Senator Warren Shut Down for Reading Coretta Scott King Letter

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

The problem with the modern Democrats is that they are not the opposition party. They are paid by the same corporate donors as the GOP, they just don't pursue the goal of looting America and handing the spoils to their donors with the same zeal. I call them the "just the tip" Democrats and the "balls deep" Republicans. Either way, America is getting fucked in the ass.

That's all over now. Thomas Kuhn may have been full of shit about physics, but not about political paradigms, and we're seeing more anomalies than ever in today's political landscape. You had the Republican running a populist campaign that was to the left of the Democrat on many issues, and a person taking office with a 40% approval rating, 3 points worse than Bush in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The corrupt system that has gripped politics for 40 years is crumbling before our eyes. Taking money from the powerful is increasingly seen as tainting a candidate, and it's a big part of the reason Clinton lost. It was only due to the power of the Democratic machine to contain and undermine progressives that Sanders didn't come out of nowhere to win the whole thing, a machine that doesn't have the same power in the general election. Even in the primaries, people knew that Clinton was not going to fight for the average American, and it proved to be her albatross.

A viable third party could happen if the electoral college were eliminated, which it should be anyway. The whole point of the electoral college was as a failsafe against people like Trump, and it clearly was not successful. If no one wins a majority of votes it goes to the house, which is stacked with members of the two parties and will vote for one of their people, thus preventing any 3rd party candidate from ever winning an election. This causes a whole host of problems, since 2 parties cannot represent a wide enough spectrum of political opinion even if they're not captured by legalized bribery, and it fosters a tribal mentality on a level that 3-4 parties doesn't.

Until that day comes, though, we're stuck with the 2 party system, and that means that corporate democrats need to be primaried. The only group that seems up to the task are the Justice Democrats, and I do believe it's possible to take back the party and make it more like its former self at the time of the New Deal. That version of the Democratic party won 4 straight presidential elections in a row, and against Republicans that weren't the shrill caricature of conservatism that they've become today.

[Joun_Lord]

Apologies if I misunderstood you.

However, it seems like you are trying to say, effectively, that the Democrats aren't as bad and are as bad at the same time.

In a perfect world, I'd like a new party, but as things stand... well, we're much better off trying to capitalize on the tiny silver lining in the outcome of 2016 (the discrediting of the Democratic centrist establishment) to push progressive leadership of the Democratic Party.

Also, I would point out that "People wouldn't be able to say they are Republican-lite without at least some evidence to back it up", etc., is basically an appeal to popularity fallacy, and that their are a great many absolutely preposterous things believed by literally millions of people with no real evidence. Things like "Obama is a secret Muslim from Kenya", for example, or "Donald Trump will help American workers".

They are not as bad right now but mostly because the Republicans decided electing some reality tv ego driven maniac was a good idea. But just because Trump is a villain doesn't automatically mean his opponents are the good guys. The Dems aren't the Justice League or even the Suicide Squad. To be the hero they need to act like one, not wallow in the same filth their opponents were.

Pushing out the current leadership in the Democratic Party is exactly what I'm wanting (I'm also wanting the same thing to happen to the Republican leadership too but at the same time I'm wanting healthy bacon that makes people lose weight and the ability to fly but all those things are unlikely to happen). For the Bernie Sanders crowd and others to get in charge. Sanders I actually like, Sanders I think is a pretty good guy and not only because his name makes me think of KFC. Unfortunately right now the DNC treats him like their own version of Ron Paul, someone to be ridiculed when they aren't ignoring him or trying to get him to help them like recently when they have been pressuring him to hand over his email lists to pump them for donation money (and Sanders rightfully refusing). Unlike Ron Paul, Sanders actually got massive support and isn't a complete flipping nutcase racist douchebag. The fact Sanders did get so much support from the rank and file and the voters in general compared to the party's Chosen One gives me a small measure of hope but I also know money and connections tend to Trump the will of the voters.

Obama being a Kenyan muslim with his schooling in some Muslim country and his dad being a Kenyan had some small evidence to back it up, Trump actually saying he'd help American workers gives some credence to that. Neither is true but there is some evidence given them weight, allowing people to believe it. But yeah, that was an appeal to popularity, sorry.

My point still stands though that there is plenty of evidence, far more then Trump being a Kenyan Muslim and Obama helping American workers, that show Dems aren't too different from Republicans. They are different especially if you are any sort of minority including race, sexuality, religion, gender, and culture (why do you think I have any support for them, can you really see the Republicans embracing an atheist? I think I'd get more love if I was gay) but on big shit like policy there is little change between them.

And I'm sorry for shitting on Dems but the thing is I just don't automatically support them just because I against Trump, nor should anyone except to use as tools against Trump. They need to earn our support, to prove they are actually better. And I think a Democratic party under someone like Sanders would earn it but right now under Clinton cronies, no.

[The Romulan Republic]

Obama being Kenyan had fuck-all for real evidence. It was sore losers with a heavy dose of racism and fear-mongering about Islam.

Besides that, eh, Sanders is probably the most popular and high-profile elected Democrat right now, even if Chuck Schumer has the more powerful position.

As to leadership long-term, that's kind of up in the air right now, as the DNC chair race is ongoing. I do think the old centre establishment's credibility took a real hit with Clinton's loss.

I do think its interesting, and unfortunate, that you seem to view the parties' stark differences on minorities, equality, and civil liberties as not counting as significant policy differences. Because it sure as hell is significant, especially to anyone who's not a white heterosexual conservative Christian American man (which is the vast majority of the country). Hell, you could add "rich" to that list, because if you're poor, you're just a parasite who doesn't deserve housing, health care, or even food, according to Republican economics.

And this is why I support the Democrats, despite all their glaring flaws. Because when you are facing an existential threat to democracy, like the Republican Party has become, then a crappy shield is better than none at all. And the Dems. are the strongest defence we have.

If that changes, they will lose my loyalty. But until then, they have it, if only by default.

Edit: Which isn't to say I'm blind to the Democrats' problems, as anyone who read my posts on the primary can attest to. I actually registered as independent when I first started voting- only switched to Dem. because in my state, I had to in order to vote in the primaries.

[Dragon Angel]

Honestly, if Sanders is not on the next ticket, it'd better be Warren or someone else who can take up the Progressive flag and commit to it. I don't really know many other Democrats who wouldn't just revert to the old establishment, corporatist, centrist / center-right positions that have characterized them for years.

I'll vote for the Democrats anyway since fuck if I'm going to let another Republican into office, but someone who I'd be really excited to vote for should be who I want to represent me and others who are marginalized as I am. Not the old "de facto" party who just happens to be not as evil as the other one. I hope to god it isn't Clinton again either...

[The Romulan Republic]

No way it'll be Clinton. The very notion is laughable. The Democratic Party makes some stupid blunders, but I doubt even they're stupid enough to run someone who lost to Donald Trump last time.

Could be Bernie, but age weighs against it. Warren would be a good choice perhaps, if she's interested, but I don't know if she is. She declined to run last time.

I expect the centre establishment folks will look fondly upon Corey Booker- my feeling is that they'll see a younger, charismatic, more centrist African American Senator and hope for a second Obama in him.

[Ralin]

Even in the primaries, people knew that Clinton was not going to fight for the average American, and it proved to be her albatross.

There's a word for people who 'know' that a woman who has been doing public service work in one form or another for fifty years isn't going to fight for the average American and decide they might as well elect a born millionaire who has repeatedly driven businesses to bankruptcy and passed the bill off to investors and the government because he'd be better or no worse for working class people.

Idiots.

[Darth Yan]

Even in the primaries, people knew that Clinton was not going to fight for the average American, and it proved to be her albatross.

There's a word for people who 'know' that a woman who has been doing public service work in one form or another for fifty years isn't going to fight for the average American and decide they might as well elect a born millionaire who has repeatedly driven businesses to bankruptcy and passed the bill off to investors and the government because he'd be better or no worse for working class people.

Idiots.

She hasn't really worked to protect the people. She's better then Donald but she supported Goldman Sachs and felt they were unfairly treated. Her proposed cabinet people would have been nightmares.

[Joun_Lord]

Obama being Kenyan had fuck-all for real evidence. It was sore losers with a heavy dose of racism and fear-mongering about Islam.

You forgot to add stupid fucks to the sore loser part but yeah. It like any conspiracy theory any "evidence" to back up their theory even if it makes little sense.

Besides that, eh, Sanders is probably the most popular and high-profile elected Democrat right now, even if Chuck Schumer has the more powerful position.

Online? Sure. IRL, I'm not so sure. I'm not saying its not true but I'm also saying it might be possible that Joe Average who isn't connected through AOL to the internets or balls deep in the political scene might not know him as well. They might know him as just the person who Hillary beat akin to all the losers on the Republican side. People might know shitbags like Cruz, Perry, Jeb, Christie and the 10 bajillion other failed nominees exist but only because they same their names on the news.

I also fear that members of the party itself are starting to pass blame onto Sanders, blaming him and/or his "Bernie or bust" supporters for the loss.

As to leadership long-term, that's kind of up in the air right now, as the DNC chair race is ongoing. I do think the old centre establishment's credibility took a real hit with Clinton's loss.

I think Clinton's people are too far entrenched to give up their control without a fight and I don't think the party rank and file is mad enough to run them out with pitchforks. Right now the blame is not being aimed at the top, its being passed along to to others. The previously mentioned blame for Bernie and his supporters for not falling in line, blame for white people being racists, blame for black people not supporting Hillary as they did Obama, blame for women almost voting for Trump as much as they did Hillary, blame for the entire party not being excited enough to get out and vote, blame for Huma Abedin, blame for James Comey, and so on. Little blame is going to Hillary atleast that I've seen, its all everyone elses fault she lost.

I think the DNC is going to try to stay the course, try to double down and do the expected party purity purge where they try to force out anyone who they believe is dragging them down, completely shift blame on everyone else while not examining their own fuck ups.

