If your preferred Dem candidate does not get the nomination, what do you do?

[bad_teammate 13,301]

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm sorry, are you saying an amendment could be ratified without 3/4 states' approval?  That's your angle?

When did I ever say that state ratification was unnecessary?

I said Trump/Bloomberg would ask Congress to draft and pass an amendment to give him a 3rd term, which is exactly how that process would start. Congress drafts it, passes it, then it goes on to the states for ratification. That's literally how every single amendment ever has happened. Every single one.

You're just tripping all over yourself. It's sad.

Answer the question:
Then why do you presume to lump their vote in as "Centrist" along with literally every non-Bernie candidate?

8 minutes ago, VRHorn said:

A political party? One that Bernie isn't even a member of?

I will vote for anyone the dems put up, but this thinking is naive.

So you expect loyalty then from people who aren't even part of the party? Isn't that naive?

7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Welp, glad I started this thread.

Are you now pretending that your intention was anything other than disunity and fighting when your response to people expressing larger ideas was a pissy "Not an option".

Have some self-awareness.

[Biff Tannen 45,764]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Are you now pretending that your intention was anything other than disunity and fighting when your response to people expressing larger ideas was a pissy "Not an option".

Have some self-awareness.

No you fucking pussy.  The intention was to see who among us actually sees the bigger picture and who among us are petulant little bitches.  Happily, the vast majority see the bigger picture.  You appear not to.

[bad_teammate 13,301]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

No you fucking pussy.  The intention was to see who among us actually sees the bigger picture and who among us are petulant little bitches.  Happily, the vast majority see the bigger picture.  You appear not to.

So your intention was to start fights, but now that fighting is happening and it's kind of obvious that your "side" has nothing but whining and shouting you regret starting the fight.

#sad

[Biff Tannen 45,764]

It's like I'm playing cards with my brother's kids here.

[bad_teammate 13,301]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

It's like I'm playing cards with my brother's kids here.

You piss your pants in rage when you lose there, too?

[jimmyjazz 46,475]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

When did I ever say that state ratification was unnecessary?

I said Trump/Bloomberg would ask Congress to draft and pass an amendment to give him a 3rd term, which is exactly how that process would start. Congress drafts it, passes it, then it goes on to the states for ratification. That's literally how every single amendment ever has happened. Every single one.

That's not how I read your statement.  I took your use of the word "pass" to mean "ratify", which is why I said what I said.  

The overarching point is that a 3rd term for Trump would never happen, simply because there aren't enough states willing to ratify such an absurd amendment.

 

Quote

Answer the question:
Then why do you presume to lump their vote in as "Centrist" along with literally every non-Bernie candidate?

I don't.  They could speak for themselves.  If they feel as you do, then they'll fall in line.  You said the rules don't need to change.  So, don't bitch about the rules.

[bad_teammate 13,301]

9 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't.  They could speak for themselves.  If they feel as you do, then they'll fall in line. 

They spoke for themselves when they voted.

Isn't that why the Democratic party has a primary?

Quote

You said the rules don't need to change.  So, don't bitch about the rules.

Ok, then don't ask for my vote.

 

 

[jimmyjazz 46,475]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

They spoke for themselves when they voted.

Isn't that why the Democratic party has a primary?

So they are not allowed to modify their position if they feel it best suits their interests to do so?  That's mighty tyrannical of you.

[bad_teammate 13,301]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

So they are not allowed to modify their position if they feel it best suits their interests to do so?  That's mighty tyrannical of you.

Who is "they"? The voters?

[jimmyjazz 46,475]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Who is "they"? The voters?

The delegates. 

[bad_teammate 13,301]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

The delegates. 

Ah, I see.

I do not think they should be arrested for changing from Round 1 to Round 2. I support their right to do whatever they want in that shady, backroom process. They should face zero legal or real-life reprisals.

I guess what you're trying to get to is to analogize the delegates to our elected representatives? The problem with that is that we don't vote on the actual delegates, we vote for presidential candidates and then delegates are appointed.

