Oligarchy in Action

It doesn’t detract from the relevance of your response, but the tool I meant is the vote.


A third party candidate will never - never ever - not ever - win the presidency*. It’s a two party system. If you want to build a conservative alternative to the GOP or a liberal alternative to the Democratic Party that could ultimately become one of those two parties, start in Congress.


In general, I think voting 3rd party for president is kind of silly - even though I’ve done it myself. It’s usually pretty harmless if you’re in a solid red or blue state. In 2016 though? I don’t know how you can look at those two and think “meh, what difference does it make?”


*Never say never


The people who've run for president as third-party candidates, if they are serious and not just attention-seeking spoilers, need to start at the bottom. They need to build coalitions, run for local or state offices, and work their way up, even if they do it as part of the Green Party or other third party. It's a waste of everyone's time to apply for the job of CEO if you've never been a senior manager or executive VP.

And I don't fault the DNC for backing a Democrat. Lest we forget, HRC's opponent was not a Democrat, notwithstanding the fact that he was running for the Dem nomination. If Jill Stein or Gary Johnson were running in the primary for the Dem nomination, would we fault the DNC for not backing them?



shoshannah said:

The people who've run for president as third-party candidates, if they are serious and not just attention-seeking spoilers, need to start at the bottom. They need to build coalitions, run for local or state offices, and work their way up, even if they do it as part of the Green Party or other third party. It's a waste of everyone's time to apply for the job of CEO if you've never been a senior manager or executive VP.

And I don't fault the DNC for backing a Democrat. Lest we forget, HRC's opponent was not a Democrat, notwithstanding the fact that he was running for the Dem nomination. If Jill Stein or Gary Johnson were running in the primary for the Dem nomination, would we fault the DNC for not backing them?

Well said.

Third party candidates, who very few ever heard of. Suspiciously showing up so very quickly with lots of exposure.

I wonder if some of them get initial funding and exposure from fronts fronted by the likes of Koch & Co., etc. A divide and conquer to fragment opposition using third parties.

The candidates may not realize they are manipulated useful tools while expecting to be handed on a silver platter whatever they are running for.



nan said:

Clinton would not have been worse than Trump, but she would not have done the things needed to prevent more Trumps from running the next time.  We need to get money out of politics and more politicians that represent us, not the donors.

As for the "need to get money out of politics", that was a reason to support the Democratic nominee.  As the Democratic Platform stated: "Democrats believe we are stronger when we protect citizens’ right to vote, while stopping corporations’ outsized influence in elections. We will fight to end the broken campaign finance system, overturn the disastrous Citizens United decision, restore the full power of the Voting Rights Act, and return control of our elections to the American people."  Letting Trump get elected means that these goals aren't just being stopped, but there's been further going backwards (especially with respect to voting rights enforcement).

Thanks for providing the newest lame excuse for the "not Hillary" position, when you write, "Clinton would not have been worse than Trump, but she would not have done the things needed to prevent more Trumps from running the next time."  That's nice that there's finally some agreement that Clinton wouldn't have been worse (although most people would at least admit that she'd be better).  But it's Trump WINNING which creates the risk of "more Trumps".  As Ta-Nehisi Coates warns in his book, We Were Eight Years In Power, in the Epilogue on p. 365:

The American tragedy now being wrought is larger than most imagine and will not end with Trump.  In recent times, whiteness as an overall political tactic has been restrained by a kind of cordiality that held that its overt invocation would scare off ‘modern’ whites.  This has proved to be only half-true at best.  Trump’s legacy will be exposing the patina of decency for what it is and revealing just how much a demagogue can get away with.  It does not take much to imagine another politician, wiser in the ways of Washington, schooled in the methodology of governance, now liberated from the pretense of anti-racist civility, doing a much more effective job than Trump.


nohero said:


As for the "need to get money out of politics", that was a reason to support the Democratic nominee.  As the Democratic Platform stated: "Democrats believe we are stronger when we protect citizens’ right to vote, while stopping corporations’ outsized influence in elections. We will fight to end the broken campaign finance system, overturn the disastrous Citizens United decision, restore the full power of the Voting Rights Act, and return control of our elections to the American people."  Letting Trump get elected means that these goals aren't just being stopped, but there's been further going backwards (especially with respect to voting rights enforcement).

