| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At a guess? It looked like he had a lot of support from young people - who tend to be very passionate, but with little brand loyalty, especially because many of them may have been getting genuinely involved for the first time. And they did get involved, but many probably felt that they were just slapped aside with the whole "DNC biased towards Hillary" thing. I mean, if he lost fair and square, they probably wouldn't have minded so much - but if you cheat to win, they're not going to forget that so easily.
How, specifically, did Hillary cheat to win? People keep repeating this refrain, but every time I ask "how?" I don't hear any more on it.
@Irontruth: Not so much "Hillary", but more "The DNC", although she was such an establishment candidate that some people probably thought they were effectively the same thing. Honestly, I don't think things like the leaked questions were a very big deal, but the perception of such things happening can have an impact completely out of proportion to the actual result for debates and whatnot. Plus there was the whole thing with the voter database being shut down for Sanders, where Sanders' supporters seemed to feel - rightly or wrongly - that it was very much biased against them.
There was also the thing with the superdelegates, where some people felt it was unfair that a candidate could be "behind" by dozens or even hundreds of delegate votes before any primaries or caucuses had really taken place.
Basically, it all seemed to lead to an impression that the DNC was never intending to treat Sanders like a serious candidate, instead preferring to anoint Hillary Clinton no matter what - even when there were some fairly solid studies showing that Clinton was way closer to losing against Trump than anyone would've liked (and another Democrat would have done better). And behold, she did lose.
To many younger people, this kind of bias in the selection process is cheating. They don't feel their candidate lost on the merits of his arguments, but because things were stacked unfairly against him by the establishment... and that is not how a political party gets, and uses, an energized base of younger people.
You literally get that from everyone who even hints they disagree with you.I get it from how you talk to me.You expect me to defend EVERYTHING Democrats do.I honestly have no idea where you get that idea.
I don't think you do that. I think you have half-formed opinions mixed with an introduction to an academic learning environment.
See, I have different bad opinions of people.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Irontruth: Not so much "Hillary", but more "The DNC", although she was such an establishment candidate that some people probably thought they were effectively the same thing. Honestly, I don't think things like the leaked questions were a very big deal, but the perception of such things happening can have an impact completely out of proportion to the actual result for debates and whatnot. Plus there was the whole thing with the voter database being shut down for Sanders, where Sanders' supporters seemed to feel - rightly or wrongly - that it was very much biased against them.
There was also the thing with the superdelegates, where some people felt it was unfair that a candidate could be "behind" by dozens or even hundreds of delegate votes before any primaries or caucuses had really taken place.
Basically, it all seemed to lead to an impression that the DNC was never intending to treat Sanders like a serious candidate, instead preferring to anoint Hillary Clinton no matter what - even when there were some fairly solid studies showing that Clinton was way closer to losing against Trump than anyone would've liked (and another Democrat would have done better). And behold, she did lose.
To many younger people, this kind of bias in the selection process is cheating. They don't feel their candidate lost on the merits of his arguments, but because things were stacked unfairly against him by the establishment... and that is not how a political party gets, and uses, an energized base of younger people.
So, you don't think she actually cheated, but you're going to say she did anyways.
Also, that even though she didn't actually cheat, we have to kowtow to people who (falsely) say she did.
o_O
Uh... no. No, I'm not. As I've said multiple times, it's more that the DNC cheated on Clinton's behalf, and did some other things that showed enough bias to get emotionally lumped in with the actual cheating. It's politics - perception matters.
Have you met Millennials? Cheating is cheating. If you destroy your trust with them, even things that aren't cheating are just nails in the coffin. It doesn't matter if it was "minor" - what matters is that they no longer believe in you. As I said, perception matters.
EDIT: Doubly so to young people who haven't been involved before. First impressions also matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Irontruth: Not so much "Hillary", but more "The DNC", although she was such an establishment candidate that some people probably thought they were effectively the same thing. Honestly, I don't think things like the leaked questions were a very big deal, but the perception of such things happening can have an impact completely out of proportion to the actual result for debates and whatnot. Plus there was the whole thing with the voter database being shut down for Sanders, where Sanders' supporters seemed to feel - rightly or wrongly - that it was very much biased against them.
There was also the thing with the superdelegates, where some people felt it was unfair that a candidate could be "behind" by dozens or even hundreds of delegate votes before any primaries or caucuses had really taken place.