If the delegates themselves were elected on a platform of who they would vote for at the convention, that would make sense. But that's not how this goes.

[jimmyjazz 46,475]

I'm mainly just trying to draw a distinction.  We can bemoan the two-party system, but it's what we have, and the parties should be allowed to nominate their candidate by whatever (legal) process they deem fit.  I think it's wholly within a party's rights to control the process in a manner that their candidate "speaks" for the party, however that might be defined.

[Zonahorn 8,079]

Honestly, I could probably be forced into voting for Bloomberg, I'd probably drink bleach afterwards, but I could do it. 

 

EDIT: I'll do it, it would be the worst timeline, but I'd do it.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Calihorn

[BradInATX 9,208]

2 hours ago, Steamboat1874 said:

I am voting for whomever runs against Trump period.

Even if it turns out to be Bob  Stoops.

Woah woah woah. Let's just calm the fuck down, buddy.

[BrickHorn 18,318]

3 minutes ago, Calihorn said:

Honestly, I could probably be forced into voting for Bloomberg, I'd probably drink bleach afterwards, but I could do it. 

 

EDIT: I'll do it, it would be the worst timeline, but I'd do it.

This is where I am.  Minus the bleach drinking.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

I'd do it without batting an eye.  pulling the lever for Not Trump will be the easiest thing I've done in my life.  

[bad_teammate 13,301]

A question for the group:
Does the potential exist for someone to run for president who is as bad or worse than Donald Trump?

I'm not even trying to say those things are true of Bloomberg, I'm just wondering if it's even a possibility in your collective mindspace.

[hayden_horn 11,365]

7 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I'd do it without batting an eye.  pulling the lever for Not Trump will be the easiest thing I've done in my life.  

yep. i would do it even if it meant 4 years of lobbying against the president.

nothing could be worse than trump. he is eroding the foundation of our country. i mean, it may even be too late to fix, but i would vote for nearly anyone over trump, as long as their last name wasn't also trump. and even then, maybe?

[DaysOff 8,004]

Yes, Bernie.

He's the one guy that guarantees 4 more years.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3,861]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

A question for the group:
Does the potential exist for someone to run for president who is as bad or worse than Donald Trump?

I'm not even trying to say those things are true of Bloomberg, I'm just wondering if it's even a possibility in your collective mindspace.

If you actively selected for it, yes.  Maybe someone like Harvey Weinstein.  But if you took 1000 random names out of the phonebook, I'm convinced Trump would literally be the worst.

[Zonahorn 8,079]

11 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I'd do it without batting an eye.  pulling the lever for Not Trump will be the easiest thing I've done in my life.  

For every candidate except Bloomberg, I agree. Bloomberg really sucks though.

[workswithseed 2,139]

1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

Welp, glad I started this thread.

The left like to eat its own. 

I mean it's fun to watch at least.

[bad_teammate 13,301]

Just now, workswithseed said:

The left like to eat its own. 

I mean it's fun to watch at least.

It's a shame that a bitter Liz Lad started this thread designed to sow discord and cause fighting, isn't it?

I agree with you.

I wish Liz would address the behavior of her mean, nasty followers who constantly throw out personal attacks and threats.

[hayden_horn 11,365]

16 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

A question for the group:
Does the potential exist for someone to run for president who is as bad or worse than Donald Trump?

I'm not even trying to say those things are true of Bloomberg, I'm just wondering if it's even a possibility in your collective mindspace.

of course. 

but none in the democratic primary are worse than donald trump. and assuming the senate remains republican (which i hope changes, but we'll see), it will be there to keep a possible bad actor in the guardrails, unlike the status quo. i would argue that even a democratic senate would rein in someone who is behaving anywhere like donald fucking trump.

and here's the thing. i'll happily vote for bernie, or anyone else that is the democratic candidate against trump. the problem with your posting style is that you are making it such a beating to want to support bernie. it's the self-righeousness and factionalism that you espouse. using terms like "shitlib" and "cEnTrIsT bRaIn" or whatever - you are pushing people away, when you need to move your tent poles further out. browbeating people is rarely persuasive. i know it's a message board, but your style in support of bernie is off-putting. 

is it intentional?

