Macho Madness
Member
If the founding fathers didn't want partisanship, they sure wrote the constitution badly.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Sanders campaign requests removal of 2 DNC members, threatens to halt convention
- Thread starter BreezyLimbo
- Start date
- Status
Frozenprince
Banned
I mean holy shit Bernie Sanders is literally trying to tear the DNC apart and he still has supporters.
He says AIDS advocates are big pharma shills because they advocated to avoid FDA approval to get DMT out so people wouldn't die. And he still has supporters.
Fucking insanity.
He says AIDS advocates are big pharma shills because they advocated to avoid FDA approval to get DMT out so people wouldn't die. And he still has supporters.
Fucking insanity.
Sorry I meant letter. You think its nothing and the sanders compaign thinks its something. Lets see what happens at the democratic convention or before that if the party decides something on this.
Guess that word means something different in Dutch compared to English. I'd say an ideologue is someone who does not demand specific reforms but someone who talks ideologically.
Maybe the Google definition is more in line of the current post-modernist view on ideology? That we're past ideology now etc etc all that bullshit.
Frozenprince
Banned
I think it's safe to say that the majority of the founding fathers, given that it was more than just Washington, Hamilton, Monroe, Jefferson et al, wanted it. Considering how the constitution is written and designed.
whyamihere
Banned
Frozenprince
Banned
Nah lets do it anyway. Fuck who we'd replace him with and what it'd do the the party and the long term stability of the US.
#Revolution
People were supporting the Planned Parenthood shit way back when too. And after the fact, he only really gave a kinda/okay/maybe apology on it when it was forced on him. This has been going on from the beginning. You're absolutely right.
Cruz was actually in the process of gathering support from the RNC equivalent of superdelegates (unbound delegates) and was also currying favor from major conservative donors and infrastructure spreaders to the point that if the RNC convention went to a second ballot, it would actually have become possible for Cruz to be the Republican Nominee
Sanders is no where near at this level of support within the DNC and is extremely unlikely to get anything accomplished making the DNC's convention a nightmare other than destroying much of the support for the DNC itself
Also all pollsters have stopped polling for the primaries, and it has been assumed that Clinton is the nominee by all major donors for multiple months at this point, so everything Sanders is doing is nothing but detrimental to the presumed nominee for the party he supposedly represents
The Lone Courier
Member
Multi party system wouldn't eliminate corruption. Right now the system in place funnels a very small selection of competitive presidential candidates. You essentially need to hijack one of the two parties to get anywhere. Invite independents to early debates, create a even playing field for other parties so they can get media time and we will have more than two realistic candidates to choose from. In democracy having only 2 choices is barely a democracy. Especially when you take into account the fact that the nomination process is rigid and confined to entities that aren't democratic by nature.
As for corruption there needs to be a fundamental change in how we regulate campaign finance. Politicians should not be able to vote on policies that affect X after taking donations from X.
BlastProcessing
Member
Why would threatening to incite chaos at the Democratic National Convention burn the party down? You don't seem to have a strong understanding of American Politics or American political history. Which is fine, I am sure I would sound positively lost and naive if I were to sound off on the politics of your country.
A good place for you to start might be the 1968 Democratic National Convention. One truism in American Politics is that a party that fails to unify always loses. Always. Sanders actions aren't likely to cost Clinton the Presidency. Frankly, I don't think he is an effective enough politician to accomplish that even if he tried. His actions will cost the Democrats down ticket. Fewer Senate and House seats will flip because his shit show will suppress turnout.
As for what Sanders and Trump have in common? Both are populists whose core base are white men who want to be told that nothing is their fault. They are obviously quite different, (Sanders isn't a racist sexist monster with tiny, baby hands) but both show a troubling lack of intellectual curiosity and both have absolutely crashed and burned in any interview that forces them to go into detail about how they plan to implement their platforms.
All I can say is that has been the English definition of ideologue for centuries. You can find plenty of examples in literature of it being used as such.
Good thing there are two whole other branches of Government. The President isn't a Godking. Hell, state and local elections have more effects on your day to day life.
Wasn't that the case if Trump hadn't won the majority of pledged delegates? How much of a chance was there that he wouldn't win the nomination by the end of the republican primaries? I know that he won the nomination (yesterday?) because some of the unpledged delegates backed him but wouldn't that have happened anyway if cruz had stayed all the way through? I mean the guy was winning absolutely nothing with trump getting a 50% vote in every primary.
A question though, weren't people saying the same thing about clinton when she didn't drop out until the very end? I mean, wasn't there a story just recently where a larger portion of clinton supporters were saying they wouldn't vote for Obama in 08 than the current sanders supporters saying the same about clinton?
Cruz was competitive in the GOP primary. He won several states. And Trump didn't get 50% of the vote in a contest until New York -- the 35th primary/caucus the GOP held.
The point is that, even then, Cruz had a more realistic path to the nomination after New York than Sanders did then or does now.
BlastProcessing
Member
You are right that Trump was way way ahead of everybody when Cruz dropped out. fun fact, Clinton was actually mathematically closer to clinching the nomination than Trump was as recently as May 17. That underscores just how impossibly far behind Sanders is.
Sanders is over 3 times further behind than Clinton was in 2008. In 2008 Obama had more delegates but CLinton actually led in popular vote until the very end. The ended up practically tied in popular vote. Currently Clinton is 3 million votes ahead and will end up close to 6 million ahead.
MHWilliams
Member
Nah. Our election system tends to whittle down to two parties regardless.
Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
Frozenprince
Banned
Sanders lost on Super Tuesday 2 months ago.
The fact that he's kept this farce up for so long legitimately staggers me. He's just stealing peoples money at this point.
The fact that he's kept this farce up for so long legitimately staggers me. He's just stealing peoples money at this point.
Wafflecakes
Member
Lol "nomination process is rigged". Yeah, it is rigged in favor of the person who more people want to vote for.
Just a few pages back you were claiming that the two party system was to fault for the corruption. Now you have backtracked when proven wrong and are moving the goalposts making it about "democracy" rather than corruption, and how corruption must be dealt with using other means.
I don't think even you know what you are arguing for.
Frozenprince
Banned
That won't change anything. If you want third parties then the US needs to change to a proportional representation system. A first past the post system will always only have two major parties. The two major parties aren't squeezing those poor third parties out. The fundemental nature of our electoral structure is keeping third parties out because its stupid to vote for a third party in a FPTP system.
And primaries arent democratic in nature?
Trump never got 50% of the vote until the New York primary on April 19th, and was consistently only getting a little above a third of the vote up until then, and even afterwards was not getting half the vote consistently. if Cruz and Kasich stayed in until the end, it was fairly likely trump would not have received enough pledged delegates to actually become nominated before the convention. if the convention occurred without a nominee, there would've been a vote count, which included unbound delegates which would've likely sided with Cruz
At that point, all bets would've been off, and a number of different outcomes could've occurred, one of them being a Cruz nominee, which would've been probably about the second or third most likely option
Basically, if Cruz didn't drop out after Indiana earlier this month, we would've likely had a brokered RNC convention. Sanders is not getting a brokered DNC convention in any scenario, even if he "halts" the convention. He is only going to ruin Hillary's chances at becoming president, and likely destroy much of the downballot races as well.
Cruz bowed out gracefully out of the primaries once it was obvious he could not win when he lost Indiana. Sanders should've done the same thing back on Super Tuesday in March, but has not. It is COMPLETELY ridiculous for Sanders to still be running in a primary that has mathematically been settled for months, while the Republican Primaries have already ended, which were MUCH more unsettled throughout the entire race up until the very end. It is very shameful for Sanders to continue these shenanigans. It helps no one but him in a very, very politically charged environment and has serious consequences on the world stage for potentially generations to come.
excelsiorlef
Member
Not actually the fault of First Past the Post, Canada has 3 major Federal parties, one minor one and one that only runs candidates in one Province (yet still managed to finish in second place one election due to the failure of the two other major parties), they even used to have 4 major parties.
Now granted Canada only two parties actually have a chance at winning the whole thing, but the other parties sometimes finish second and have representation in the House of Commons and have done effective things in the past
Anyway Canada has FTP and has multiple parties.
What prevents multiple parties in the US is the Constitutionally mandated absolute majority requirement that hands the choice of the Presidency over to Congress is no one hits that number.
Canada you win with a plurality.
Ok keep posing straw man arguments to try and dictate what my agenda is.Just eliminating the two party system won't eliminate corruption. That we agree on. But it's a step in the right direction. I was supplementing my point with additional measures that needs to be taken to stem corruption.
excelsiorlef
Member
To get rid of the two party system would again.....require a Constitutional Amendment.
Wafflecakes
Member
You don't have arguments to make straw men of.
You just make statements without any evidence and when people challenge you you just shift your argument to something else.
BlastProcessing
Member
aygomyownroad
Member
I can't imagine him being President and acting like with Russia say...
Sore loser and is doing him no favours.
I am not a fan of Hilary (I am British so can't vote) but I hope she wins. The alternatives have been unsavory or in Bernie's case a down right old git
Sore loser and is doing him no favours.
I am not a fan of Hilary (I am British so can't vote) but I hope she wins. The alternatives have been unsavory or in Bernie's case a down right old git
We use PR-STV in my country and as complicated and slow as it is I think it's quite a good system. You get a good range of parties.
You do need other reforms to ensure that smaller/minor parties can contribute to governance as you still can get monolithic parties dominating the result.
I've provided plenty of evidence that you either ignored or shifted the conversation. My goal here isn't to solve the issues plague our democratic system but suggest flaws that I see. I'm open to people disagreeing me but it's hard to continue any conversation when a mere suggestion of an opinion is reciprocated with a very defensive disdain for a different view. I'll let you carry on and let you discuss politics among the experts.
An organization allowing its members (and sometimes even non-members) to vote to elect the head of that organization is democratic. There are certainly some undemocratic elements to the process (caucuses), but it is inherently democratic.
Moreover, if the organization does not limit the voting to members of that organization, then members of the opposing party have the possibility of voting for shitty and undetectable candidates, which would go against the interests of the party, its voters, and our democratic system.
excelsiorlef
Member
Just please at least tell me you understand that the system is fundamentally impossible to change because it requires a Constitutional Amendment, therefore talking about how the US should change their voting system is basically a a non starter.
There's a a Constitutional mandate for one candidate to get an absolutely majority of EC votes, that cannot be changed without a nigh impossible constitutional amendment.
Tell me you understand this
GoldenEye 007
Member
How is the American primary process undeomcratic? How do other parties in other countries nominate their reps? Do the people vote on those?
And how is Hillary wiping the floor in popular vote stealing anything from anyone?
And how is Hillary wiping the floor in popular vote stealing anything from anyone?
Wafflecakes
Member
Yeah... like your argument that the two party system isn't built into the Constitution.
Posting blatant fiction = evidence I guess.
shinra-bansho
Member
Mostly/often in Westminster systems the party chooses the candidates to stand in a given electorate or to field on their lists. The caucus of elected representatives decide their leader. The leaders of the ruling party/coalition are the head of government.
It's not. Built-in implies a clause in the document that outlines the function of the party system. You can argue the items in the constitution pushes for parties to form but it's not inherent and you can follow the constitution to be T without having any parties affiliated in an election.
OuterLimits
Member
Once Cruz lost Indiana, Trump would have easily gotten the needed delegates. Also after NY, Trump got close to 60% in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, RI, Connecticut. Indiana was a favorable state for Cruz, but Trump still got over 50% and won every district and all delegates.
Any decent chance of a contested convention died once Cruz lost Indiana.
What lost Cruz the nomination was losing every single SEC state to Trump. Cruz not winning in the South killed his chances. His only hope was the contested convention, but he knew that dream was dead when he got killed in a very conservative Indiana.
The Cruz argument that Trump would do poorly once people dropped out wasn't happening.(except Utah and Wisconsin) He was instead getting over 50% once he headed back east to more friendly states.
Wafflecakes
Member
You can't have a democracy without political parties. So unless you think the constitution doesn't want democracy.
<+)O Robido O(+>
Member
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
It's too late for establishment politics said the guy playing politics
My opinion of Bernie is no longer favorable.
My opinion of Bernie is no longer favorable.
excelsiorlef
Member
I hope providing the "context" isn't meant to defend those statements.
OuterLimits
Member
The Barney Frank statement on Sanders reminds me a bit of the Peter King/Boehner reactions to Cruz. King and Boehner were more harsh though. I think Boehner called Cruz Lucifer, and King preferred drinking poison or something before supporting Cruz.
Both Cruz and Sanders want purity on their sides.
Both Cruz and Sanders want purity on their sides.
"History's greatest one-eyed monster."
Garrett Hawke
Member
What a mess. And none of this bad shit will get posted on Twitter, Reddit, tumblr etc because they are all too busy posting complicated math about how he still has a chance and Hillary conspiracy theories for the nth time.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked