"Democrats" adopt binary thinking.

[Ravy]

We used to be the party that understood areas of gray. A good portion of the posts here show that the binary thinking style of the republicans is taking over our party.

Examples:

If Florida and Michigan do not have ALL their delegates taken away, they were not punished at all.

A vote for the IWR was a vote for war, a vote against it was a vote for everlasting peace.

Pledged Delegates are the only measure that counts.

Purge the party of anyone who doesn't agree with us on every issue all the time.

Purge DU if people don't agree with you, again, every issue, every time.


With the "with us or against us" mentality of some of the more vocal DUers, this place is sure not as interesting as it was when people demonstrated the ability to think critically. It is funnier, however.

[anonymous171]

1. Critical thinking went out the window when HRC started touting her "popular vote" argument.

[BlooInBloo]

2. Agreed; unary thinking is the order of the day. It'll be Obama or Obama.

[damntexdem]

3. I haven't noted the rule of binary thinking on here.

And in fact, the Dem Party will likely award FL and MI half of their votes, with concurrence from the Obama campaign, and with a lot of agreement on here.

[Ravy]

4. Now that it is practically a done deal.. yes...

a week ago, it was "NO SEATING, THEY BROKE THE RULES!". There is still a some of that here. The flip side is "WE SHOULD SEAT ALL!". Sorry if the caps offend, but those being stuck in extreme positions tend to shout about it a lot.

[cbayer]

5. It all feels very Republican, doesn't it?

Tolerance, inclusion - no longer Democratic principles?

Majority rule, minority rights - out the window?

There is no room for dissent at this time. Very disturbing.

[Lilith Velkor]

6. Correction on your second example

A vote for the IWR was a vote for the war, not even fucking being there was a vote for everlasting peace.

And the Senator who paid with his life for voting against it was a "gadfly."

But yeah, all this time I actually thought Democrats were smarter than this. Silly me.

[Ravy]

11. It was also a vote to end the sanctions, put weapons inspectors back in,

etc. but that should be in one of the several other threads I get involved in every few days or so.

[cali]

7. You're simply making shit up.

how charming.

1) Most Obama supporters (c'mon, it's obvious that's who you're talking about) do not support taking all delegates away from MI and FL. They, unlike many hillfans, support an equitable compromise.

2) Fuck. Nothing makes me angrier than revisionist history. Of course it was a vote for war. Who the hell are you to tell people like Pat Leahy and Robert Byrd, that it wasn't? To say I trust their judgment over yours is an understatement. And NO ONE has suggested that voting against the obscene, war mongering pos IWR was a vote for everlasting peace.

3)No candidate has EVER won the nomination without having won the majority of pledged delegates. hillybots want to change the rules.

4)I hate the talk of purges. Always have always will. It's only a minority of nutcases that talk about purges.

5) Same as 4)

Your post is a dishonest piece of shit that you pulled from the obvious place.

[Yotun]

8. In some cases, there are shades, in some there is only black and white

"If Florida and Michigan do not have ALL their delegates taken away, they were not punished at all."

Shades of grey exist, but the question is not whether they are punished, but whether the elections are legitimate to make their results have significance in the election. In democracy, when I vote that I do not like somebody, I do not want my vote to be expressed as meaning I like that person. An extreme example, but the Florida and Michigan election were carried out under certain assumption- the voters voting, or not voting, knew their votes wouldn't count. You can't take that result and pretend it is representative of what an election would be if it was carried out under different assumptions- namely that the election would count. In reality, the only fair way is not to count the elections at all (both candidates going into the election knew that was the default position, and both had an even playing field, neither gainer nor lost from the situation), or redo them properly and give a punishment but a lesser one.



"A vote for the IWR was a vote for war, a vote against it was a vote for everlasting peace."

A vote for the IWR WAS a vote fro war, no two ways about it. A vote against it may have shades of grey as to its meaning.



"Pledged Delegates are the only measure that counts."

They are. Rules aside, they are the only metric which is in any way meaningful. This is a black and white matter.



"Purge the party of anyone who doesn't agree with us on every issue all the time."

Shades of grey. Purge those who wish to lie to their own supporters and make a travesty of democracy, promoting undemocratic values and trying to make people believe that a good metric for popular support is unacceptable, while a metric that is meaningless, is a better choice.



"Purge DU if people don't agree with you, again, every issue, every time."

Shades of grey. I think internet forums should be 100% open to all opinions as long as they are not disruptive.

[kenny blankenship]

9. Y'mean like "HILLARY, OR NOTHING!!!!" ?

I've heard that one at DU. Some of the people who said it can't be here today - so it's not as common as it used to be.

[Ravy]

10. Yes, that is another perfect example. nt