I do think its interesting, and unfortunate, that you seem to view the parties' stark differences on minorities, equality, and civil liberties as not counting as significant policy differences. Because it sure as hell is significant, especially to anyone who's not a white heterosexual conservative Christian American man (which is the vast majority of the country). Hell, you could add "rich" to that list, because if you're poor, you're just a parasite who doesn't deserve housing, health care, or even food, according to Republican economics.

They are important, don't get me wrong on that, but I think other things like privacy, international politics, handling of the war on terror, and dealing with Wall St are equally important if not more so. The fact there is a massive domestic spying program, drone strikes killing thousands including hundreds of children, record deportations, and the rich getting richer under Obama had me massively concerned. Those are lives being ended or destroyed, snuffed out by Democrats. Freedoms are massively important but so are lives and lives are arguably more so. Democrats have shown they are just as likely to destroy lives and even end them as the damned Republicans.

And they haven't even been that great for some minorities and equality until fairly recently. Its only become trendy recently (thank fuck finally) to be overtly gay friendly. Wasn't too long ago even Hillary Clinton was in full support of DOMA and civil union, I don't even think she spoke of support for same sex marriage until the 2010s. Alot of Dems weren't much better. They improved but hell some Republicans have improved as of late too though nowhere near the level of Dems.

And this is why I support the Democrats, despite all their glaring flaws. Because when you are facing an existential threat to democracy, like the Republican Party has become, then a crappy shield is better than none at all. And the Dems. are the strongest defence we have.

If that changes, they will lose my loyalty. But until then, they have it, if only by default.

Well we have that in common. They have my support atleast for the time just for their being less dickholes towards the LGBT community and poor people. But its not exactly what I'd call full support. I support them right not because they are slightly better but again not good. They are moldy maggot covered hamburger from Burger King while the Republicans are a shit sandwich with mayo from McDonalds. The moldy hamburger is a bit more edible then the shit sandwich but by no means is it something I'd want to eat if I had a choice especially with that horrifying Burger King mascot hanging around somewhere.

Edit: Which isn't to say I'm blind to the Democrats' problems, as anyone who read my posts on the primary can attest to. I actually registered as independent when I first started voting- only switched to Dem. because in my state, I had to in order to vote in the primaries.

I didn't think you were at all, I think you have been pointing out some of their flaws that helped to get us in this mess. Others not so much though.

But me personally I feel the flaw should be one of the primary focuses. To beat Trump, to actually be the good guys they don't need to keep sinking lower and continuing down the path that led us to a fucking Trump presidency, apathetic voters that increasingly don't find the appeal of either party, and some Democrats nearly indistinguishable from Republicans save a few things. I do feel people have a point when they disagree and say it distracts from the problem though I wholly disagree with it, if we are to overcome Trump we must overcome our own demons. And not hinting that Clinton is a demon though she is a good symbol of the problem facing the Dems.

[Flagg]

Honestly, if Sanders is not on the next ticket, it'd better be Warren or someone else who can take up the Progressive flag and commit to it. I don't really know many other Democrats who wouldn't just revert to the old establishment, corporatist, centrist / center-right positions that have characterized them for years.

I'll vote for the Democrats anyway since fuck if I'm going to let another Republican into office, but someone who I'd be really excited to vote for should be who I want to represent me and others who are marginalized as I am. Not the old "de facto" party who just happens to be not as evil as the other one. I hope to god it isn't Clinton again either...

I'm not voting for a geriatric with high blood pressure for President whose supporters torpedoed the nominee because they had dirty diapers. It's going to be new blood moving past the 2016 clusterfuck or President Pussygrabber will serve 2 terms.

[The Romulan Republic]

Look, I've tried to avoid getting into Sanders with you again, really, but:

1) Most Sanders supporters backed Clinton in the end, and their were many factors behind Clinton's defeat. To say that Sanders' supporters torpedoed Clinton is a ridiculous oversimplification, painting tens of millions of people with a very broad brush and ignoring that their were a large number of them who probably would not have voted for Clinton or any other establishment Dem. anyway, and that Clinton's baggage, and FBI inference, and voter suppression, and Jill Stein/Gary Johnson probably all did as much to undermine Clinton's candidacy.

Clinton lost very narrowly, and any one of a number of factors being slightly different could have prevented that.

Your claim may not technically be a lie, since if all the Bernie or Busters had gone to Clinton in the right states I expect she would have won, but it is definitely highly misleading and insulting.

2) Are you seriously saying that you would not vote for Sanders if it was a choice between him or Trump? Because if your level of spite is that high, its pretty fucking rich for you to whine about bitter Sanders supporters undermining Clinton.

In other words, people like you are part of the problem.

[Flagg]

Look, I've tried to avoid getting into Sanders with you again, really, but:

1) Most Sanders supporters backed Clinton in the end, and their were many factors behind Clinton's defeat. To say that Sanders' supporters torpedoed Clinton is a ridiculous oversimplification, painting tens of millions of people with a very broad brush and ignoring that their were a large number of them who probably would not have voted for Clinton or any other establishment Dem. anyway, and that Clinton's baggage, and FBI inference, and voter suppression, and Jill Stein/Gary Johnson probably all did as much to undermine Clinton's candidacy.

Clinton lost very narrowly, and any one of a number of factors being slightly different could have prevented that.

Your claim may not technically be a lie, since if all the Bernie or Busters had gone to Clinton in the right states I expect she would have won, but it is definitely highly misleading and insulting.

2) Are you seriously saying that you would not vote for Sanders if it was a choice between him or Trump? Because if your level of spite is that high, its pretty fucking rich for you to whine about bitter Sanders supporters undermining Clinton.

In other words, people like you are part of the problem.

Fuck off, baby. With all the screeching you did during the primary you don't get to criticize anyone for whom they will and will not support. And I never came close to saying I wouldn't voter for Old Man River in a general election since we were talking about primaries, which is why I flat out said we need new blood. But if the democratic primary goes full dumbass and nominates Captain Polarization, they will lose, which is exactly what I said. If you could read and weren't busy masturbating to pictures of the shitnugget that cost America its sanity for at least 4 years you might have realized that I was talking about your boyfriend in the sense of the 2020 primary.

[Flagg]

Obama being Kenyan had fuck-all for real evidence. It was sore losers with a heavy dose of racism and fear-mongering about Islam.

You forgot to add stupid fucks to the sore loser part but yeah. It like any conspiracy theory any "evidence" to back up their theory even if it makes little sense.

Besides that, eh, Sanders is probably the most popular and high-profile elected Democrat right now, even if Chuck Schumer has the more powerful position.

Online? Sure. IRL, I'm not so sure. I'm not saying its not true but I'm also saying it might be possible that Joe Average who isn't connected through AOL to the internets or balls deep in the political scene might not know him as well. They might know him as just the person who Hillary beat akin to all the losers on the Republican side. People might know shitbags like Cruz, Perry, Jeb, Christie and the 10 bajillion other failed nominees exist but only because they same their names on the news.

I also fear that members of the party itself are starting to pass blame onto Sanders, blaming him and/or his "Bernie or bust" supporters for the loss.

As to leadership long-term, that's kind of up in the air right now, as the DNC chair race is ongoing. I do think the old centre establishment's credibility took a real hit with Clinton's loss.

I think Clinton's people are too far entrenched to give up their control without a fight and I don't think the party rank and file is mad enough to run them out with pitchforks. Right now the blame is not being aimed at the top, its being passed along to to others. The previously mentioned blame for Bernie and his supporters for not falling in line, blame for white people being racists, blame for black people not supporting Hillary as they did Obama, blame for women almost voting for Trump as much as they did Hillary, blame for the entire party not being excited enough to get out and vote, blame for Huma Abedin, blame for James Comey, and so on. Little blame is going to Hillary atleast that I've seen, its all everyone elses fault she lost.

I think the DNC is going to try to stay the course, try to double down and do the expected party purity purge where they try to force out anyone who they believe is dragging them down, completely shift blame on everyone else while not examining their own fuck ups.

I do think its interesting, and unfortunate, that you seem to view the parties' stark differences on minorities, equality, and civil liberties as not counting as significant policy differences. Because it sure as hell is significant, especially to anyone who's not a white heterosexual conservative Christian American man (which is the vast majority of the country). Hell, you could add "rich" to that list, because if you're poor, you're just a parasite who doesn't deserve housing, health care, or even food, according to Republican economics.

They are important, don't get me wrong on that, but I think other things like privacy, international politics, handling of the war on terror, and dealing with Wall St are equally important if not more so. The fact there is a massive domestic spying program, drone strikes killing thousands including hundreds of children, record deportations, and the rich getting richer under Obama had me massively concerned. Those are lives being ended or destroyed, snuffed out by Democrats. Freedoms are massively important but so are lives and lives are arguably more so. Democrats have shown they are just as likely to destroy lives and even end them as the damned Republicans.

And they haven't even been that great for some minorities and equality until fairly recently. Its only become trendy recently (thank fuck finally) to be overtly gay friendly. Wasn't too long ago even Hillary Clinton was in full support of DOMA and civil union, I don't even think she spoke of support for same sex marriage until the 2010s. Alot of Dems weren't much better. They improved but hell some Republicans have improved as of late too though nowhere near the level of Dems.

And this is why I support the Democrats, despite all their glaring flaws. Because when you are facing an existential threat to democracy, like the Republican Party has become, then a crappy shield is better than none at all. And the Dems. are the strongest defence we have.

If that changes, they will lose my loyalty. But until then, they have it, if only by default.

Well we have that in common. They have my support atleast for the time just for their being less dickholes towards the LGBT community and poor people. But its not exactly what I'd call full support. I support them right not because they are slightly better but again not good. They are moldy maggot covered hamburger from Burger King while the Republicans are a shit sandwich with mayo from McDonalds. The moldy hamburger is a bit more edible then the shit sandwich but by no means is it something I'd want to eat if I had a choice especially with that horrifying Burger King mascot hanging around somewhere.

Edit: Which isn't to say I'm blind to the Democrats' problems, as anyone who read my posts on the primary can attest to. I actually registered as independent when I first started voting- only switched to Dem. because in my state, I had to in order to vote in the primaries.

I didn't think you were at all, I think you have been pointing out some of their flaws that helped to get us in this mess. Others not so much though.

But me personally I feel the flaw should be one of the primary focuses. To beat Trump, to actually be the good guys they don't need to keep sinking lower and continuing down the path that led us to a fucking Trump presidency, apathetic voters that increasingly don't find the appeal of either party, and some Democrats nearly indistinguishable from Republicans save a few things. I do feel people have a point when they disagree and say it distracts from the problem though I wholly disagree with it, if we are to overcome Trump we must overcome our own demons. And not hinting that Clinton is a demon though she is a good symbol of the problem facing the Dems.

Are you posting from an alternate dimension? The DNC ran a normal campaign that attacked Trump on shit he actually did and said, rather than just lie repeatedly at such a pace that by the time it was fact-checked there were 5 even more egregious lies put out by President Pussygrabber's campaign. And I'm past the point of being surprised that you don't care about minorities as much as things you perceive as effecting you. But really, to suggest the Democrats were somehow morally compromised in comparison to Donnie Douchebag's shit parade shows yet again that you have no relationship with reality and instead exist in the South Park golden mean bubble.

[Simon_Jester]

Obama being Kenyan had fuck-all for real evidence. It was sore losers with a heavy dose of racism and fear-mongering about Islam.

You forgot to add stupid fucks to the sore loser part but yeah. It like any conspiracy theory any "evidence" to back up their theory even if it makes little sense.

The catch is that since a conspiracy theory will collect "evidence" literally out of nothing, you can't turn around and point to accusations by conspiracy theorists and say "well, where there's so much smoke, there must be a fire."

It's like saying "this number must be a special magic number because it was the winning number in last week's lottery." ANY number can get picked for the lottery, that's the whole point!

Remember, this started with you saying:

I'm not trying to sound like a dick dude but you are deluded if you think the current incarnation of the Democratic Party is much better then the Republican party. Hence why I'm saying it needs reformed. People wouldn't be able to say they are Republican-lite without atleast some evidence to back it up, where there is smoke there is fire and right now the Democratic party looks like some pyromaniacs wet (or I guess fiery) dream.

You can't say "well, your pile of evidence argues that this statement is wrong, but surely there wouldn't be people who believe it unless they had a good reason!" Most people aren't that logical; nearly everyone believes things that aren't true, and you can find someone dumb enough to believe anything if you look hard enough.

This is why Flagg is going on about the South Park-style Golden Mean stuff. Because it's almost like you've got this tape recorder going in your head that says "Democrats can't be allowed to look good, they have to be only just a tiny bit better than Republicans, no matter what the Republicans do and no matter what the Democrats do." Like, for some obscure reason the Democratic Party is just not allowed to be okay. Not even by comparison to a party that's in the process of driving off a cliff into lunatic strongman insanity.

It's not really clear to those of us on the outside whether that's because you have a pile of evidence for the Democratic Party actually being that bad. Or whether you're just reflexively grabbing any piece of evidence that lets you say "but Democrats are bad too!" and using it, whether it fits or not, and whether it's big enough to explain and justify saying they're 'bad' on a scale that even means anything compared to the party currently dominating the country.

I mean, this is a party willing to let Betsy DeVos buy enough votes to run the Department of Education. A party which succeeds in shutting down senatorial review of Jeff Sessions' fitness for office, on the grounds that calling him out on his racism is too meanie-pants to be allowed and we're only allowed to say nice things about appointment candidates who are themselves senators. A party with a White House press secretary that makes up terrorist attacks (no, I'm not even talking about the Bowling Green woman).

Just what dirt have you got on the Democrats, that even puts them on the radar compared to this utter, vile, contemptible storm of shit?

I think Clinton's people are too far entrenched to give up their control without a fight and I don't think the party rank and file is mad enough to run them out with pitchforks. Right now the blame is not being aimed at the top, its being passed along to to others.

Could you clarify and expand on this?

It's not like Clinton personally is running again in 2020. "Clinton's people" are going to have to find a new candidate anyway. And whoever they pick, it isn't going to be someone the right's been running a character assassination campaign on since the early '90s. Exactly what do you envision them "fighting for control" of the party looking like?

I think the DNC is going to try to stay the course, try to double down and do the expected party purity purge where they try to force out anyone who they believe is dragging them down, completely shift blame on everyone else while not examining their own fuck ups.

Do you have direct evidence for this in terms of what's going on at high levels of the politics? Or is this something you 'figured out' while sitting in a chair and not observing anything directly.

They are important, don't get me wrong on that, but I think other things like privacy, international politics, handling of the war on terror, and dealing with Wall St are equally important if not more so. The fact there is a massive domestic spying program, drone strikes killing thousands including hundreds of children, record deportations, and the rich getting richer under Obama had me massively concerned. Those are lives being ended or destroyed, snuffed out by Democrats. Freedoms are massively important but so are lives and lives are arguably more so. Democrats have shown they are just as likely to destroy lives and even end them as the damned Republicans.

