2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum“If you want the parties to diverge from one another, have Bush win.” --Ralph Nader.
This is the face of the far left, folks. The Bernie or Bust left isn't "principled," they actually want Republicans to win elections.
It's not a coincidence that three or four links to right-wing media are posted here every day in order to smear Hillary. It's not a coincidence that people are constantly insisting that there's no difference between Hillary and the GOP. It's not misguided, it is intentional. A GOP victory isn't some unfortunate consequence that the far left hasn't thought through. It is the objective.
I read constantly about what a terrible force the "Third Way" has been in American politics since the 90s. But whatever you think about "New Democrats," they can't hold a candle to the Naderites in terms of destructiveness. The far left are the people who brought us W, and right now they are working hard to try and stick us with Trump. Let's hope Bernie stands up strong to their attempt to hijack his candidacy and turn it into a force for the GOP.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)No matter how much they claim they are.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Or, Hillary.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, quit whining when it fails to do so.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Do tell.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Gore ran as a moderate Democrat and won votes.
Bush ran as an dunce and won votes.
I understand how the electoral system works that's why I want to change it.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Did he and his supporters intentionally throw the elections to Bush by attacking Nader?
Didn't Gore peel off votes from Nader?
Didn't he try to distance himself from Clinton? Why was that? Should he have embraced Clinton to win the votes of the left or right?
Apparently, you don't understand the electoral system.
If Hillary wins the nomination and loses the GE, who will you blame. Sanders? Trump? The Independent/3rd Party candidates? The voters?
Or, Clinton for failing to convince enough voters to vote for her?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Are you aware that the "two-party" system is not in the constitution or required?
Are you aware that George Washington decried the dangers of party?
Are you aware that most democracies don't have a two party system?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)constitution. I'm glad you're working on that, but until that amendment passes, please don't help people like Nader throw any more elections to the GOP.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Sorry, but I don't think that will work. kinda like supporting the death penalty to end it.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I'm not voting for him. He will not gain a vote from me.
0-0 = 0
Neither will Hillary.
0-0 = 0
Maybe you don't understand how math works.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(108,192 posts)Beacool
(30,251 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)carrying water for the rich and screwing over everyone else.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)G_j
(40,370 posts)hippie punching nonsense
onehandle
(51,122 posts)[img][/img]
Will Ralph Nader become Al Gore's worst nightmare?
Of more immediate interest, at least to Al Gore, are Nader's respectable poll numbers: 7 to 10 percent in California as of June, 6 percent nationally. If California tips Green enough, Bush could win the state and the whole damn election.
Which, Nader confided to Outside in June, wouldn't be so bad. When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush."
http://www.outsideonline.com/1837851/ralph-nader-2000-campaign-interview
How did that work out, Nader voters?
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Let's punish the oppressed for not supporting socialism by supporting fascism so they "wake up" and support our revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism
even Marx rejected that shit btw
This is ACTUALLY how Hitler rose to power in Germany, the KPD refused to work with the SPD to stop Hitler because they didn't think the SPD was radical enough. Combined, the KPD and SPD had more than enough votes (and muscle on the streets) to keep the Nazis out.
progressoid
(49,999 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)This one was little pinky lightweight
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)The money is too good for Tad Devine and Bernie is dead-man-walking to push his issues -- I mean issue.
The whole world is bored of the subject-verb-(one or more of oligarch, billionaire, 1%, rigged system, wall street and bankers) but like a broken record he keeps yelling the same issue over and over and over and over.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)I'd like to think not.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)"delegate math" to be specific.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)But you knew that.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)when the handwriting is on the wall and stop accepting more money.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)<absolute bullshit description of how that was different to follow>
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)That aren't part of your little club.
That's why the hanging out in the "Hillary group". You know it's only going to be a self-serving echo chamber, with little to no discussion, and that's how you like it.
That's why whenever an inconvenient fact or truth or might be fact or might be truth comes up all you tend to do is try to discredit the source, call names, stuff like that. You don't debate things on their own merit.
You simply don't play fair. Because that's not the Clinton game. The Clinton game is about power politics, about bought and sold, not principles that stand true for the average American citizen.
That's why the smokescreen is so damn odious, all the while people's pockets are getting picked.
Your solution - that I become one of the loyal minions, supporting people I don't trust, voting for things i don't believe in.
I've already started practicing my Hillary mantras, in case Bernie doesn't win. You know, "taking money from big money donors doesn't affect a politician in any way. the TPP deal has only a few minor flaws, it's ok to cut Social Security and Medicare because we need to, calling them entitlements is better because what do you think you deserve a return on the money you paid into the system", you know, things like that. I am trying to assimilate myself into the system of the Corporatacrats, but I'm just not sure I'm going to make it!
DanTex
(20,709 posts)highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)Democratic Party and the average people it's supposed to represent as right-wing, or close enough.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Hmm...
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)consider right-wing. And in many cases you may be right. but it doesn't mean they aren't reporting on something that is true or possibly true or likely true or something that has to be dealt with.
I don't believe in that kind of "head in the sand".
Dispute the facts of the matter, not the source. Relying on calling the source names only makes your argument weaker, in my opinion.
For instance, Hillary called into legal difficulties over private server? Reported on by many right-wing sources. And many other sources, I might add. Could it happen? I can see many reasons why an average person would already be in hot water over this, big hot water. The best thing she has in her favor is that she's Hillary Clinton. That, in itself, is a very elitist point of view. Help us with a populist Democratic message? Not so much. Weaken her candidacy? Very well could. Capable of being discussed rationally on DU? NO, apparently not!
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And, yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as right-wing media. And, yes, it does get linked to a lot here. And, no, the right wing media does not report the facts honestly.
The reason people link to right-wing media so much is very obvious. If something were actually true, they'd be able to find it in non-right wing media. But Hillary bashers want to smear her with lies that they know are not true, and only appear on right-wing media.
And it's particularly true with respect to emails/Benghazi. The right-wing media is constantly reporting that she's about to get indicted, and they have unnamed "legal experts" talking about how criminal her actions were. Despite being false, it suits the agenda of the Bernie or Busters.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)This isn't new to DU. We've been criticizing posters for voting their conviction and conscious since 2004. Every primary, some self-appointed prophet of reality informs us to vote as he sees fit else the apocalypse. The only original word/idea you've added this time around is 'Trump."
Your post only validates the criticisms Sander's supporters hits us with. And your post deserves those hits. As a Clinton supporter myself, my only suggestion to you in assisting her election is to think more and speak a LOT less. But again, that's simply a suggestion.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)throwing the election to W, DU might not even exist, at least not in its current form.
Philly-Union-Man
(79 posts)And it's kind of ironic that you say New Deal Democrats want Republicans to win when you're supporting Clinton, a Reaganite.
I'm gong to vote for her if I have to but only because of social issues. I'll take no pleasure in it.
katsy
(4,246 posts)the FL democrats and the SC gave us bush. Naderites had no such power. Registered democrats did this. Floridians did this. I know I lived there during that fiasco.
There's enough nastiness in this world without blowing this primary contest way out of proportion.
We have 2 great candidates and we all want ours to win. That's all this is.
Fucking treating other democrats worse than you treat republicans. Fuck this noise.
mrdmk
(2,943 posts)Keep up the good work
Response to DanTex (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed