I...never said they couldn't be lied to. They aren't necessarily the arbiters of truth and justice, but they are the arbiters of who gets to lead them in a Republic.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Democratic Presidential Primary |February OT| It Can't be Worse than Iowa, Right? (Discussion Guidelines in OP)
- Thread starter Poodlestrike
- Start date
- Status
Yes it is. That was not a democratic process. That was, according to you, an authoritarian rule, implemented by the DNC and not the people. They have bared a candidate from being on stage that was not decided by the people.
Did the electorate decide not to allow booker on stage Matt? No they didn't. But youre ok with that. So then why are you also ok with bloomberg on the stage and changing the rules for him when this also wasn't democratically decided, but was done so by the DNC.
I'm sorry you don't like that I'm pointing out youre not being consistent with your positions here and that they favor Bloomberg, but you are being contradictory about when you want the DNC to use democracy as a cudgel to allow racist republicans on the ticket while also maintaining if they intefere with "democracy" they're exhibiting authoritarianism, but youre ok with that so long as an undemocratic polling threshold (set by the DNC aka authoritarianism according to you) bars the only black man from also getting a shot up on the stage.
Seriously, some people are going to be in for a rude awakening when they find out Bernie's coalition is very different from 2016.
Ok, then they should restrict his ad spending and make sure he can't find a loophole. Glad we agree
Ok, I'm Asian and on the LGBT+ label. Bloomberg is a absolute monster who is using mass ad spending combined with the light touch the media gives him to sweep his horrid policies under the rug.
Ok. Minority voter here. Fuck Bloomberg and anybody who puts a cape on for him.
there needs to be a limit to how much of your own money you can spend, I think. surprised this isn't a thing
I really don't understand your point here. Are you saying party primaries are inherently undemocratic? Because no matter who wins the nomination, the Democratic party will be offering the public the exact same number of choices.
This is a disgusting comment to make in a country that routinely puts roadblocks to stop minorities from voting, has routinely made it as difficult as possible for them to be able to pay attention to politics rather than focus on their and their families survival. This is just a disgusting comment to make, what about the minorities who don't vote for Bloomberg, if he gets elected does that mean it's okay for Bloomberg to terrorize them again because some minorities voted for him?
Presidential campaigns should have a salary cap like in sports.good ol democracy!
I agree. I'd wager a guess that Bloomberg threatening to go third party in the presidential space so many times has prevented that from being a rule so far.
Some people here are essentially arguing "the people are too stupid to decide!" It boggles the mind they don't see the parallels they themselves are drawing.
It used to be, kind of. Prior to 2000, it was standard practice to accept public funding for your campaign. The rules were you couldn't spend more than you received. Georgie Dubs realized he could make and spend more campaigning if he rejected public funding. That's now the standard.
I don't get why you want to protect a fascist, racist billionaire who is buying the election so much but by all means, Donald Trump is leading our Republic right now, we should definitely keep letting people like him run.
well he basically is 3rd party running as a Dem, doing way more damage than he would as a 3rd party candidate.
This country can't even get a handle on how much corporations and PACs can contribute to campaigns. I couldn't imagine any court upholding restricting an individual using their own money for their own campaign.
It gets a lot harder to argue against 'both-sides'ing stuff when the Democratic party establishment (going off 538) seems to be even more willing to bend the knee to the racist oligarch trying to upend its primary process than the Republicans were when trump ran in 2016. At least the GOP tried to boot Trump out...
I'm not really worried because Bernie is going to beat Bloomberg easily, but it's upsetting to see Dems lineup to lick the boot.
I'm not really worried because Bernie is going to beat Bloomberg easily, but it's upsetting to see Dems lineup to lick the boot.
I'm not protecting anyone, I'm arguing for the democratic integrity of the process.
I'm saying party primaries don't need to be democratic, because selecting a nominee is different from selecting a winner. The party's job should be to offer a candidate that is significantly and essentially different from their opponent. When that process fails, the party has failed. If the process as is leads to a non-choice general election (bloomberg v trump) then the process must be changed. Party primaries aren't measured by whether they are democratic - see caucuses.
This is all assuming the goal of the party is to create a democratic general election. Which may of course be an incorrect assumption. But that is what people's issue here is. I think that's the instinct that's upsetting them. They're just articulating it through frustration.
The Democratic primary is one of the biggest way minorities can make their voices heard for who they want as president because they make up a huge percentage of primary voters.
If they decide they're okay with Bloomberg, who are we to tell them "no, you voted wrong, he's bad for you"
Like if Bloomberg starts getting a plurality of minority support, what then? What would that mean to you?
But as a third party candidate he'd sink the chances of a democratic nominee. This way, he gets to lose where it doesn't matter.
That aside, him eating Biden's voter's at this point has been Bernie's best chance of both avoiding a contested convention and winning the nom.
I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand about this
Democratic integrity for a billionaire to buy an election what?
Where's the ignore button when you really need it.
I mean,
1. Yes our entire electoral process is vastly undemocratic and needs sweeping reforms. This includes party primaries.
2. Even if we limit ourselves to the party primaries we cannot pretend that just because the ballot has all the candidates that this is a fair process nor should we pretend that said ballot is divorced from everything surrounding it. Bloomberg has exploited the faults of our system to gain a vast lead, he should be seen as why this entire system is shit.
There is no democratic integrity where a billionaire is buying his way into the election, spending more money than almost the rest of the working class world has combined, and is lying about his record without any real pushback from the media due to them being afraid of his power, nor with anyone who has the power to stand up to him.
Do you think it's part of the democratic integrity when Trump uses his billions to buy facebook ads and lie about democrats wanting to implement sharia law?
he's starting to eat so much of Biden's vote that it won't matter. Getting him a bigger profile on a debate stage will just accelerate this, as well as Biden continuing to do horribly in the upcoming primaries.
What a moron, he actually said it. He's just as dumb and deluded as Trump.
Yeah, I just don't agree at all. Party members should have the choice of who runs their party. Failure in this case would be removing that choice from their hands.
Stuff like this is inspiring.
Patriot Act Bonus: Hasan Sits Down With Bernie Sanders | Patriot Act with Hasan Minhaj | Netflix
Hasan recently interviewed 2020 presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders for Patriot Act's episode on aging and retirement in America. Watch as Hasan an...www.youtube.com
After watching this I pray one day we can watch CSPAN and before a vote takes place Bernie gives Mitch the sock. :D
Party primaries are inherently undemocratic. I mean, the dem primary is structured better than the general, but it isn't structured well.
I don't understand this planet you're living on where the other candidates don't attack Bloomberg and that doesn't lead to Bloomberg getting more hurt than helped. Like, the alternative is letting him spend billions to buy states and continue to rise without any push back. There's a reason why multiple campaigns requested that he be put on the debate stage.
Ok, there are minority people in this thread going "We don't like him". Do we don't count now?
So, again, the solution here is placing spending restrictions. Not disallowing specific individuals from running for the nomination.
Considering Tulsi Gabbard, Michael Bennett, and other no hopers was hitting minimum donation requirements, there's zero reason Bloomberg couldn't have opened up to donations and passed the threshold easily.
Hell, he even could've turned it to an advantage for him, limiting donations to only $1 or something, to prove that he didn't even need the donations.
Hell, he even could've turned it to an advantage for him, limiting donations to only $1 or something, to prove that he didn't even need the donations.
I don't think that would've happened without him spending an obscene amount of his own money first, which is what I take issue with personally.
Not wrong, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't yell from the rooftops that that's exactly what we want. Overturn Citizens United. Support campaign finance reform. I hope someone at the debate takes the opportunity to talk about this given Bloomberg's presence.
The funny thing is, if Bloomberg wins the nomination somehow the most moral vote choice between the two evils is Trump. Bloomberg is almost identical except he is less likely to die from amphetamine abuse while in office.
Sure......but the solution to that isn't making them even less democratic.
Of course you count, but the actual arbriters of whether Bloomberg can get support will be the millions of minorities like you who will vote over the next few months.
There were German Jews who voted for Hitler also, who could we be to tell them "no, you voted wrong, he's bad for you"
Do you think Bloomberg would be good for minorities in this country based off his track record? Again, there will be black people who don't vote for Bloomberg, does that mean it's okay if he gets 30% of black support, or 60%, how much black support does he needs before it's okay for him to implement stop and frisk on a national level?
I mean, no it wouldn't have happened without him spending an obscene amount of his own money first, but he can spend by the point he had spent his own money, he had bought himself a base big enough to get himself into the debates without breaking a sweat if he actually wanted to be in them.
- Status