The DNC did the right thing by opposing Sanders

[SwimExpert]

Sanders is not really a Democrat. He's been an independent for nearly 40 years. He's a socialist, not a Democrat. The party did the right thing by opposing his bid to represent the Democratic party. The parties should oppose candidates who don't represent the party and/or who are counter to the party's best interests. The DNC did what the RNC should have done with Trump from the get-go.

Using this logic, the same thing can be said about former Democrat, Drumpf.

Well, if you bothered to read you'll see that I already said exactly that.

 

[owebo]

Sanders is not really a Democrat. He's been an independent for nearly 40 years. He's a socialist, not a Democrat. The party did the right thing by opposing his bid to represent the Democratic party. The parties should oppose candidates who don't represent the party and/or who are counter to the party's best interests. The DNC did what the RNC should have done with Trump from the get-go.

The DNC should have kicked out the fascists like we did our GOP'ers....

Oh wait....we kicked you out....

 

[Neotrotsky]

 

[Valerie]

"Bernie-the-anti-establishment-candidate screwed his supporters by backing the establishment."



don't believe the hype. bernie has been part of the 'government establishment' for ages duh

bombastic bernie bros in kindergarten on 9/11/2001 plus anti American anarchists have y'all parroting nicely tho

way to go dumbos

"screwed his supporters" derrrp time to grow up squawk squawk time to grow up

primaries have candidates who don't win the popular vote yet step aside of their ego to endorse the winner of an election for the sake of unity in cause for the greater good. now you know.

oooh i mean lesser of two evuls derrpa derrp again i suggest learn to get real nellie zoom zoom

 

[FA_Q2]

You are off base here swim. The purpose of the party may be to select who they think represents them and or will have the best chances of winning the election BUT they were colluding in the shadows and THAT is why this is a big deal.

If they were to act in this manner above board and be open with the selection process then whatever - they run the party as they wish and the voters either accept that or move to another party/crate a new one. In this manner though they are attempting to lie about the way they do business and that deserves both scrutiny and ire.

 

[SYTFE]

Sanders is not really a Democrat. He's been an independent for nearly 40 years. He's a socialist, not a Democrat. The party did the right thing by opposing his bid to represent the Democratic party. The parties should oppose candidates who don't represent the party and/or who are counter to the party's best interests. The DNC did what the RNC should have done with Trump from the get-go.

Using this logic, the same thing can be said about former Democrat, Drumpf.

Well, if you bothered to read you'll see that I already said exactly that.

Ah, my bad.

 

[SwimExpert]

You are off base here swim. The purpose of the party may be to select who they think represents them and or will have the best chances of winning the election BUT they were colluding in the shadows and THAT is why this is a big deal.

If they were to act in this manner above board and be open with the selection process then whatever - they run the party as they wish and the voters either accept that or move to another party/crate a new one. In this manner though they are attempting to lie about the way they do business and that deserves both scrutiny and ire.

They were colluding....i.e. they were doing politics. I agree, the honesty question is the important part here. Wasserman-Shits said she would be neutral and she was lying her ass off. To me it's not what they did, just how they did it.

 

[Zoom-boing]

"Bernie-the-anti-establishment-candidate screwed his supporters by backing the establishment."



don't believe the hype. bernie has been part of the 'government establishment' for ages duh

bombastic bernie bros in kindergarten on 9/11/2001 plus anti American anarchists have y'all parroting nicely tho

way to go dumbos

"screwed his supporters" derrrp time to grow up squawk squawk time to grow up

primaries have candidates who don't win the popular vote yet step aside of their ego to endorse the winner of an election for the sake of unity in cause for the greater good. now you know.

oooh i mean lesser of two evuls derrpa derrp again i suggest learn to get real nellie zoom zoom

Socialist Bernie is part of the establishment? So he lied when he ran as anti-establishment against establishment crooked hillary. Thanks for proving that he did indeedy screw his supporters, but good.

Wanna know how a boatload of Bernie supporters are feeling right about now? This type of thing is popping up all over the place. This is from a friend, via Facebook.

"Oh boy, here comes the party unity for the democratics. Yeah right! Debbie will get a job from Hillary for a job well done. Even though The Burn was fried by his new party, Bernie the scorcher is towing the line. Why, because we can't have Trump in the white house. Well, wake the hell up Mr. Sanders, we can't have Hillary in there either. She screwed you bro. Bernie, you are perpetuating the two corrupt party system. But, it's ok, we'll blame this shit on Putin. Suck it up bro, and run as an independant, because the democratic party just gave the election to The Donald. Unless, Gary comes down the final stretch to nose out the corruption."

nom, nom, nom

 

[FA_Q2]

You are off base here swim. The purpose of the party may be to select who they think represents them and or will have the best chances of winning the election BUT they were colluding in the shadows and THAT is why this is a big deal.

If they were to act in this manner above board and be open with the selection process then whatever - they run the party as they wish and the voters either accept that or move to another party/crate a new one. In this manner though they are attempting to lie about the way they do business and that deserves both scrutiny and ire.

They were colluding....i.e. they were doing politics. I agree, the honesty question is the important part here. Wasserman-Shits said she would be neutral and she was lying her ass off. To me it's not what they did, just how they did it.

I think that the obvious reason is that the voters demand a party that is neutral and anything else will get slammed and sink. If that is a good thing or not is debatable - with an ignorant electorate that thinks they should make the decisions anyway, you end up with Hillary vs Trump. A match up that is better suited to a reality TV show than the leader of the free world.

 

[SwimExpert]

I think that the obvious reason is that the voters demand a party that is neutral and anything else will get slammed and sink.

So whose fault is it that the voters are stupid enough to believe it's possible to have a political party that is neutral?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

So you feel the party should have supported him but he shouldn't have to support the party?

The party didn't support him! They set out to screw him from the get go.

But did they?
Do you honestly believe that whatever the party did resulted in him losing by nearly 4 million votes?

I love Bernie but he never had a chance.

We'll never know. Crooked DNC is crooked.

I'm sure you are able to articulate how that was achieved. If not it's just another butthurt conspiracy.

Articulate how the DNC is crooked? Poor you.

Butthurt? Ba ha ha ha ha! You're funny.

Point IS, the DNC is shit and it was proven (yet again) today.

You have proven nothing other than you can parrot the same nonsense as everyone else.

 

[FA_Q2]

I think that the obvious reason is that the voters demand a party that is neutral and anything else will get slammed and sink.

So whose fault is it that the voters are stupid enough to believe it's possible to have a political party that is neutral?

We have discussed this before, you should know how I feel about this subject.

Essentially all our political woes stems from an apathetic and entitled electorate. We put those criminals in power and we continue to do so. It is one thing if we are tricked and lied to - another thing entirely if we continue to put those that do so in power.

 

[SwimExpert]

I think that the obvious reason is that the voters demand a party that is neutral and anything else will get slammed and sink.

So whose fault is it that the voters are stupid enough to believe it's possible to have a political party that is neutral?

We have discussed this before, you should know how I feel about this subject.

Essentially all our political woes stems from an apathetic and entitled electorate. We put those criminals in power and we continue to do so. It is one thing if we are tricked and lied to - another thing entirely if we continue to put those that do so in power.

I agree with that, but I don't think that really hits the mark. My point is that a political party, by it's very nature, will never be "neutral." The entire concept of a political party is that it exists for its own sake, and that of its agenda, whatever that agenda might be. There is nothing inherently corrupt nor dishonest about a political party being a political party.

 

[FA_Q2]

I think that the obvious reason is that the voters demand a party that is neutral and anything else will get slammed and sink.

So whose fault is it that the voters are stupid enough to believe it's possible to have a political party that is neutral?

We have discussed this before, you should know how I feel about this subject.

Essentially all our political woes stems from an apathetic and entitled electorate. We put those criminals in power and we continue to do so. It is one thing if we are tricked and lied to - another thing entirely if we continue to put those that do so in power.

I agree with that, but I don't think that really hits the mark. My point is that a political party, by it's very nature, will never be "neutral." The entire concept of a political party is that it exists for its own sake, and that of its agenda, whatever that agenda might be. There is nothing inherently corrupt nor dishonest about a political party being a political party.

There is when it claims that it is neutral in an election of the people of who should lead the party out of a set of candidates. Then it is shown that they are actually lying through their teeth and favor one candidate or another.

That is corrupt as it is specifically trying to control the election without anyone knowing about it. That is a major issue for me.

Of course I am not a democrat so they could care less what I think but there it is - if you have a set agenda that includes trying to sway the voters to one of your candidates then you should tell the voters exactly that and why. Of course the reason that they did not do so is because it would have all but assured Berny a victory.

I will agree that they are between a rock and a hard place but I also think that they deserve a LOT of ire for the pretentious and, yes, corrupt manner in which they dealt with it.

 

[SwimExpert]

There is when it claims that it is neutral in an election of the people of who should lead the party out of a set of candidates.

There is no such election of the people. There is an election by delegates. The delegate system is an inherently arbitrary process, and the "primary voting" habit is itself only carried out at the whim of the parties, and makes only piss poor attempts to align delegate assignment reasonably to reflect the will of the people. All the things you are claiming are nothing more than smoke and mirrors. And we can't even blame the political parties for that fact. We've created the illusion ourselves, through rampant ignorance. It's a failing to comprehend the first place, which the general public carries over into the second and third place, resulting in this mass delusion that you are describing.

 

[FA_Q2]

There is when it claims that it is neutral in an election of the people of who should lead the party out of a set of candidates.

There is no such election of the people. There is an election by delegates. The delegate system is an inherently arbitrary process, and the "primary voting" habit is itself only carried out at the whim of the parties, and makes only piss poor attempts to align delegate assignment reasonably to reflect the will of the people. All the things you are claiming are nothing more than smoke and mirrors. And we can't even blame the political parties for that fact. We've created the illusion ourselves, through rampant ignorance. It's a failing to comprehend the first place, which the general public carries over into the second and third place, resulting in this mass delusion that you are describing.

Not entirely.

I do not agree with the asinine way that we select delegate votes and where they go BUT that entire system is above board. IOW, when Trump claimed that the votes were being 'stolen' he was off base and flat out incorrect. Those delegates went where they did because that is the silly process that we use. Same goes with the democrat super delegates - they are a bad idea in general IMHO BUT if they sway an election they are not 'stealing' it though the people have full rights to slap the party across the face for ignoring them.

That is a separate issue from the DNC as a institution influencing an outcome behind the scenes while lying about being impartial.