Hillary Clinton welcomes Wasserman-Schultz to campaign as ‘honorary chair’

[Sorrior]

Actually he wouldn't have, been debunked many time that under no system Bernie would have won, not even his own proposed delegate system.



Bernie's problem with the election :

Too narrow, focus and repeated the same things at every stop, it got monotone and people lost interest.
Too specific, too much focus on millennials to win elections you have to appeal the minorities, he rarely called them out specifically.

Didn't the DNC cockblock his message and we have proof now?

[Mavick]

I certainly can, since he doesn't uphold the values of the party itself. The fact that he got a lot of votes doesn't change that fact.



We didn't used to have primaries. They only started to exist some time in the 20th century. But the reason we have them is to see among the set of candidates who stands the best chance of being elected. It doesn't say whether or not that candidate is likely to fulfill the goals of the party.

And elections are a completely different thing from primaries. Elections are the actual democracy, so of course we shouldn't get rid of them. Primaries are just a method for the party to internally decide who they want to put up for election.

So what do you think is the purpose of a political party?

You know, whether you want to believe it or not, parties are not strictly self governing institutions, they still require the approval and selection of the people, so if that's what the people want, they literally have no choice but to accept that. I'm not even sure why I'm having to bother explaining to another American how our fucking government and election process works. And I literally do not care how our elections worked prior to the 20th century, I am not at all shocked that our system was improved upon as time went by, I don't even know why you're bringing that silly shit up. Get off the forums and go fucking educate yourself.

[Reeve]

You know, whether you want to believe it or not, parties are not strictly self governing institutions, they still require the approval and selection of the people, so if that's what the people want, they literally have no choice but to accept that. I'm not even sure why I'm having to bother explaining to another American how our fucking government and election process works. And I literally do not care how our elections worked prior to the 20th century, I am not at all shocked that our system was improved upon as time went by, I don't even know why you're bringing that silly shit up. Get off the forums and go fucking educate yourself.

Political parties are not the government. They're private institutions and can do whatever they want within the bounds of the laws. They aren't required to have primaries at all. They could go into a room, select someone, and put him up for election, and that would be totally consistent with how political parties work. The DNC chooses to have primaries to get a sense of who is most likely to succeed, but that's all.

And you're not educating me. You're just berating me. Which, OK, whatever.

[Paranoid Android]

What a stupid move. Just adding more shit to the already huge pile of shit created. Get rid DWS completely.

[Stonecloak]

Political parties are not the government. They're private institutions and can do whatever they want within the bounds of the laws. They aren't required to have primaries at all. They could go into a room, select someone, and put him up for election, and that would be totally consistent with how political parties work. The DNC chooses to have primaries to get a sense of who is most likely to succeed, but that's all.

And you're not educating me. You're just berating me. Which, OK, whatever.

That's a problem is it not.

[Reeve]

That's a problem is it not.

I don't think so. I mean, I'd like it if there were more parties to choose from, but seems like the idea of parties maintaining some control over their own platforms, and being able to select candidates based on that platform in addition to electability is kind of working as intended.

And I prefer that to parties as arms of the government, public institutions, for sure.

[Mavick]

Political parties are not the government. They're private institutions and can do whatever they want within the bounds of the laws. They aren't required to have primaries at all. They could go into a room, select someone, and put him up for election, and that would be totally consistent with how political parties work. The DNC chooses to have primaries to get a sense of who is most likely to succeed, but that's all.

And you're not educating me. You're just berating me. Which, OK, whatever.

Fucking hell.

Sure, they're private institutions and can do whatever they want. They can say "fuck the voters" and then not get any votes, not have any elected people and thus not matter at all to anyone anywhere.

And yes, I'm berating you, because you're either being naive or deliberately stupid with this conversation. Are you even reading what you're saying? Nobody anywhere does "whatever they want within the bounds of the law", even private businesses occasionally, or not so occasionally, have to bend to the will of consumers. And these bodies aren't even remotely similar.

[Underverse]

More corruption and nepotism from the Clintons. My surprised face :|

[Stonecloak]

I don't think so. I mean, I'd like it if there were more parties to choose from, but seems like the idea of parties maintaining some control over their own platforms, and being able to select candidates based on that platform in addition to electability is kind of working as intended.

And I prefer that to parties as arms of the government, public institutions, for sure.

It shouldn't be privatized. It should be all through the American government. Especially because we can see outside support from other countries. They should never be a factor.

[Underverse]

Oh are people using the 'they're private organizations' pretext to excuse the blatant abrogation of democracy we're witnessing?

Lol

[Reeve]

Fucking hell.

Sure, they're private institutions and can do whatever they want. They can say "fuck the voters" and then not get any votes, not have any elected people and thus not matter at all to anyone anywhere.

And yes, I'm berating you, because you're either being naive or deliberately stupid with this conversation. Are you even reading what you're saying? Nobody anywhere does "whatever they want within the bounds of the law", even private businesses occasionally, or not so occasionally, have to bend to the will of consumers. And these bodies aren't even remotely similar.

Sure, if they want to get elected, they should listen to their electorate. But they aren't required to do so. And if the electorate chooses a candidate they dislike, there's no reason they should then put their party resources towards helping to elect someone who will work against their interests.

If Blizzard put out a survey about their game, and the general public told them they wanted to turn WoW into a first person shooter, but Blizzard decided not to do so, no one would be accusing them of corruption. They might say Blizzard was out of touch with their customers, and Blizzard might lose customers over it, but at the end of the day, it's Blizzard's choice to make.

[Underverse]

Sure, if they want to get elected, they should listen to their electorate. But they aren't required to do so. And if the electorate chooses a candidate they dislike, there's no reason they should then put their party resources towards helping to elect someone who will work against their interests.

If Blizzard put out a survey about their game, and the general public told them they wanted to turn WoW into a first person shooter, but Blizzard decided not to do so, no one would be accusing them of corruption. They might say Blizzard was out of touch with their customers, and Blizzard might lose customers over it, but at the end of the day, it's Blizzard's choice to make.

I don't think the argument is about whether or not they broke the law here. I think the argument is about how our democracy should function. Falling back on law is a lazy and morally underdeveloped defense.

On a side note, I find it kind of funny that you're arguing in favor of private organizations deciding elections. I didn't take you for a corporatist.

[Reeve]

It shouldn't be privatized. It should be all through the American government. Especially because we can see outside support from other countries. They should never be a factor.

The US government has a responsibility to stand back and be impartial. Primaries, by their very nature, are about selecting a candidate that best represents a particular ideological group. I don't want the government to be the ones who are determining those ideological groups, nor who best represents them. That's not the government's job.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think the argument is about whether or not they broke the law here. I think the argument is about how our democracy should function. Falling back on law is a lazy and morally underdeveloped defense.

On a side note, I find it kind of funny that you're arguing in favor of private organizations deciding elections. I didn't take you for a corporatist.

I'm not arguing that private organizations should decide elections because primaries aren't elections. They're just candidate selection. We decide elections in November, and the parties don't decide any of that. Primaries are the pregame, not the game.

[Stonecloak]

The US government has a responsibility to stand back and be impartial. Primaries, by their very nature, are about selecting a candidate that best represents a particular ideological group. I don't want the government to be the ones who are determining those ideological groups, nor who best represents them. That's not the government's job.

- - - Updated - - -



I'm not arguing that private organizations should decide elections because primaries aren't elections. They're just candidate selection. We decide elections in November, and the parties don't decide any of that. Primaries are the pregame, not the game.

But, the pre-game is as important as the big game. Especially in a two party election.

[Mavick]

Sure, if they want to get elected, they should listen to their electorate. But they aren't required to do so. And if the electorate chooses a candidate they dislike, there's no reason they should then put their party resources towards helping to elect someone who will work against their interests.

If Blizzard put out a survey about their game, and the general public told them they wanted to turn WoW into a first person shooter, but Blizzard decided not to do so, no one would be accusing them of corruption. They might say Blizzard was out of touch with their customers, and Blizzard might lose customers over it, but at the end of the day, it's Blizzard's choice to make.