Basically, it all seemed to lead to an impression that the DNC was never intending to treat Sanders like a serious candidate, instead preferring to anoint Hillary Clinton no matter what - even when there were some fairly solid studies showing that Clinton was way closer to losing against Trump than anyone would've liked (and another Democrat would have done better). And behold, she did lose.
To many younger people, this kind of bias in the selection process is cheating. They don't feel their candidate lost on the merits of his arguments, but because things were stacked unfairly against him by the establishment... and that is not how a political party gets, and uses, an energized base of younger people.
So, you don't think she actually cheated, but you're going to say she did anyways.
Also, that even though she didn't actually cheat, we have to kowtow to people who (falsely) say she did.
I think that what Reds trying to say is that, a lot of younger people who supported Sanders, found that their candidate labored under a perceived systemic disadvantage during the primary process.
If one were of a more cynical mind, one could draw certain parallels to other very widely defined groups, who exist in systems where they have unfavourable positions compared to the norm or mainstream.
Now I'm am not claiming that it is an apt comparison, since there simply isn't the evidence available to do a proper comparison, but it could be a very interesting one, to do, if proper data could be gathered.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really hope the Democratic party can get its stuff together better than this thread. I really hope that they can find it in themselves to agree on some stuff, even if it's just broad strokes, and move in some direction. Rather than just be at each others' throats blaming different things for their failure and just picking out the flaws in each others' reasonings.
yeah I don't (personally) see much of the leaks as actually being problematic...it was rather the appearance that they could be which was an issue. along with some hard feelings from the Bernie supporters. Hello some of the leaks, like comments at Hillary's private speaking events, even put her in a better light IMHO.
At any rate...we have 2ish and 4 years ahead of us still for the next elections. Fighting the 2016 election war all over again won't get us anywhere, unless our goal is to actually ensure Republican control for the next decade. Primary out (or threaten to primary out) democrat politicians folks think are not progressive enough. As is the protests and such are already holding a fire to the sitting democrat congress critters. See Schumer going from "We will work with Trump when we can" to the most recent insistence on not going along with anything.
I really hope the Democratic party can get its stuff together better than this thread. I really hope that they can find it in themselves to agree on some stuff, even if it's just broad strokes, and move in some direction. Rather than just be at each others' throats blaming different things for their failure and just picking out the flaws in each others' reasonings.
Well the 2018 elections will be the test of that. My big concern is that the party as a general will move further to the left without any sort of strategy of increasing it's influence outside the urban democrat strongholds. 2016 was a very obvious example of what happens when you become insular and neglect vast swathes of the country. You need to control the senate and house if you want to actually get anything done, as well as get the cooperation of state legislatures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really hope the Democratic party can get its stuff together better than this thread. I really hope that they can find it in themselves to agree on some stuff, even if it's just broad strokes, and move in some direction. Rather than just be at each others' throats blaming different things for their failure and just picking out the flaws in each others' reasonings.
The eternal curse of the left is, that it doesn't really work that well within itself and tends splinter into factional disagreements when ever an opportunity presents itself.
Sometimes it would be nice for the left to be able to march lock-step in unison on crucial issues, the problem then just becomes who gets to decide when the lock-stepping stops.
I think some people might be seriously overestimating this thread's impact on the actual Democratic Party.
It keeps them busy at their keyboards and out of the hair of those of us who are trying to get actual socialist candidates elected.
All in all, it's good for democracy
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think some people might be seriously overestimating this thread's impact on the actual Democratic Party.It keeps them busy at their keyboards and out of the hair of those of us who are trying to get actual socialist candidates elected.
All in all, it's good for democracy
It close to none, like any kind of actual change to a system, which usually takes, at the very least, decades.
Some people just like to blown off steam this way.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just here to snark talk, and I'll conduct myself in direct political discussions much as I always have: by sticking to reality and the facts. I'm clearly not the best outreach person to deal with voters who reject reality and confuse opinions for facts (on either side).
@Irontruth: Not so much "Hillary", but more "The DNC", although she was such an establishment candidate that some people probably thought they were effectively the same thing. Honestly, I don't think things like the leaked questions were a very big deal, but the perception of such things happening can have an impact completely out of proportion to the actual result for debates and whatnot. Plus there was the whole thing with the voter database being shut down for Sanders, where Sanders' supporters seemed to feel - rightly or wrongly - that it was very much biased against them.
There was also the thing with the superdelegates, where some people felt it was unfair that a candidate could be "behind" by dozens or even hundreds of delegate votes before any primaries or caucuses had really taken place.