And they haven't even been that great for some minorities and equality until fairly recently. Its only become trendy recently (thank fuck finally) to be overtly gay friendly. Wasn't too long ago even Hillary Clinton was in full support of DOMA and civil union, I don't even think she spoke of support for same sex marriage until the 2010s. Alot of Dems weren't much better. They improved but hell some Republicans have improved as of late too though nowhere near the level of Dems.

The thing is, why do you spend more time talking about how the Democrats are bad than the Republicans, if you believe the underlined statement? Exactly what do you expect, and who do you believe meets those expectations?

For that matter, why are you trying to puff up a list of "why the Democrats are bad" with things the Republicans are going to double down on? You think that "handling Wall Street" is an issue? Trump wants to take us back to 2007-era financial deregulation, and the congressional Republicans are totally behind him on that.

Why is it so important to keep talking like this? What do you gain from trying to treat the normalish group as though they're just a tiny hair's breadth better than the actively terrible group?

I didn't think you were at all, I think you have been pointing out some of their flaws that helped to get us in this mess. Others not so much though.

But me personally I feel the flaw should be one of the primary focuses. To beat Trump, to actually be the good guys they don't need to keep sinking lower and continuing down the path that led us to a fucking Trump presidency, apathetic voters that increasingly don't find the appeal of either party, and some Democrats nearly indistinguishable from Republicans save a few things. I do feel people have a point when they disagree and say it distracts from the problem though I wholly disagree with it, if we are to overcome Trump we must overcome our own demons. And not hinting that Clinton is a demon though she is a good symbol of the problem facing the Dems.

[/quote][/quote]I honestly think there's this weird memetic bubble that creates this perception of a problem.

We need to fix a few issues within the Democratic party.

We DEFINITELY need to burst this weird reality warping bubble that's convincing millions of Americans that the two parties are "just as bad" because Hillary having a private e-mail server deserves to be ranked up there with Trump having a private e-mail server and not releasing his tax returns. Or because there being some Democrats who are 'weak on gay rights' is just as bad as Republicans wanting to put up a legal shield for anti-gay discrimination by private citizens and forbid teachers from doing anything about harassment of gays in their schools. Or whatever the fuck it is now.

"Both sides are equally crappy" hasn't really been true for a LONG time. The Democrats engage in a few utterly dumbass policy stances and have some major institutional flaws. But that isn't even remotely the same order of problem as what's been happening to the Republicans since the 1990s.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Honestly, if Sanders is not on the next ticket, it'd better be Warren or someone else who can take up the Progressive flag and commit to it. I don't really know many other Democrats who wouldn't just revert to the old establishment, corporatist, centrist / center-right positions that have characterized them for years.

I'll vote for the Democrats anyway since fuck if I'm going to let another Republican into office, but someone who I'd be really excited to vote for should be who I want to represent me and others who are marginalized as I am. Not the old "de facto" party who just happens to be not as evil as the other one. I hope to god it isn't Clinton again either...

I'm not voting for a geriatric with high blood pressure for President whose supporters torpedoed the nominee because they had dirty diapers. It's going to be new blood moving past the 2016 clusterfuck or President Pussygrabber will serve 2 terms.

Thirty years of Republican smear jobs had absolutely nothing to do with it, right? Having 60% of the country despising her before Bernie even decided to run was immaterial. Hillary ignoring campaign offices begging for funding because they saw a need to actually campaign in Wisconsin and the other states that swung red didn't affect jack shit.

Gotta blame it on the group that said, at a rate of 90%, said they would vote Clinton in the general. (In 2008, only 81% of Clinton's supporters planned to go Obama.)

You fucking hate Bernie. I get it. But if you're gonna blame him/his supporters for Hillary Clinton's loss I'm gonna need to see solid evidence that he or his supporters had any sort of meaningful impact compared to thirty fucking years of attacks from Republicans. Bernie's biggest core of supporters were among the least reliable voters, too, so...

Blame people who sat out the election, blame people who actually voted for Jester Cheetah. Stop eating your own, that's a big factor in how we got this mess in the first place.

[Simon_Jester]

Napoleon has a point. I remember that there very much were "Hillary or Bust" voters in 2008, or at least people who claimed to be "Hillary or Bust" voters.

Thing is, it didn't matter, because Obama did a good job campaigning and was a charismatic candidate whose support base turned out for him.

Gnawing on ourselves isn't going to help here. Bitterness isn't going to help. Finding groups within the party isn't going to help.

Sanders may well be a weak candidate for 2020, and maybe he should step back and let someone else take point. But endless recriminations about Sanders supporters who behaved little or no differently than Clinton's own supporters in 2008 is just folly. We've got bigger problems.

[Dragon Angel]

Honestly, if Sanders is not on the next ticket, it'd better be Warren or someone else who can take up the Progressive flag and commit to it. I don't really know many other Democrats who wouldn't just revert to the old establishment, corporatist, centrist / center-right positions that have characterized them for years.