[Lurch 5,940]

If they are worse than Trump, I expect them to be impeached and removed.

[wildcat09 29,453]

20 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

A question for the group:
Does the potential exist for someone to run for president who is as bad or worse than Donald Trump?

I'm not even trying to say those things are true of Bloomberg, I'm just wondering if it's even a possibility in your collective mindspace.

Pat Buchanan is still alive, right? Him, Stephen Miller, that O’Shea dickhead out in Washington who is literally a terrorist, probably another hundred or so state level GOP assholes all around the country. There’s worse than trump, but not from the upper ranks of the centristish political establishment.

Well, Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz might be worse.

[bad_teammate 13,301]

2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

and here's the thing. i'll happily vote for bernie, or anyone else that is the democratic candidate against trump. the problem with your posting style is that you are making it such a beating to want to support bernie. it's the self-righeousness and factionalism that you espouse. using terms like "shitlib" and "cEnTrIsT bRaIn" or whatever - you are pushing people away, when you need to move your tent poles further out. browbeating people is rarely persuasive. i know it's a message board, but your style in support of bernie is off-putting. 

is it intentional?

This is what we do on the message board. Liz Lads and Peter Pals spend all day howling invective and personal attacks at me, right? Will you acknowledge that?

Are THEY being persuasive? Are THEY bringing me in or are they pushing me away?

Be honest.

[Js1 85,748]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Pat Buchanan is still alive, right? Him, Stephen Miller, that O’Shea dickhead out in Washington who is literally a terrorist, probably another hundred or so state level GOP assholes all around the country. There’s worse than trump, but not from the upper ranks of the centristish political establishment.

Well, Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz might be worse.

Hawley

Cotton

Rick Scott

[Biff Tannen 45,764]

You're a child.

[bad_teammate 13,301]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

You're a child.

More personal attacks from Liz's camp.

It's a shame. We need to unify to enact Big, Structural Change. How can we unify with all this nastiness?

[Lurch 5,940]

Yes, Bernie.

He's the one guy that guarantees 4 more years.

In what world could Bernie be worse than trump? He’s not in my top 3, but he’s competent and a decent human that wouldn’t make a mockery of our country hourly.

[Js1 85,748]

There's a few unhinged lunatics in this thread. 

[hayden_horn 11,365]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

This is what we do on the message board. Liz Lads and Peter Pals spend all day howling invective and personal attacks at me, right? Will you acknowledge that?

Are THEY being persuasive? Are THEY bringing me in or are they pushing me away?

Be honest.

you are pushing yourself away. you are the instigator of the divisive rhetoric. and you are not unique in that regard as a supporter of sanders. his twitter army might as well be a troll army. 

you've spent a good deal of primary season shitting on other posters for supporting other candidates and having broken brains and the like. that's why i asked if it was intentional. is it?

[jimmyjazz 46,475]

I don't think Ted Cruz would be anywhere near as bad as Donald Trump.

Here's the thing -- while it's obvious POTUS can have a lot of influence over domestic issues, his primary job is as our liaison to the rest of the world.  My biggest concerns with Trump in that regard are that he's a pretty low IQ guy, he has little to no knowledge of history, and he's impulsive.  He routinely gets schooled by foreign leaders.  Someone like Ted Cruz is more akin to Richard Nixon.  Would I be happy with his approach to the courts, domestic policy, etc.?  No, not at all. But I wouldn't have a nagging concern about his possession of the nuclear codes, I wouldn't fear that he'd get duped every time he ventured outside the country, and I wouldn't expect him to go off half-cocked with asinine trade policies.

Edited February 13, 2020 by jimmyjazz

[bad_teammate 13,301]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

you are pushing yourself away. you are the instigator of the divisive rhetoric. and you are not unique in that regard as a supporter of sanders. his twitter army might as well be a troll army.