Basically, it all seemed to lead to an impression that the DNC was never intending to treat Sanders like a serious candidate, instead preferring to anoint Hillary Clinton no matter what - even when there were some fairly solid studies showing that Clinton was way closer to losing against Trump than anyone would've liked (and another Democrat would have done better). And behold, she did lose.
To many younger people, this kind of bias in the selection process is cheating. They don't feel their candidate lost on the merits of his arguments, but because things were stacked unfairly against him by the establishment... and that is not how a political party gets, and uses, an energized base of younger people.
So, you don't think she actually cheated, but you're going to say she did anyways.
Also, that even though she didn't actually cheat, we have to kowtow to people who (falsely) say she did.
I think that what Reds trying to say is that, a lot of younger people who supported Sanders, found that their candidate labored under a perceived systemic disadvantage during the primary process.
If one were of a more cynical mind, one...
If I lose my car keys, but I think you stole them, should you and I proceed based on what I think, or what is true?
o_O
Uh... no. No, I'm not. As I've said multiple times, it's more that the DNC cheated on Clinton's behalf, and did some other things that showed enough bias to get emotionally lumped in with the actual cheating. It's politics - perception matters.
In what ways did the DNC cheat on her behalf? Be specific.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I lose my car keys, but I think you stole them, should you and I proceed based on what I think, or what is true?
I think you'll find most people who think you stole their car keys won't proceed anywhere until you give back their car keys, whether you stole them or not.
You know it's bad when:
"Today's events show really what an uphill climb the Democrats are facing this week in unifying their party. Starting out the week by losing your party chairman over longstanding bitterness between factions is no way to keep something together."
video linky posted recently describing the thread topic on 23rd Feb 2017.
"That takeover of state-level politics by Republicans didn't happen overnight. It's been part of a methodical push that has allowed the GOP to outpunch its weight in Congress. Control of state houses helps lead to safer congressional districts in most states."
The Democratic Party has been getting its lunch handed to it steadily and successfully since, what, 2010? One more successful pummeling between the upcoming elections in 2017 and 2018 will push any significant opposition to "Trumpism" out of the hands of the opposition party and into the GOPs.
The longer the Dem's bicker over ideological purity, the worse off the party is. There is simply not much time left ...
Edit: Putting it bluntly, the Democratic Party needs its own set of Trumps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In what ways did the DNC cheat on her behalf? Be specific.
DNC interim head and CNN contributor Donna Brazile was noted to have leaked a question to the Clinton campaign ahead of a Clinton/Sanders debate. It was a pretty minor leak, all things considered - quite frankly, given the ongoing and fairly well-publicized issues with Flint's water pipes, it's really not a surprise there would be someone likely to ask a question about it - but leaks of debate questions do fall under the category of cheating.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Policies aren't what win elections: volunteers are.
If policies won elections, all we'd need would be national tv/facebook/social media ads.
If you don't emotionally connect with the people doing the actual precinct work, you have few people volunteering and fewer people persuading voters that your policies matter.
All the people who believed in Bernie's policies and worked their butts off to get him nominated just got slapped in the face. Which is pretty demotivating. And pretty much validates the decisions of all of the folks who switched to Jill Stein instead of working for Clinton. The Green Party may be the vehicle the left uses to reorganize the troops.
They have a national elections infrastructure to get on the ballot in all 50 states. That's a huge advantage going forward: it means the Greens can pick up momentum rather than creating it.
Is this the same Jill Stein that ate dinner at a table with Michael Flynn and Vladimir Putin?
I understand there's a lot of touchy nerves going on in the posts between these ones and mine, but I kind of wanted to revisit this.
I was curious as to how eating dinner one time with Michael Flynn and Vladimir Putin was worse than embracing Henry Kissinger and having personal and/or business relationships with Mubarak, El-Sisi, the House of Saud, and, oh yeah, Vladimir Putin?
(Slight edit)
If I lose my car keys, but I think you stole them, should you and I proceed based on what I think, or what is true?I think you'll find most people who think you stole their car keys won't proceed anywhere until you give back their car keys, whether you stole them or not.
So much this. Maybe you didn't steal them, but your BFF put them in your pocket.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really hope the Democratic party can get its stuff together better than this thread. I really hope that they can find it in themselves to agree on some stuff, even if it's just broad strokes, and move in some direction. Rather than just be at each others' throats blaming different things for their failure and just picking out the flaws in each others' reasonings.
