2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHEY DWS! Mark Ruffalo Promotes PETITION Calling On DNC To Hold MORE Debates
Mark Ruffalo ✔@MarkRuffalo
Please Sign Robert Reich's petition: Tell Democrats to hold more presidential debates. #MoreDemDebates
http://act.democracyforamerica.com/s/175041.Rrkoa5
10:18 AM - 26 Dec 2015
SIGN ROBERT REICH'S PETITION to the DNC: Demand more debates with Sanders, Clinton, and O'Malley
By DemocracyForAmerica @DFAaction
If Democrats are going to win the White House in November, they need to be making their case to the American people NOW -- and the debates are one of their best opportunities to do so.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Now there is a lesson in how to not be taken seriously.
Segami
(14,923 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Segami
(14,923 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)upset when you don't get taken seriously as a dem.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)have seen his performance in 'The Normal Heart' not only for his work and that of the entire cast but for the piece itself.
randome
(34,845 posts)(As if I don't have enough things on my plate, as it is.)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]
one_voice
(20,043 posts)about that movie. It's brilliant. I highly recommend it.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Sanders and O'Malley back in August.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)The democratic process that lead to the decisions you are complaining about began years ago. Perhaps instead of complaining now, you, or better yet your candidate should have gotten involved in those democratic processes years ago so that what you have to say about the decisions now would have been taken into consideration.
OOPS, I forgot. Your candidate was not part of the party when those democratic processes began, thus any complaints he has about them now are pretty damned ridiculous since he never bothered to get involved when it would have mattered.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)fredamae
(4,458 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)See, the Democratic Party is an organization and that organization has rules.
One of the rules is the democratic process through which party leadership, who determines things like primary debate schedules, are chosen.
The process for choosing the leadership that determined the 2016 Democratic Presidential Debate schedule actually began in 2012.
Now, I participated in that process and supported many members of the current leadership. I have no problems with the debate schedule.
One of the most notable features of the asinine complaints coming from the Bernie Sanders camp is the fact that Bernie Sanders had every opportunity to join the party in 2012 and participate in the process that chose the leadership who ended up determining the debate schedule, yet he did not.
Thus, any complaints now so many years after the democratic process played out and he failed to participate in that process rings as hollow as any idiot who chooses not to vote yet complains about the results of an election.
Response to Segami (Original post)
Segami This message was self-deleted by its author.
Eric J in MN
(35,619 posts)NT
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Party favors and it ain't the middle and working classes.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Leadership thinks the rest of us should just bow down and fall in line but they don't know true Democrats very well. There is a huge split in the party with the Progressive Wing that does support the middle class and working class and then there is the Wing of the Party that worships Citizens United and the big money of the billionaires and Wall Street.
The Progressive Wing doesn't like wars, the Patriot Act, domestic spying and drone killing, while the Corporate Wing likes the tight control of the Patriot Act and domestic spying.
The Progressive Wing supports whistle blowers and all that dare speak truth to power, while the Corporate Wing wants those that dare speak truth to power tortured and severely punished.
The Progressive Wing doesn't like Prisons for Profit and the militarization of our local police while the Corporate Wing likes the tough control.
The Corporate Wing controls the Media and propagandizes the public into believing that they need to give up their freedoms and liberties for the weak-assed promise of security.
zalinda
(5,621 posts)those that have enough in their life, like the status quo.
Those that do not have enough for a stable life, are in the Progressive wing.
Z
elias7
(4,016 posts)I'd be careful with such generalizations. There is a thing called principle that, for many people, overshadows self interest. I'm guessing you don't live that experience. Too bad.
zalinda
(5,621 posts)but that doesn't stop me from donating to others when I can.