Go back to the beginning of this thread and point this out, because it's an obvious lie.

Quote

you've spent a good deal of primary season shitting on other posters for supporting other candidates and having broken brains and the like. that's why i asked if it was intentional. is it?

I have spent the primary season doing what everyone else here does. We attack each other and each other's candidates. You might find me especially annoying, but to pretend that everyone here is trying to just have a friendly coffee and only the Bernie Bros get personal or mean is just a lie.

This thread is loaded with constant personal attacks from Liz supporters and Pete supporters. You can lie to yourself, but you're not moving the ball forward by lying.

[hayden_horn 11,365]

but whatabout!?!

your attempt to limit the conversation to this thread, which, granted, was clearly started as a shot to bernie supporters who might abandon a non bernie candidate, is weak. you know you post like a shithead. this is fine - it's surly, but it's also part of a larger behavior amongst supporters of bernie. you are an interesting microcosm of that. and you don't realize how you come across, that much is now clear. you are just engaging in "message board behavior."

okay, i have my answer.

[wildcat09 29,453]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't think Ted Cruz would be anywhere near as bad as Donald Trump.

Here's the thing -- while it's obvious POTUS can have a lot of influence over domestic issues, his primary job is as our liaison to the rest of the world.  My biggest concerns with Trump in that regard are that he's a pretty low IQ guy, he has little to no knowledge of history, and he's impulsive.  He routinely gets schooled by foreign leaders.  Someone like Ted Cruz is more akin to Richard Nixon.  Would I be happy with his approach to the courts, domestic policy, etc.?  No, not at all. But I wouldn't have a nagging concern about his possession of the nuclear codes, I wouldn't fear that he'd get duped every time he ventured outside the country, and I wouldn't expect him to go off half-cocked with asinine trade policies.

I think Ted Cruz would be a more competent autocrat and he'd go in harder on the theocratic shit too. The only good thing about Trump is that he can't tear himself away from watching cable tv coverage about himself enough to do more damage more quickly. Ted would be less of an international embarrassment, sure, but he'd do more harm to more people.

[jimmyjazz 46,475]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I think Ted Cruz would be a more competent autocrat and he'd go in harder on the theocratic shit too. The only good thing about Trump is that he can't tear himself away from watching cable tv coverage about himself enough to do more damage more quickly. Ted would be less of an international embarrassment, sure, but he'd do more harm to more people.

Oh, I think Trump has just gotten started with the harming.  I think his end game is likely far worse than that of Cruz.

[bad_teammate 13,301]

Just now, hayden_horn said:

but whatabout!?!

Bernie Bros can be mean online.

Liz Lads can be mean online.

Pete Pals can be mean online.

People can be mean online.

Quote

you know you post like a shithead. this is fine - it's surly,

The difference between me and you (and a dozen others here) is that I'm honest about what I'm doing. I don't lie to myself about it. I am a shithead sometimes, I make jokes sometimes, I'm thoughtful sometimes, and I'm sincere and supportive sometimes.

I can acknowledge these things about myself and do so happily.

But it takes 8 pages of furious wrestling to get even a single ray of self-awareness into some of you, and even that is grudging.

Quote

but it's also part of a larger behavior amongst supporters of bernie.

Is it? Is there evidence of this that doesn't come from vague and unsubstantiated complaints from fans of candidates that Bernie is beating or otherwise view him as a threat? Is there some neutral observer who has documented this?

Quote

you are an interesting microcosm of that. and you don't realize how you come across, that much is now clear. you are just engaging in "message board behavior."

okay, i have my answer.

How do you come across to the people you might need to persuade?

[yoladu 4,166]

i'll be voting for the person that hasn't bragged about getting away with sexual assault.

[troph 24,928]

If one person has more votes than the next, that's not an unclear message. That is the fundamental precept of democracy.
Liz: 34% of delegates
Bernie: 29%
Klobuchar: 17%
Pete: 15%
Field: 5%
What would be "unclear" in this result?
 
