

Rigged.

Rigged.

Rigged.

And this is just Iowa. By the time this is done if you gathered together everything only an insane or completely dishonest person would deny it. You could say that's already the case if you just gathered together everything from Iowa.

It's rigged to protect the clowns in the Democratic Party, right wingers, crony capitalists, billionaires, corporations, military industrial complex from having a dem socialist president.

 

But yeah if you don't like Sanders or dem socialism then this is fine.

[Red Phoenix]

You know how so many of us clearly understand that it was rigged against Corbyn and Labour in the election? Especially from the media. Well this is similar. You could argue to supporters of Sanders that it's all in their heads and that things are fair, that they're biased and imagining it.

 

But they know, just like many of us know after what they did to Corbyn. And they went through all of this already in 2016, they knew then too.

 

It's rigged to fuck.

[Bjornebye]

1 minute ago, Red Phoenix said:

You know how so many of us clearly understand that it was rigged against Corbyn and Labour in the election? Especially from the media. Well this is similar. You could argue to supporters of Sanders that it's all in their heads and that things are fair, that they're biased and imagining it.

 

But they know, just like many of us know after what they did to Corbyn. And they went through all of this already in 2016, they knew then too.

 

It's rigged to fuck.

You need to look at who are the masterminds behind the rigging and why. 

[Red Phoenix]

1 minute ago, Bjornebye said:

You need to look at who are the masterminds behind the rigging and why. 

 

That'd be good too. If Sander's supporters started going after the big doners and those manipulating things within the party. Some of them already will be I guess and Tom Perez the current DNC chair has been getting quite a bit of shit thrown his way. But when it's mainly on social media they don't really care I don't think. The whole thing is fucking disgusting and at this stage it's becoming clear that democracy is as much of a farce over there as it is here, maybe even more so.