I was married to someone who came from a wealthy family (he wasn't wealthy when we were married). The grandfather made all the money and started some well known companies. What I observed was that people who have money usually don't notice the people who don't have money. I have no idea why that it. My husband (at the time) told me that having money was not as easy as it looks, that there were responsibilities. Yes, the family donated to charity and their church, but it wasn't available to just regular people, as it had to be a tax write off. They donated enough to Planned Parenthood to get some sort or award. But the truth of the donation was more that 'we don't need any more of those type of people', than helping the poor.
The truth is that many, many of those that have enough, don't even think of those that don't. It doesn't even cross their minds. They tithe at church, or donate to some other charity and their conscience is clear. They get blinded to homelessness, because after all those people are lazy and don't want to work. Hearing those that have enough and more talk, is really eye opening. Of course, there are exceptions, and many like Ruffalo know that to help those less fortunate, actually helps all.
Z
concreteblue
(626 posts)Like,,,love...K and Fuhqin R!!!!!!
freedom fighter jh
(1,782 posts)It's on the left-hand-side of the original post, on the line above the bottom.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)No huge split: just very loud lefist wing: Most Dem are supporting Hillary
Sanders will be supporting Hillary!
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The crazy-assed Leftist want:
a government free from the control of big money.
and end to the poverty of 50,000,000 Americans including 16,000,000 children.
reestablishment of our Constitutional Rights with a repeal of the Patriot Act and an end to domestic spying.
protection of our water and environment from the oil companies and their fracking.
a return of our manufacturing jobs and an end to the crippling "Free Trade" agreements.
an expansion of SS and Medicare benefits and raising the cap.
a fair break for our college students in lieu of telling them to get a job.
to get rid of Prisons for Profits.
and end to the militarization of our local police.
and end to the war on drugs and the death penalty.
Sen Warren, Sen Sanders and the Progressive Wing of the Party (Lefties) want these things while HRC, Goldman-Sachs, Wall Street and the Republicons don't want these things.
There is a huge split in our party and the Conservative Wing that agrees with Republicons on most issues are willing to jeopardize the chances of our Party winning in 2016.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)Bernie promised me one. Can't wait to get it after he is elected.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)let's be satisfied with the way things are." I have a feeling you would have tried to discourage our founders from revolting against the tyranny of the British. I think your rationale is to make you feel better siding with the big money oligarchy.
You equate working to solve poverty with wanting a unicorn. You know that there is a direct link to huge corporate profits and poverty but yet you support the big profits.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)I don't want the things Bernie Sanders wants.
I'm not a socialist.
I don't believe that taking taxes at 70% and giving away a bunch of free shit is moral or ethical.
I fundamentally disagree with his philosophy, his moral code, and his policies.
I'm not fighting for him because he's a kook and a leftist that does not represent the party I belong to.
The party is not the socialist party. It never has been. Bernie doesn't belong here, he is outside of the party ideology.
Nothing Bernie Sanders is proposing will solve poverty. Your belief that free medical care, free 9 weeks of family leave, free college, and free unicorns will solve poverty shows that you don't even understand what poverty is, and what causes it. It sure as he'll isn't not being able to get 9 weeks of vacation when you have a baby.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Party and their social programs saved us from the first Great Republican Depression. The Republicons have been chipping away at those social programs for 40 years and here we are again. You claim not to like social programs but I don't believe it. Do you have any insurance? Do you use the services of the library, the post office, the police and fire depts?
I can't believe that you are a Democrat with your beliefs. We are the party of the People and not corporations.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)There is a big difference between Social Security and the Townsend plan. If Bernie had been alive in 1932 he would have advocated for Townsend.
I believe in social programs. Lots of them. I believe that you should earn them, have to repay them in good times, have limited dependency on them, and they should be available to citizens only. These are bedrock principles of the Democratic Party.
What Bernie is for is Socialism and redistribution. These are NOT fundamental principles of my party.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)make sure they "earned it". What kind of an "earned it" test do you have for the 16,000,000 children living in poverty.
Funny about the word "redistribution", for the last 40 years the wealth in this country has been redistributed from the 99% to the 1%. Now when we demand that they pay their fair share, they whine about redistribution.