Sadly, this thread probably has far more coherent ideas for the future of the party than the democratic leadership does. And half of this thread thinks the party should die...
at least in 2020 maybe the people that he screws over directly will be like Oh this affects me too better not vote for that guy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And half of this thread thinks the party should die...
I kept thinking that the estimations of how many people in this thread hate the Democrats (it's come up a few times) was overinflated and started to count them up. I then remembered that on the Off-Topic Discussion subforum page it tells you how many people have posted in the thread and I was pretty blown away to discover that for the last 30 odd pages and 1700 posts there's only been twenty-seven participants. (I'm guessing it counts a single poster with multiple aliases as one person; if so, there's even less.)
Don't know why, but I found that interesting.
Yeah optimism is hard now a days. sigh.
|
|
One thing I hope 2020 won't see is the "wah wah I *was* going to fix everything BUT DEMOCRATS PREVENTED ME FROM HELPING YOU this time I *really* will help you" argument. At least one good thing about Republicans having both Senate and Congress, it'll be pretty difficult for Trump to argue that the Democrats stopped him from whatever he wanted to do. Of course he'll still *try* to blame all his failures on the opposition but I hope that argument can be cut short.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I hope 2020 won't see is the "wah wah I *was* going to fix everything BUT DEMOCRATS PREVENTED ME FROM HELPING YOU this time I *really* will help you" argument. At least one good thing about Republicans having both Senate and Congress, it'll be pretty difficult for Trump to argue that the Democrats stopped him from whatever he wanted to do. Of course he'll still *try* to blame all his failures on the opposition but I hope that argument can be cut short.
You may have set your hopes a bit too high. Many are people who want to believe the deception.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I hope 2020 won't see is the "wah wah I *was* going to fix everything BUT DEMOCRATS PREVENTED ME FROM HELPING YOU this time I *really* will help you" argument. At least one good thing about Republicans having both Senate and Congress, it'll be pretty difficult for Trump to argue that the Democrats stopped him from whatever he wanted to do. Of course he'll still *try* to blame all his failures on the opposition but I hope that argument can be cut short.
hahaha...It's totally going to be that. Trump is physically incapable of either taking responsibility for his actions or doing any sort of course correction. Anything that goes wrong between now and 2020 will be either the result of the dems, "activist" judges, the media, the Washington bureaucracy, and...maybe if things really get bad, the sitting GOP.
I will just be happy if by 2020 he finally moves on from making a big deal of his win.
Is this the same Jill Stein that ate dinner at a table with Michael Flynn and Vladimir Putin?I understand there's a lot of touchy nerves going on in the posts between these ones and mine, but I kind of wanted to revisit this.
I was curious as to how eating dinner one time with Michael Flynn and Vladimir Putin was worse than embracing Henry Kissinger and having personal and/or business relationships with Mubarak, El-Sisi, the House of Saud, and, oh yeah, Vladimir Putin?
(Slight edit)
I'm not opposed to people meeting with dictators. I think diplomacy is preferable to war and I'm highly opposed to war. If Jill Stein had had a dinner with Putin on neutral ground, or at least not a situation similar to Flynn, AND her talk during the campaign hadn't been one of complete appeasement, I wouldn't have cared.
The little bit from Stein that I heard didn't sound like:
"Let's try to find common ground with Russia to ensure peace, but stop their annexation of land from neighbors."
It sounded more like:
"I don't want to go to war and is really such a bad guy? He's just looking for more living space for his people."
As for the Clinton Foundation and pay-for-play, there's a lot of innuendo, but no smoking gun. The Rosatom deal involved the State Department and 12 other US agencies. If it took bribery to convince Clinton to authorize it, wouldn't there be payments to other agency heads? The article you linked makes the claim that she didn't actually intervene at all in the State department process. Of course, the CFIUS is a closed door committee, so we don't have any records of who did or didn't talk about it at any meetings, but if Clinton was there, so were other secretaries of departments.
We have a fairly good idea, though incomplete, of how all of this affected Flynn. When Russia took actions to try to interfere with our elections, Obama put in place sanctions, kicked out some agents, and took some secret actions that aren't public knowledge. In response, Flynn gave assurances that all this would be eased, and pressure would be removed from Russia.
When Stein has made comments about Russia, she seemed to think that we'd antagonized Putin into invading the Ukraine and that the solution was to back off and do nothing. Basically that it was our fault that Russia invaded Ukraine.
If I lose my car keys, but I think you stole them, should you and I proceed based on what I think, or what is true?
To be perfectly honest, I don't really think I would have all that much say in how you would proceed, if you really, truly did believe that I stole your car keys.
It is always easy to agree on how people should have acted after the truth is known to all involved parties. It is far more difficult while that truth is still an unknown or an evolving thing.
When Stein has made comments about Russia, she seemed to think that we'd antagonized Putin into invading the Ukraine and that the solution was to back off and do nothing. Basically that it was our fault that Russia invaded Ukraine.Which is, if I recall some discussions at the time, a fairly popular opinion on these boards.
Russia poisoned leaders they didn't agree with
The US sent cardboard tents and sleeping mats to encourage protestors.
Both are therefore equally guilty of interfering in the situation....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not opposed to people meeting with dictators. I think diplomacy is preferable to war and I'm highly opposed to war. If Jill Stein had had a dinner with Putin on neutral ground, or at least not a situation similar to Flynn, AND her talk during the campaign hadn't been one of complete appeasement, I wouldn't have cared.
The little bit from Stein that I heard didn't sound like:
"Let's try to find common ground with Russia to ensure peace, but stop their annexation of land from neighbors."
It sounded more like:
"I don't want to go to war and is really such a bad guy? He's just looking for more living space for his people."
As for the Clinton Foundation and pay-for-play, there's a lot of innuendo, but no smoking gun. The Rosatom deal involved the State Department and 12 other US agencies. If it took bribery to convince Clinton to authorize it, wouldn't there be payments to other agency heads? The article you linked makes the claim that she didn't actually intervene at all in the State department process. Of course, the CFIUS is a closed door committee, so we don't have any records of who did or didn't talk about it at any meetings, but if Clinton was there, so were other secretaries of departments.
We have a fairly good idea, though incomplete, of how all of this affected Flynn. When...
My first train of thought upon reading your reply was that it was interesting, thought-provoking and a potential springboard to further conversation but didn't actually answer my question.
I composed a long, civil (well, for me, anyway) response but then realized that I had misunderstood the point of the post to which I was responding. I had originally assumed that you were objecting to Jill's personal associations with right-wing American imperialist pigs and dictators, but now I realize you were working the Russian bogeyman angle.
My apologies for taking up your time.
|
|
I had originally assumed that you were objecting to Jill's personal associations with right-wing American imperialist pigs and dictators, but now I realize you were working the Russian bogeyman angle.
Is there really any significant difference left between the two at this point?
Maybe; the Russian imperialist pigs and dictators ('ipads') drink more vodka while the American ipads drink more scotch?
Well, I'd say that the US judiciary response to Trump's travel ban shows that we don't actually have dictators here yet, but I'm sure some kindly contributor to the thread will correct me.
Except in this metaphor, Irontruth is Sanders and his supporters and you are the DNC/Clinton and the argument is as much about what you should do as what he should do. The theory being that you need to admit you stole his car keys and give him a car so that he'll forgive you.If I lose my car keys, but I think you stole them, should you and I proceed based on what I think, or what is true?To be perfectly honest, I don't really think I would have all that much say in how you would proceed, if you really, truly did believe that I stole your car keys.
In all honesty, I find the "metaphor" of the stolen car keys confusing.
It really doesn't matter, if the keys were stolen or not, at least not to any onlookers to the whole process. As their opinions on the possible key theft is formed by their respective perceptions of the perpetrator/victim during said process.
Now it is correct that after the dust have settled, and all the facts have been collected, that the perceptions people had of who was what in process was incorrect. Then excuses and reparation might be given to aggrieved parties, in hopes of mending any bad blood.
Unfortunately there will be some, for whom, the initial perception of the incident will linger and so will the ill feelings. Most attempts to placate these people will be met with anger, mistrust and hurt feelings.
|
|
Well, I'd say that the US judiciary response to Trump's travel ban shows that we don't actually have dictators here yet
So you're saying the Russians have been more successful? Sure, that's true... but don't count team Trump out just yet. They've got big dreams.
BTW - Guess who may get to fill more court seats in a single term than any previous president?
I'm not opposed to people meeting with dictators. I think diplomacy is preferable to war and I'm highly opposed to war. If Jill Stein had had a dinner with Putin on neutral ground, or at least not a situation similar to Flynn, AND her talk during the campaign hadn't been one of complete appeasement, I wouldn't have cared.
The little bit from Stein that I heard didn't sound like:
"Let's try to find common ground with Russia to ensure peace, but stop their annexation of land from neighbors."
It sounded more like:
"I don't want to go to war and is really such a bad guy? He's just looking for more living space for his people."
As for the Clinton Foundation and pay-for-play, there's a lot of innuendo, but no smoking gun. The Rosatom deal involved the State Department and 12 other US agencies. If it took bribery to convince Clinton to authorize it, wouldn't there be payments to other agency heads? The article you linked makes the claim that she didn't actually intervene at all in the State department process. Of course, the CFIUS is a closed door committee, so we don't have any records of who did or didn't talk about it at any meetings, but if Clinton was there, so were other secretaries of departments.
We have a fairly good idea, though incomplete, of how all of this affected Flynn. When...
My first train of thought upon reading your reply was that it was interesting, thought-provoking and a potential springboard to further conversation but didn't actually answer my question.
I composed a long, civil (well, for me, anyway) response but then realized that I had misunderstood the point of the post to which I was responding. I had originally assumed that you were objecting to Jill's personal associations with right-wing American imperialist pigs and dictators, but now I realize you were working the Russian bogeyman angle.
My apologies for taking up your time.
No worries.
Except in this metaphor, Irontruth is Sanders and his supporters and you are the DNC/Clinton and the argument is as much about what you should do as what he should do. The theory being that you need to admit you stole his car keys and give him a car so that he'll forgive you.If I lose my car keys, but I think you stole them, should you and I proceed based on what I think, or what is true?To be perfectly honest, I don't really think I would have all that much say in how you would proceed, if you really, truly did believe that I stole your car keys.In all honesty, I find the "metaphor" of the stolen car keys confusing.
It really doesn't matter, if the keys were stolen or not, at least not to any onlookers to the whole process. As their opinions on the possible key theft is formed by their respective perceptions of the perpetrator/victim during said process.
Now it is correct that after the dust have settled, and all the facts have been collected, that the perceptions people had of who was what in process was incorrect. Then excuses and reparation might be given to aggrieved parties, in hopes of mending any bad blood.
Unfortunately there will be some, for whom, the initial perception of the incident will linger and so will the ill feelings. Most attempts to placate these people will be met with anger, mistrust and hurt feelings.
Then, if the "offended" party is going to be mad and not like you regardless of what you do, what's the point in kowtowing?
The fact that people feel maligned is true, but those feelings are based on falsehoods. Should the dialogue proceed forward as if those falsehoods are true? Or should we try to get closer to the truth?
Well, I'd say that the US judiciary response to Trump's travel ban shows that we don't actually have dictators here yetSo you're saying the Russians have been more successful? Sure, that's true... but don't count team Trump out just yet. They've got big dreams.
BTW - Guess who may get to fill more court seats in a single term than any previous president?
I'm saying that the Russian ipads use murder and intimidation to silence dissent, and and in the US the judicial branch is a limit on executive power. The fact that we're having a conversation about the future of the Democratic party instead of repeating the party line while the party in power murders the opposition shows the difference between Russain and US ipads.
|
|
I'm saying that the Russian ipads use murder and intimidation to silence dissent, and and in the US the judicial branch is a limit on executive power. The fact that we're having a conversation about the future of the Democratic party instead of repeating the party line while the party in power murders the opposition shows the difference between Russain and US ipads.Well, I'd say that the US judiciary response to Trump's travel ban shows that we don't actually have dictators here yetSo you're saying the Russians have been more successful? Sure, that's true... but don't count team Trump out just yet. They've got big dreams.
BTW - Guess who may get to fill more court seats in a single term than any previous president?
Again... it shows that the Russians have been more successful. The playbook is the same.
Or do you really believe we aren't seeing "intimidation" here in the US?
The independent US judiciary and lack of blatant (though unproven) assassination of political opponents are likely tied together... and again, Trump is in a position to severely reshape the judiciary.
I am still...hopeful? that the Trump presidency will be a stress test on our democracy, and is ultimately not broken by it.
There is going to be a lot of really crumby laws passed in the next few years, but so far there is a heaping amount of incompetence at the top that gives me some hope that that worst case scenarios will not manifest.
It appears the future of the democratic party is the establishment holding back the progressive wing of the party in hopes that Trump stumbles so spectacularly that voters return to the old fold. Not sure its much of a future.
Its not.
Becoming a regional party is how parties die.