Democratic debates

[mauricio]

Please bear in mind that the candidate "you do not like" is somewhere in the 80s or 90s with most liberals here while the GOP candidate is typically in the 30s or less.

That quiz exemplifies the issue perfectly, you have 2 candidates which are both bought by the oligopoly and they only differ on things like gay marriage which is a pretty small issue on the big picture of managing a country. But this issues are politically effective tools, the politicians jump on any successful activist movement than lines up with their constituency and has strong emotional impact to sway people to vote for them, even when it is but a minuscule part of the totality of a governance plan. If i want gays to marry i will advocate and support their right, but I won't give my approval to shillary clinton that got millions of dollars to cement the current oligopoly and the power of corporations that form it.

[mauricio]

[FaithIsFilth]

Sanders defends Clinton at the debate and says let's start focusing on the issues. Clinton agrees, and what issues does she choose to focus on now? Her vagina of course, and Bernie Sanders being a big bad sexist. Shouldn't she be kissing Sanders ass right now? Sanders has already lost, and doing dumb shit like calling Sanders a sexist doesn't seem like a good idea when you have to win over the Sanders supporters after he drops out.

[josephpalazzo]

That quiz exemplifies the issue perfectly, you have 2 candidates which are both bought by the oligopoly and they only differ on things like gay marriage which is a pretty small issue on the big picture of managing a country. But this issues are politically effective tools, the politicians jump on any successful activist movement than lines up with their constituency and has strong emotional impact to sway people to vote for them, even when it is but a minuscule part of the totality of a governance plan. If i want gays to marry i will advocate and support their right, but I won't give my approval to shillary clinton that got millions of dollars to cement the current oligopoly and the power of corporations that form it.

I think you're missing an important point. The Democrats have little choice but to play the game, and this is due solely to SCOTUS which has ruled in favor of Citizens United Versus FEC, turning money into free speech, a ruling that has undermined democracy more that any other ruling since 1776. If there is going to be any reversal of this toxic ruling it will have to be with a SCOTUS that is made up of different judges. Right now, three judges may take their retirement due to aging, and if the next POTUS is a Republican, then kiss goodbye to overturning Citizens United Versus FEC any time in the near and medium future, and any attempt at campaign fund reform is in dead waters. So even if you don't like Hillary, she is the best bet to get the Oval office for the Democrats and the best bet to nominate judges who will overturn Citizens United Versus FEC.

[TomFoolery]

Right now, three judges may take their retirement due to aging, and if the next POTUS is a Republican, then kiss goodbye to overturning Citizens United Versus FEC any time in the near and medium future, and any attempt at campaign fund reform is in dead waters.

You forgot to mention that people should not only go out and vote for the the Democrats, but be mindful enough to vote for non-Conservative assclowns in the midterm elections to avoid the Obama's current situation which is a Republican-controlled Congress.

The whims of American voters never ceases to amaze me. Yes, let's reelect the black guy because "hope" and "change" and then two years later insist on old white guys because "status quo."

[josephpalazzo]

You forgot to mention that people should not only go out and vote for the the Democrats, but be mindful enough to vote for non-Conservative assclowns in the midterm elections to avoid the Obama's current situation which is a Republican-controlled Congress.

The whims of American voters never ceases to amaze me. Yes, let's reelect the black guy because "hope" and "change" and then two years later insist on old white guys because "status quo."

Agree, but the harsh reality of American politics dictates that  gerrymandering practically assures that the incumbent will win. And that's not going to change in the near or distant future.

[TomFoolery]

Agree, but the harsh reality of American politics dictates that  gerrymandering practically assures that the incumbent will win. And that's not going to change in the near or distant future.

Imagine if we shopped for clothes that way. One day we're feeling sassy so we buy the expensive leather pants and go home and realize we have no cute top to wear with them. So the next day, we go out and buy a boater jacket and a matching hat because... we not only forgot we were accessorizing leather pants, but we forgot it wasn't 1920.

[Mike Cl]

Yes i understand that, ultimately I try to do the same, but choosing the lesser of all evils not just those who are electable. But yes I understand the logic of voting for a candidate you do not like so the worse one does not the get the presidency, but that is exactly what I find disgraceful, because we then complain about the corporate lobbying, the corruption, the imperialism... when we basically already willfully consented to it by voting in favor of the same old political class. It's like we are trapped in this kafkatrap where you are dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. That's why i choose to vote without caring about the viability of the candidate, because it is an absurd system when the population political power is so neutered I rather be a dissenting voice, even if my vote is meaningless, just out of principle.

Sounds like to me you are living in an ideal world--you need to be more objective and connected to reality.  :)))

[stromboli]

Imagine if we shopped for clothes that way. One day we're feeling sassy so we buy the expensive leather pants and go home and realize we have no cute top to wear with them. So the next day, we go out and buy a boater jacket and a matching hat because... we not only forgot we were accessorizing leather pants, but we forgot it wasn't 1920.

My personal fashion sense is to wear shorts and tshirts in the summertime because nobody wants to see me in a loincloth.

[Baruch]

On the 2010 elections ... the Dems lost control of Congress, because they did stuff that was unpopular.  Doing popular stuff means being a demagogue ... but unless you are ... you don't get elected.  Same thing happened in ancient Athens and Rome.  The Dems for example, bought some votes with ACA (which turned out to be not as nice as advertised, but this was after 2010) but it pissed off a lot of other voters who already had health insurance ... including me.  And sometimes it is the how, not what.  If they had done single payer, I would have supported it ... as a bailout for the health insurance companies ... they can bite me then and now.

[mauricio]

Sounds like to me you are living in an ideal world--you need to be more objective and connected to reality.  :)))

nah I'm just cynical with still some idealism alive at my core, I don't consider voting to be very relevant. That's why it's mostly an I don't give a fuck stance rather than a hopeful if only we all voted with our hearts!

[mauricio]

I think you're missing an important point. The Democrats have little choice but to play the game, and this is due solely to SCOTUS which has ruled in favor of Citizens United Versus FEC, turning money into free speech, a ruling that has undermined democracy more that any other ruling since 1776. If there is going to be any reversal of this toxic ruling it will have to be with a SCOTUS that is made up of different judges. Right now, three judges may take their retirement due to aging, and if the next POTUS is a Republican, then kiss goodbye to overturning Citizens United Versus FEC any time in the near and medium future, and any attempt at campaign fund reform is in dead waters. So even if you don't like Hillary, she is the best bet to get the Oval office for the Democrats and the best bet to nominate judges who will overturn Citizens United Versus FEC.

but what makes you believe the demorcats would overturn that law when they are also getting their piece of the millionaire pie. Once you play the game you are bound by the rules, if you break them you lose. Every institution and every agent of it seeks foremost his self-preservation if this things guarantee their campaign funding and their electability they won't change shit.

[josephpalazzo]

but what makes you believe the demorcats would overturn that law when they are also getting their piece of the millionaire pie. Once you play the game you are bound by the rules, if you break them you lose. Every institution and every agent of it seeks foremost his self-preservation if this things guarantee their campaign funding and their electability they won't change shit.

Democrats' Supreme Court Litmus Test: Citizens United

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, long a vociferous opponent of the 2010 ruling, kicked off the debate May 10 in an interview on CBS. "If elected president," he said, "I will have a litmus test in terms of my nominee to be a Supreme Court justice and that nominee will say that they are going to overturn this disastrous Supreme Court decision."
One week later, Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton told activists in Mason City, Iowa that the Citizens United ruling was "a grave error" by the Court. "I will do everything I can to appoint Supreme Court justices who protect the right to vote and do not protect the right of billionaires to buy elections," she said.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I think Citizens United is over-hyped.

[Baruch]

I think Citizens United is over-hyped.

Things were already pretty messed up on campaign finance.  And it does provide a poster child.  But as part of the Watergate generation, I am completely against that has happened in campaigns for the past 40 years ... Nixon was just sweet potatoes.