Thanks for providing the newest lame excuse for the "not Hillary" position, when you write, "Clinton would not have been worse than Trump, but she would not have done the things needed to prevent more Trumps from running the next time."  That's nice that there's finally some agreement that Clinton wouldn't have been worse (although most people would at least admit that she'd be better).  But it's Trump WINNING which creates the risk of "more Trumps".  As Ta-Nehisi Coates warns in his book, We Were Eight Years In Power, in the Epilogue on p. 365:

Of course over $60 million in donations from Wall street to HRC and Pro HRC Super PACs doesn't count



lord_pabulum said:
Of course over $60 million in donations from Wall street to HRC and Pro HRC Super PACs doesn't count

$60 million is a rounding error on their cocaine budget when you consider what they spent on lobbying during the 2016 election. 


When one of the major two candidates is not the devil incarnate.

DaveSchmidt said:

When is it OK for someone to vote for a third-party candidate? 

(So far, I’m inferring this: Only when the candidate can win or, conversely, can’t affect the outcome at all.)



to @South_Mountaineer

Thanks for taking on the task of explaining to Nan how there is less than zero evidence that the DNC had any effect whatsoever on the primary outcome.

I was afraid I'd have to do it again, for the umpteenth time.



DaveSchmidt said:



LOST said:

When both major Party candidates are unacceptable but neither is the scum of the Earth.

Did you (ETA: or RobB) feel the same way in 2000?

As for me the answer is "no". 2016 was unique. 



South_Mountaineer said:

If you're saying that the chair cannot have a personal opinion in favor of one of the candidates, that's not practical and it's not necessary.  

 

I may agree that it is not practical or necessary and it's not very logical, and certainly anyone can have an opinion but it is my understanding that the Rules of the Democratic National Committee require the Chairperson to be neutral, like a referee.


OK, let's not call it rigging.  You come up with the term for when a major political party lets an unelectable corportist warmonger candidate secretly buy the nomination and then loses to a psychotic cheeto.  Seriously, this is just so wrong on so many levels and yet, none of you seem to care.

South_Mountaineer said:

“The details point to rigging or whatever term you are more comfortable with”?  That’s like saying, “Maybe it was rigging; maybe the candidate who spent years supporting other candidates received their support, and also got more primary votes, was nominated; what difference does it make?”  I am comfortable that the “rigging” argument is an incoherent mess that doesn’t deserved to be taken seriously.

This is like déjà vu all over again.  We talked about this in November.  In response to one version of your argument, claiming support from Donna Brazile’s book, I wrote: “Donna Brazile keeps saying the primary wasn't rigged.  So everyone can agree to that and move on.” 

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/-inside-hillary-clinton-s-secret-takeover-of-the-dnc?page=next&limit=330#discussion-replies-3378852

You replied that she “described an election that was rigged”, and I responded, “All I know is she said it wasn't rigged.  You said she should be believed, since she was the party chair.  I agree with the others who don't see the connection between the agreement and Hillary Clinton winding up with more votes for the nomination.”

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/-inside-hillary-clinton-s-secret-takeover-of-the-dnc?page=next&limit=330#discussion-replies-3378873

So I’m comfortable that there’s been nothing new since then to change what the facts are.



nan said:

The details point to rigging or whatever term you are more comfortable with.  How you can be comfortable with what happened there is beyond me.  
South_Mountaineer said:

At this point, enough time has passed that you're going to be told that it's obvious. You're a neoliberal corporatist if you keep denying the rigging. Details don't matter. 
drummerboy said:

You have yet to explain how the primary was rigged. Somewhere, in your head, there must be some collection of events which proves this to you. What are they?

nan said:

 And we should not forget about the Democratic primary which was rigged to ensure the nomination of the one person who could lose to Donald Trump.




BG9 said:



nan said:
Clinton would not have been worse than Trump, but she would not have done the things needed to prevent more Trumps from running the next time.  We need to get money out of politics and more politicians that represent us, not the donors.

We can't get money out of politics. Its not possible. It would be unconstitutional.

The simple minded think campaign reform that disallows donations to politics would get money out of politics. It won't.

Anyone can pay for media touting my favorite politicians. The government can't stop me or anyone else from expressing my opinion on paid media.

I'm not talking about people who pay for ads of politicians they like. I'm talking about politicians who take money from corporations and Wall Street and then vote for things that favor their donors over the voters.   


If it were rigged, it wouldn’t matter. The choice in November was between someone you didn’t like and a fascist. You live in NJ so it really doesn’t matter, but there were plenty of people who thought like you in Pennsylvania. 


Oh Hillary, she’s just terrible. I mean - not deport people who’ve lived here for decades or gut Obamacare or defund CHIP or switch SNAP to a beans and rice delivery service terrible - but she’s a corporatist. Which is totally outrageous. We’ve never had a politician in this country that took money from corpor....