I'll vote for the Democrats anyway since fuck if I'm going to let another Republican into office, but someone who I'd be really excited to vote for should be who I want to represent me and others who are marginalized as I am. Not the old "de facto" party who just happens to be not as evil as the other one. I hope to god it isn't Clinton again either...

I'm not voting for a geriatric with high blood pressure for President whose supporters torpedoed the nominee because they had dirty diapers. It's going to be new blood moving past the 2016 clusterfuck or President Pussygrabber will serve 2 terms.

I'm not really attached to any one personality, which is why I said the latter part of that sentence. It could be either Sanders or anyone whom I can really believe in to not just renege on promises.

Also I hate to defend TRR but even I kind of got a sense of "I'll let Trump win again in the general" from this statement too.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I still don't understand the line of argument that a candidate putting up a fight in a primary campaign somehow "weakens" the eventual winner's campaign in the election proper. It doesn't really make any intuitive sense to me why this would be the case, and I've never seen any evidence that a contentious primary ends up costing any votes in the general. After all, the Republican primary this year was FAR nastier than anything that happened on the Democrats side, and it didn't seem to have any tangible effect on Trump's campaign. And the problems with Hillary's campaign (such as not making campaign stops in certain key swing states on the assumption that the Obama coalition would hold together without any special effort) that we know about also had absolutely nothing to do with Bernie's primary campaign.

It just sounds like a pathetic attempt to find a scapegoat rather than actually critically examine the situation on its merits.

[TheFeniX]

Thing is, it didn't matter, because Obama did a good job campaigning and was a charismatic candidate whose support base turned out for him.

I know, right. But man, that e-mail scandal must have totally been what tanked HRC. Obama getting slandered constantly by Republicans for being a Muslim, HUSSEIN OBAMA, "NO EXPERIENCE!," and birthers up until (and even after) election day: totally tanked him, right? Republicans fight dirty. Fuck, CLINTON fought dirty during the 2008 primary.

Obama won because he's a supremely confident, knowledgeable, and charismatic candidate (READ: he's electable). Meanwhile, HRC is polarizing even in her own party. Hell, I can't stand the woman professionally. And a part of that, because she's been around so long and been involved in everything, was her outright bullshit concerning the GTA Hot Coffee "controversy." I have a reason to dislike Clinton because of fucking. video. games.

That's the thing about HRC: it's not hard to find a reason to dislike her, no matter what your beliefs or interests are.

I'm not saying Democrat cronies are on near the "total shit-heel" level of Republicans, but HRC has serious issues as a candidate on a national level. She still definately electable, but only because she can get a (D) next to her name. If demographics keep shifting the way they are and the Republicans continue to try and FIGHT changing demographics rather than open their doors wider, then the democrats could put an empty suit in front of a podium and win elections outside of those demographic areas Republicans consider acceptable.

I still think that an ignored portion of the "high" (comparatively) voter turn-out for Republicans this year was "Holy shit, take your guns Hillary could be in the white house. VOTE YOU IDIOTS." Meanwhile, Democrats turned out to vote like it was 2012.

[Flagg]

Honestly, if Sanders is not on the next ticket, it'd better be Warren or someone else who can take up the Progressive flag and commit to it. I don't really know many other Democrats who wouldn't just revert to the old establishment, corporatist, centrist / center-right positions that have characterized them for years.

I'll vote for the Democrats anyway since fuck if I'm going to let another Republican into office, but someone who I'd be really excited to vote for should be who I want to represent me and others who are marginalized as I am. Not the old "de facto" party who just happens to be not as evil as the other one. I hope to god it isn't Clinton again either...

I'm not voting for a geriatric with high blood pressure for President whose supporters torpedoed the nominee because they had dirty diapers. It's going to be new blood moving past the 2016 clusterfuck or President Pussygrabber will serve 2 terms.

Thirty years of Republican smear jobs had absolutely nothing to do with it, right? Having 60% of the country despising her before Bernie even decided to run was immaterial. Hillary ignoring campaign offices begging for funding because they saw a need to actually campaign in Wisconsin and the other states that swung red didn't affect jack shit.

Gotta blame it on the group that said, at a rate of 90%, said they would vote Clinton in the general. (In 2008, only 81% of Clinton's supporters planned to go Obama.)

You fucking hate Bernie. I get it. But if you're gonna blame him/his supporters for Hillary Clinton's loss I'm gonna need to see solid evidence that he or his supporters had any sort of meaningful impact compared to thirty fucking years of attacks from Republicans. Bernie's biggest core of supporters were among the least reliable voters, too, so...

Blame people who sat out the election, blame people who actually voted for Jester Cheetah. Stop eating your own, that's a big factor in how we got this mess in the first place.

I don't hate Sanders, I hate the halo his dumbass supporters put on his head when he's just as much a self serving politician as the rest. That and the fact that he had one issue and his dumbass supporters attacked the DNC for not supporting the guy that didn't spend years campaigning for, or raising money for, Democrats. And I don't give a shit what Clinton supporters said in 2008, I wasn't one, and despite it Obama kicked the shit out of McCain.