We're not talking about a video game manufacturer, we're talking a political entity within our government. People either vote or don't, and even when they don't that has an effect on every single person in this country. Your anecdote is completely irrelevant and belies just how little you know about what you're speaking of.

Saying that they're not required to do something isn't saying anything at all. There are tons of things that have no relevance that they are not required to do. What matters is what they must do, and one of those things is accept the will of the people. It doesn't matter how they used to work, or what they could theoretically do that they never would. What matters is that they get as many people to vote for their eventual candidates as possible, and that's the sole reason for their existence and everything they do should be geared towards facilitating that. Otherwise they have no purpose at all. Even coming up with the platform is geared towards that purpose, which the DNC provides an excellent example of by meshing platforms of Hillary and Bernie to appease the maximum amount of voters possible without alienating as many as could be avoided.

[Reeve]

Saying that they're not required to do something isn't saying anything at all. There are tons of things that have no relevance that they are not required to do. What matters is what they must do, and one of those things is accept the will of the people. It doesn't matter how they used to work, or what they could theoretically do that they never would. What matters is that they get as many people to vote for their eventual candidates as possible, and that's the sole reason for their existence and everything they do should be geared towards facilitating that. Otherwise they have no purpose at all. Even coming up with the platform is geared towards that purpose, which the DNC provides an excellent example of by meshing platforms of Hillary and Bernie to appease the maximum amount of voters possible without alienating as many as could be avoided.

What matters is that they get as many people to vote for someone who will fulfill their party platform as possible, and that's the sole reason for their existence and everything they do should be geared towards facilitating that.

Anyway, I've tried to be very civil with you, but you continue to berate me instead of engaging in reasoned discussion, so I'm done talking to you.

[Mavick]

What matters is that they get as many people to vote for someone who will fulfill their party platform as possible, and that's the sole reason for their existence and everything they do should be geared towards facilitating that.

Anyway, I've tried to be very civil with you, but you continue to berate me instead of engaging in reasoned discussion, so I'm done talking to you.

Do you even have any idea how their platform is developed?

[eschatological]

Didn't the DNC cockblock his message and we have proof now?

No, we don't. No one has been able to produce an EMail that shows the DNC actively did anything to hinder the campaign of Bernie Sanders.

They spit-balled a few pretty stupid things, but there's been no evidence they actually did them.

[KrazyK923]

I just simply don't care. Part of me thinks America needs to elect him to get it out of its system and see firsthand just how much our stupidity hurts us. The other part of me wants to see people like you who thought from the beginning that Hillary was inevitable finally and factually realize that she actually isn't and never was the better candidate. Granted that's a small part of me, but I won't deny its existence. And, to put it in a very simple way, sometimes you just have to fuck shit up badly enough that it gets fixed right rather than continue limping on with this terribly rigged political structure we have now.

Yeah, I got that from your constant emotional responses.

For someone who pretended to be older than I, as if that gave you credence in the first place, you sure are acting like a first time, 18 year old voter.

Also keep ignoring me saying that I voted for Sanders and campaigned for him.

"Sometimes you have to fuck up shit badly so that it gets fixed."

Show me a single time that worked in the United States and maybe I'll consider this tactic anything other than a toddler-style temper tantrum that you didn't get what you wanted the first time you voted.

[Mavick]

Yeah, I got that from your constant emotional responses.

For someone who pretended to be older than I, as if that gave you credence in the first place, you sure are acting like a first time, 18 year old voter.

Also keep ignoring me saying that I voted for Sanders and campaigned for him.

"Sometimes you have to fuck up shit badly so that it gets fixed."

Show me a single time that worked in the United States and maybe I'll consider this tactic anything other than a toddler-style temper tantrum that you didn't get what you wanted the first time you voted.

I don't care very much about the election atm, but I DO care about what started this conversation with you labeling other people's votes as "meaningless" because they refuse to adopt your stance on it. I fucking detest people attempting to prod others to vote simply for a lesser of two evils approach. Don't take what I said out of context to keep trying to further your pathetic point, thanks.

As for the last part, it was pretty obvious I was thinking out loud. Do I really want to see shit fucked up that badly? Not really, no. But what's happening so far isn't working.

And btw, I can be emotional and still be right.