He's not a member of the party. His pick is just a way for him to continue to influence something he has no business influencing. And, it's his time for him exit the stage. He tried, he failed and now it's time for him to move on. (Unless he wants to re-commit in a meaningful way to the party. Which, he obviously does not want to do, and therefore I have no reservations in dismissing someone whom the party has also rejected in no uncertain terms. He's not being serious, therefore I cannot take him seriously.)

Yes, that's how political parties work. You guys will just have to learn to work within the system instead of wasting time trying to dismantle it. Time to be realistic and mature. (This is why third parties fail or languish. This is why the only "power" of third parties is to be a spoiler by drawing away votes from the major party that they're philosophically closer to.)

You say that as if you're proud of yourself. You shouldn't be. What you're boasting about is a liability.

I have no idea what you're rabbiting on about.

What exactly does our party not "get"? We have a damn good party! This kind of whining talk that I keep hearing is a bit unrealistic to me and in the quest for perfection you guys end up sabotaging the pretty-damn-good-already. It's all evocative of lollipops and unicorns and rainbows, our-way or no-way. Again, it's the "let's burn down the house because it has a leaky faucet" phenomenon.

On one hand, those who advocate such a thing are quite proud of themselves and their lofty purity. But, when you think about it... destroying to start over from scratch... and in pursuit of impossible perfect to boot... well there are many who'd characterize that way of political thinking as being a bit bonkers. It's just an adult version of having a temper tantrum.

Why are you being evasive? I'm asking you. It was a rhetorical question because the answer is pretty damned obvious already. The fact that you chose to be catty and evasive about it tells me a lot.

"If" you actually feel that way, then that's a naive and idealistic way for people to look at things. It takes more than "better ideas" to run an entire country. (I said "if" too.)

Evasive. Your excessively wordy avoidance helps to reinforce my observations that this pejorative label varies depending on the person using it, and varies depending on at whom it's being hurled. In other words: it's meaningless. It's just an insult to be used whenever you disagree with someone.

That's a very presumptuous way of thinking. There's a saying about "vanity" or "pride" that I can't quite recall the wording of right now. Maybe it's a biblical quote that I'm blanking on. Anyway, he really does have some gall to think the he (someone whom our party rejected, and someone whose time has come and gone) is the SOLE SAVIOR of a party that he doesn't even care for enough to bother joining. Weird. What kind of message does that send?

Sorry, that's bullshit. To the best of my knowledge, no reasonable person believes that he shouldn't "have an opinion". He, like anyone, can have an opinion.

That's more to the point. His day is over. His song is at an end and the last note is fading. The sun is setting on his long career. The fact is this: he CHOSE to not be a member of our party. That was his choice. Nobody forced him to reject our party. Yet he and his fans think he deserves to be treated as if he's more than what he really is. Why? In my opinion he's really done nothing to earn that kind of influence within a party he clearly has so much contempt for.

Irrelevant.

Also irrelevant. Respect him all you want. Enjoy. Honor him. Follow him. Follow him wherever he may go. But it's really not his place to dictate to the party.

He had his chance... but he took a pass on staying in the party. We now know where his loyalties are, and it's not with us.