[Flagg]

Honestly, if Sanders is not on the next ticket, it'd better be Warren or someone else who can take up the Progressive flag and commit to it. I don't really know many other Democrats who wouldn't just revert to the old establishment, corporatist, centrist / center-right positions that have characterized them for years.

I'll vote for the Democrats anyway since fuck if I'm going to let another Republican into office, but someone who I'd be really excited to vote for should be who I want to represent me and others who are marginalized as I am. Not the old "de facto" party who just happens to be not as evil as the other one. I hope to god it isn't Clinton again either...

I'm not voting for a geriatric with high blood pressure for President whose supporters torpedoed the nominee because they had dirty diapers. It's going to be new blood moving past the 2016 clusterfuck or President Pussygrabber will serve 2 terms.

I'm not really attached to any one personality, which is why I said the latter part of that sentence. It could be either Sanders or anyone whom I can really believe in to not just renege on promises.

Also I hate to defend TRR but even I kind of got a sense of "I'll let Trump win again in the general" from this statement too.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that I had the power to decide who wins and loses elections.

[Flagg]

I still don't understand the line of argument that a candidate putting up a fight in a primary campaign somehow "weakens" the eventual winner's campaign in the election proper. It doesn't really make any intuitive sense to me why this would be the case, and I've never seen any evidence that a contentious primary ends up costing any votes in the general. After all, the Republican primary this year was FAR nastier than anything that happened on the Democrats side, and it didn't seem to have any tangible effect on Trump's campaign. And the problems with Hillary's campaign (such as not making campaign stops in certain key swing states on the assumption that the Obama coalition would hold together without any special effort) that we know about also had absolutely nothing to do with Bernie's primary campaign.

It just sounds like a pathetic attempt to find a scapegoat rather than actually critically examine the situation on its merits.

I never made the claim that the primary did. But I do recall a "Bernie or Bust" movement that even the idiots on this board who thought Sanders walked on water condemned.

[Dragon Angel]

Sorry, I wasn't aware that I had the power to decide who wins and loses elections.

I mean, as much power as anyone else who can vote, sure. But we both know the argument against not voting, voting for a third party, etc.

I don't honestly believe you would do that but I can see how it was worded to make it seem like so.

[Flagg]

Sorry, I wasn't aware that I had the power to decide who wins and loses elections.

I mean, as much power as anyone else who can vote, sure. But we both know the argument against not voting, voting for a third party, etc.

I don't honestly believe you would do that but I can see how it was worded to make it seem like so.

Well considering that I've stated numerous times that I blame everyone who hated Trump but voted for anyone but Clinton as being responsible for President Pussygrabber winning I don't see how anyone could come to the conclusion that minus Terry Shiavo brain liquifidification I would vote for anyone but the person with the best chance of beating Trump.

[Napoleon the Clown]

I don't hate Sanders, I hate the halo his dumbass supporters put on his head when he's just as much a self serving politician as the rest. That and the fact that he had one issue and his dumbass supporters attacked the DNC for not supporting the guy that didn't spend years campaigning for, or raising money for, Democrats. And I don't give a shit what Clinton supporters said in 2008, I wasn't one, and despite it Obama kicked the shit out of McCain.

The way you've spoken of him made it seem you hated him, but I'll accept that was not your intent. However, it is hypocritical to shit on Bernie's supporters while ignoring Clinton's supporters doing the same (and worse) back in 2008. Both candidates had some raging assholes among their supporters, but only attacking one for their asshole followers is... dishonest.

I'd still like some proof that Bernie's supporters played a major role in Clinton's loss, though. She was widely despised before anybody outside Vermont knew who the fuck Bernie Sanders was.

[Flagg]

I don't hate Sanders, I hate the halo his dumbass supporters put on his head when he's just as much a self serving politician as the rest. That and the fact that he had one issue and his dumbass supporters attacked the DNC for not supporting the guy that didn't spend years campaigning for, or raising money for, Democrats. And I don't give a shit what Clinton supporters said in 2008, I wasn't one, and despite it Obama kicked the shit out of McCain.

The way you've spoken of him made it seem you hated him, but I'll accept that was not your intent. However, it is hypocritical to shit on Bernie's supporters while ignoring Clinton's supporters doing the same (and worse) back in 2008. Both candidates had some raging assholes among their supporters, but only attacking one for their asshole followers is... dishonest.

I'd still like some proof that Bernie's supporters played a major role in Clinton's loss, though. She was widely despised before anybody outside Vermont knew who the fuck Bernie Sanders was.

I criticized Clinton and her supporters in 2008. I can't say that Sanders write-ins cost Clinton the election, but there was plenty of 2000esque "They're both the same" bullshit going on on the left in the lead-up to the election. I resent Sanders joining the Democratic Party at what was practically the last minute to run for the nomination on a "Noun, verb, and WALL STREET!!!" platform and just like Clinton in 2008 waiting to concede until long after he had no chance of getting the nomination. But if he'd won the primary I'd have dodged the falling pigshit from the sky and cast my ballot for him and never said otherwise.