I’m sorry, I can’t even make fun of you anymore. It’s too awful a situation. 



nohero said:



nan said:

Clinton would not have been worse than Trump, but she would not have done the things needed to prevent more Trumps from running the next time.  We need to get money out of politics and more politicians that represent us, not the donors.

As for the "need to get money out of politics", that was a reason to support the Democratic nominee.  As the Democratic Platform stated: "Democrats believe we are stronger when we protect citizens’ right to vote, while stopping corporations’ outsized influence in elections. We will fight to end the broken campaign finance system, overturn the disastrous Citizens United decision, restore the full power of the Voting Rights Act, and return control of our elections to the American people."  Letting Trump get elected means that these goals aren't just being stopped, but there's been further going backwards (especially with respect to voting rights enforcement).

Thanks for providing the newest lame excuse for the "not Hillary" position, when you write, "Clinton would not have been worse than Trump, but she would not have done the things needed to prevent more Trumps from running the next time."  That's nice that there's finally some agreement that Clinton wouldn't have been worse (although most people would at least admit that she'd be better).  But it's Trump WINNING which creates the risk of "more Trumps".  As Ta-Nehisi Coates warns in his book, We Were Eight Years In Power, in the Epilogue on p. 365:
The American tragedy now being wrought is larger than most imagine and will not end with Trump.  In recent times, whiteness as an overall political tactic has been restrained by a kind of cordiality that held that its overt invocation would scare off ‘modern’ whites.  This has proved to be only half-true at best.  Trump’s legacy will be exposing the patina of decency for what it is and revealing just how much a demagogue can get away with.  It does not take much to imagine another politician, wiser in the ways of Washington, schooled in the methodology of governance, now liberated from the pretense of anti-racist civility, doing a much more effective job than Trump.

We just don't agree.  You are fine with the status quo.  Your life, as far as I can tell, is fine with the crappy crumbs thrown out by Democrats.  You don't care about Wall Street picking out cabinets or an endless undeclared war in Afghanistan or the tragedy in Honduras, or regime changes or not one banker jailed and homeowners thrown under the bus or massive surveillance of civilians and severe crackdowns on whistleblowers or no fly zones in Syria, or no support for unions or hanging out with Henry Kissinger or pay for play or $600,000 speeches to Wall Street telling them they should be able to regulate themselves, or saying we will never, ever have single-payer or free college or any other things that other countries take for granted.  Or support for NAFTA and TPP and traveling the world promoting fracking . . .and this is just a sample coming off the top of my head.  But all of this adds up to an effective, qualified leader for you.

It is clear that the American people, except perhaps for affluent white people over 50, want a different kind of candidate.  They are sick of the crumbs and Trump was channelling Bernie Sanders during the primary and he won. The DNC could have had a winner, but then the donors would not have been happy (especially the one that pre-purchased the nomination), so they just continued on with a losing strategy.  And they continue to do that, cause people like you are fine with that.  You spend your time beating up on people with no money and no power, even when they tell you that they voted for your candidate and she still lost.



shoshannah said:

The people who've run for president as third-party candidates, if they are serious and not just attention-seeking spoilers, need to start at the bottom. They need to build coalitions, run for local or state offices, and work their way up, even if they do it as part of the Green Party or other third party. It's a waste of everyone's time to apply for the job of CEO if you've never been a senior manager or executive VP.

And I don't fault the DNC for backing a Democrat. Lest we forget, HRC's opponent was not a Democrat, notwithstanding the fact that he was running for the Dem nomination. If Jill Stein or Gary Johnson were running in the primary for the Dem nomination, would we fault the DNC for not backing them?

Democrat is just a label.  Do you want to win or not?  Would you really rather have Trump, than Bernie Sanders because technically he is a registered Independent, despite being closer to a traditional Democrat that Clinton?   The world has changed and the Democrats are stuck in the mud. More people are registered as Independent now.  That's a group worth paying attention to .  The Democrats are bleeding out members and money. If you pay attention to the people who make a stink about an Independent running as Democrats it is always from a corporate, establishment sources. Perhaps it is time to look beyond the people that wiped out in 2016.



drummerboy said:

to @South_Mountaineer

Thanks for taking on the task of explaining to Nan how there is less than zero evidence that the DNC had any effect whatsoever on the primary outcome.

I was afraid I'd have to do it again, for the umpteenth time.

There is tons of evidence against the DNC, and, for the umpteenth time, how are you OK with someone buying the nomination in secret?  You don't have to answer cause I already know you just pretend it did not happen.



RobB said:

If it were rigged, it wouldn’t matter. The choice in November was between someone you didn’t like and a fascist. You live in NJ so it really doesn’t matter, but there were plenty of people who thought like you in Pennsylvania. 




Oh Hillary, she’s just terrible. I mean - not deport people who’ve lived here for decades or gut Obamacare or defund CHIP or switch SNAP to a beans and rice delivery service terrible - but she’s a corporatist. Which is totally outrageous. We’ve never had a politician in this country that took money from corpor....




I’m sorry, I can’t even make fun of you anymore. It’s too awful a situation. 

I voted for HIllary.  Hillary is terrible and so was Obamacare, and she supported programs that caused more people to need CHIP and SNAP and other programs for the poor.  Her husband made life for the poor much worse, by the way--and helped develop the prison industrial complex.  The Republicans are beyond the pale, but it is still time to stop idealizing Democrats and start demanding that the whole system change.



nan said:

More people are registered as Independent now.

More (meaning a plurality of, not a majority of) registered voters identify themselves as being independent, according to Gallup polling. That’s not the same as “registered as Independent.”


I don't think anyone is "idealizing Democrats." On election day, it is all about the outcome. One of those two people was going to become president. Period.


One takeaway from this thread is that the OCD animus toward third-party and Bernie supporters by the nohero-South_Mountaineer combo is the kind of toxic hostility that would surely discourage anyone who voted third party from wanting to be associated with the Democrats. The combo is hurting the party.


I'm not "ok" with it. I just don't believe it happened, because there is no evidence, despite what you think counts as evidence, that she bought 'the nomination in secret'. That's beyond absurd.

How does one even 'secretly buy' an election? Explain that one simple point to us.

The fact is that your standards of evidence are far lower than what is reasonable to provide proof.  You start with a bit of actual data, and then conflate it with other events and imagine effects that in fact never happened.


nan said:



drummerboy said:

to @South_Mountaineer

Thanks for taking on the task of explaining to Nan how there is less than zero evidence that the DNC had any effect whatsoever on the primary outcome.

I was afraid I'd have to do it again, for the umpteenth time.

There is tons of evidence against the DNC, and, for the umpteenth time, how are you OK with someone buying the nomination in secret?  You don't have to answer cause I already know you just pretend it did not happen.



She had a secret deal that is a secret to no one except you, evidently. 



nan said:

She had a secret deal that is a secret to no one except you, evidently. 

By that logic, it wasn't a secret, to begin with. Nan, you really need to get help.



Dennis_Seelbach said:



nan said:

She had a secret deal that is a secret to no one except you, evidently. 

By that logic, it wasn't a secret, to begin with. Nan, you really need to get help.

It was a secret, but after exposure he continued to pretend otherwise. You can drop the personal attacks and perhaps educate yourself on the facts.


Let's keep beating a dead horse.

Hillary Clinton was on track to be the Democratic nominee since she lost to Obama in 2008 and he then kept her career alive by appointing her Secretary of State.

Bernie Sanders made a valiant effort to challenge her and present an alternative.

The Democratic Party was never going to pick Bernie over Hillary and the country was not going to elect an elderly Jewish Socialist.

One of the principal mistakes in 2016 was the Republican Establishment's failure to "rig" the nomination in favor of a normal candidate.


nan said:




 The Republicans are beyond the pale, but it is still time to stop idealizing Democrats and start demanding that the whole system change.

I haven't seen anyone here "idealizing" the Democrats. Some of us have been demanding that the whole system change for a very, very long time. Some have done more than just "demand".

You have to decide for yourself what you are going to do. 



nan said:



Dennis_Seelbach said:



nan said:

She had a secret deal that is a secret to no one except you, evidently. 

By that logic, it wasn't a secret, to begin with. Nan, you really need to get help.

It was a secret, but after exposure he continued to pretend otherwise. You can drop the personal attacks and perhaps educate yourself on the facts.

I'm not the one making stupid and intemperate claims, based on a personal, misogynistic view of Hillary.  Facts matter, as I have advised your buddy Paul, and you need to find some, or even any, that support your warped view. 



LOST
said:


The Democratic Party was never going to pick Bernie over Hillary and the country was not going to elect an elderly Jewish Socialist.



True. Take it from another (almost) elderly Jewish socialist.

Plus, his seedier side hadn't come out yet. Repubs were saving that in their back pockets.


Duplicate post.


Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician in the country. He would have beaten Trump. The only person who would not have beaten Ttump was Hillary Clinton. The DNC picked Clinton in secret because she bankrolled them. So much for Democracy. 


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.