 
 

In this example you have 53% voting for the progressives, the will of the party is clear. Now is it Warren or Bernie. In your example you get to Warren first with a majority between two similar candidates then you coalesce around her. But even in that scenerio, Bernie asks for assurance of his agenda and she says yes to the degree she feels she can. Conversations about M4A, student loans and the wealth tax probably.

In the real world current example, not one candidate has 30% and a “let the pro choice dems in” moderate along with two other moderates have over 60% of the combined vote. You can’t easily get to a majority for Sanders there. And conversations will happen.

If you really want to claim a less than majority vote for any one candidate proves the will of the people - in and of itself - when there are easily other ways to analyze plurality vote totals then we really have nothing else to discuss.

A plurality winner is not a clear choice of the people. It’s just not.

[troph 24,928]

Welp, glad I started this thread.

Whatever, you knew this was coming. You’re actually reveling in the accomplishment of a hot thread. Don’t lie.

[troph 24,928]

This is where I am.  Minus the bleach drinking.

Oligarch wannabe ;-)

[henrygandorf 29,199]

26 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I have spent the primary season doing what everyone else here does. We attack each other and each other's candidates.

whoa.

[troph 24,928]

A question for the group:
Does the potential exist for someone to run for president who is as bad or worse than Donald Trump?
I'm not even trying to say those things are true of Bloomberg, I'm just wondering if it's even a possibility in your collective mindspace.

The status quo of the last 50 years minus trumps administration is a modest improvement so no I don’t see anyone that could be worse. Yeah, I believe that Trump is the worst imaginable president. The guy wants to be a dictator. Seriously. Goes way beyond my personal and my people’s rights.

[troph 24,928]

This is what we do on the message board. Liz Lads and Peter Pals spend all day howling invective and personal attacks at me, right? Will you acknowledge that?
Are THEY being persuasive? Are THEY bringing me in or are they pushing me away?
Be honest.

Not you but wash and I came to a peaceful alignment. No really, I changed my mind. I think either he did too or he voluntarily clarified without obfuscation. It does happen.

[Js1 85,748]

2 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

whoa.

That's some classic projection.

[High Plains Drifter 11,055]

19 hours ago, Hefeweizen said:

My choice wasn't there.  I'll vote for any Dem other than .... Bernie, who is a socialist and will lose the general in a landslide.  If Bernie is the nominee I'll leave the ballot blank for pres.  And I am not a Trump fan.

 

 

Yeah, because uncompromising assholes like you won't vote for him.

[bad_teammate 13,301]

26 minutes ago, troph said:

If you really want to claim a less than majority vote for any one candidate proves the will of the people - in and of itself - when there are easily other ways to analyze plurality vote totals then we really have nothing else to discuss.

You and I could both slice and dice these things up and come up with rationalizations that suit our desires, yes, but at the end of the day we'd be ignoring the votes because we don't like the results.

I could argue that Pete voters actually should go to Bernie because Pete says he's very progressive (he makes great effort to reiterate this) and he wrote an essay about Bernie and people are hesitant to vote for a woman.

I could argue that Amy voters actually should go to Bernie because they are Senate colleagues and people who voted for Amy want someone with national government experience working at high levels.

And on and on and on and it would only be valid insofar as it fits our desires and preconceived notions.

The only thing that matters is the will of the people. That is democracy.

17 minutes ago, troph said:

Not you but wash and I came to a peaceful alignment. No really, I changed my mind. I think either he did too or he voluntarily clarified without obfuscation. It does happen.

Absolutely.

[jimmyjazz 46,475]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

You and I could both slice and dice these things up and come up with rationalizations that suit our desires, yes, but at the end of the day we'd be ignoring the votes because we don't like the results.

OK, how do  you feel about this scenario?  We know Trump has the R nomination locked up.  (Heh.  "Locked up.")

What if legions of R voters cross to the D primaries and vote for Bloomberg, feeling (and rightly so) that at least he's not anything like Bernie, so they'd rather hedge their bets for the general election?  Would you just call that "the will of the Democrats"?