Bernie isn't for socialism if you look up the definition. He is for social programs just like FDR. But you sound a lot like Reagan.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The governing organization is the Democratic National Committee, and she is its head.
Here is your bonus clue.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Debbie was picked by Obama, and she takes her marching orders from
other Dem's.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)It's clear that she favors HRC over Sen Sanders. Now why would that be?
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)apparently conservative Democrats use is as a pejorative. Look up the definition of socialism and you will learn that he doesn't come close. He is a Democratic Socialist just like FDR. But I've noticed that the Conservative Democrats really don't like FDR. In fact President Clinton signed away the repeal of the Glass-Steagall and H. Clinton supports that decision.
There are two sides to this fight. The progressive sides wants to see social programs bolstered like FDR, and the Conservative side wants to help big corporations more like Reagan.
Since you disparage Sen Sanders as a socialist does that mean you disagree with his desire to help social programs? Which social programs that he supports do you want to cut? HRC wants to enhance SS. Not sure what that means but I bet it means cut services and raise the eligibility age. I bet you know her stance.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)brooklynite
(94,641 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 28, 2015, 04:45 PM - Edit history (1)
If you have to ask if people understand the difference, and then you have to explain the difference, you've already lost the argument.
FWIW, I'm well aware of how Sanders defines a Democratic Socialist; the problem is that the average voter doesn't agree.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)to mislead by calling Sen Sanders a Socialist. I think that's low but I guess to be expected.
I support fixing our social programs and think that Sen Sanders is the person to do it. While Clinton may say she does she won't make the wealthy 1% pay their share. In other words she will put the cost of any social programs on the 99% that is already over burdened.
brooklynite
(94,641 posts)Clinton voted against the Bush Tax Cuts in 2001 and voted to repeal them in 2007.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)them wealth and wealth is the most important thing to the Party Elite. And the only reason I can think why people would support the wealthy 1%, is wealth envy or worship. In the most part wealth accumulation is zero-sum. The more that the 1% accumulate the more poverty. But that seems to be ok with those that worship the wealthy.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)The party is made up of successfully Dem candidates: Al Franken, Barbara Boxer, Sherri Brown etc
they are only elite in their dedication to this country through the Dem party.
They are just rejecting Sanders: Over all Hillary resume to lead the Dem party is much better and
workable.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I don't believe she will do a single thing to turn around the growing wealth gap that is creating massive problems in the 99%.
If you truly care about the millions living in poverty, don't vote for a candidate sponsored by Goldman-Sachs. They don't give a crap about poverty. They want more profits.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)He comes from a one party state with 600,0000 people mostly
white liberal. ( Never passed a bill that the President could sign)
She did wonderful things when the Clintons were in office, the
welfare rolls were emptied.
Bush and the GOP crash the people in to proverty:
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)to Bush and tell him to go to hell.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Sanders was nowhere for 73 years: The people of New York were in favor of the
use of force: Hillary a lead large state with many interest: Hillary didn't vote on the war:
Bush decided to on the war: he was in office because the Nader and left wing people
like yourself attacked Gore.
Sanders people are doing nothing but risking the White House falling into GOP hands
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)have a hard time getting the progressives out. People were tired of the DLC/Clinton/Gore admin but the oligarchy run DLC didn't care if they lost to Bush.
When Hillary voted with the Republicons she knew that it was giving Bush the option. She knew what he would do. You are implying that she trusted him not to invade. Do you really believe that. It doesn't matter, she did the wrong thing and 500,000 Iraqis were killed for oil profits.
The Third Way DLC is doing again what they did in 2000 because they don't care if it's either Clinton or Bush as long as it isn't a true representative of the People. They are risking losing to Bush because they don't care.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Sanders supporters are the one responsible for Bush 1, Bush2,
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)concreteblue
(626 posts)eom
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)the corporatists are fond of trashing progressives for wanting ponies and unicorns...after they spend their campaigns jumping up and down about how "all Democrats" support working families. All Democrats don't support working families, and to believe that is to believe in mythical Democratic unicorns.
Some Democrats do, and you can only tell who is who by their actions. Their rhetoric isn't worth the oxygen that was required to produce it.
Omaha Steve
(99,675 posts)K&R!
OS
brooklynite
(94,641 posts)...six aren't likely to either.
How many do you think you need?
TheBlackAdder
(28,210 posts).
I'm a neutral polisci continuing ed student, who just wants a Dem in the White House.
Right now, most of the messaging is controlled by the GOP, because they are the ones getting their message out.
There is a serious failure at the DNC, that will damage the Democrats brand for a long time.
.
jalan48
(13,874 posts)This is the DNC strategy to help elect Hillary. Why would they change now?
appalachiablue
(41,156 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Certainly not to DWS.
freedom fighter jh
(1,782 posts)signatures is one more thing that will make what the DNC is doing obvious. That could move some folks to question their own assumptions about where they want their primary votes going.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Would seem way more effective than all this other stuff.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)In a big way.
But the blatant set up of these all-time fewest debates, on holiday weekends, etc. that are drawing record low viewers, is outrageous.
Every red-blooded Democrat SHOULD be furious.
JonLeibowitz
(6,282 posts)1) We don't care for campaign advice from those who oppose us. It could backfire, as intended.
2) Many of us ARE canvassing and campaigning for Bernie. Doesn't mean we can't sign a petition for fair treatment though.
Thanks for your 'concern'.
freedom fighter jh
(1,782 posts). . . it seems to me that getting your candidate a chance to show what he's about with the competition right there for comparison is probably by far the more effective method.
Segami
(14,923 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)Why do you want to continue to embarrass him?
Ino
(3,366 posts)why aren't you, DWS and Hillary eager for more debates?
okasha
(11,573 posts)to demonstrate her superior knowledge and experience.
So why do Sanders followers want to see him embarrassed and possibly humiliated in more exchanges he won't win? From his own strategic point of view, that's a losing proposition.
Not that that isn't okay with me, but the. persistent fantasy of next fime, next time FOR SURE HE'S GOING TO WIN! is compulsive gambling. I think Sanders is smarter than that.
Ino
(3,366 posts)Please provide a link showing that Sanders "hotfooted it to Israel...until past eligibility"
The timeline I find...
Graduated college in 1964
After graduation, spent 6 months on a kibbutz
Married between 1964-1966
Applied for conscientious objector status (cannot find a date for this application)
Application for CO status was rejected, but Sanders was already 26 by then (he was 26 in 1967)
I don't see that he was in Israel between the six-month stint after his 1964 graduation and turning 26 in 1967.
The only place I see the (unanswered) question raised "did Bernie go to Israel to avoid the draft" is on FREE REPUBLIC.
Please provide a credible source for THAT assertion, and for your statement that Sanders was embarrassed and humiliated.
You seem to like throwing out unwarranted, baseless accusations.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)or something like that, since she apparently thinks she is the Queen of anyone with a (D) on their registration and/or next to their name.
Signed...with enthusiasm.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)Should never been allowed into the party as long as he is still (I-VT).
Yallow
(1,926 posts)Watching a dozen or so dipshits hurl insults at each other is far more fun than watching serious people talk about the real problems Americans face.
Democrats Debating = Not that many viewers.
I still want more debates.
Uncle Joe
(58,378 posts)to win, Schultz's DNC will have a major enlightenment and agree that a well informed electorate is essential to a well functioning democracy and allow more debates, until then her main self-serving goal will be to keep the people ignorant.
Thanks for the thread, Segami.
abakan
(1,819 posts)More Debates, Remove DWS and these same petitions with a variety of titles. I don't see any of them succeeding so far. Hope springs eternal in the heart.
oasis
(49,394 posts)Hillary will be more helpful to the Democratic Party by being a spokesperson for Democrats on the campaign trail.