Interim DNC chair admits Hilldog rigged the primaries in new article.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

aegix drakan:

Thaluikhain:
I think the primaries are a terrible idea, you should pick one candidate and the party gets right behind them, because otherwise, well, this happens.

Uhh...So you want a China-type system, where the rich elites pick who you are "Allowed" to vote for? In this case, why on god's green earth would they ever even try to put someone up who has any chance of serving anyone but their own interests?

A system like that basically ensures that every election is more or less Mitt Romney versus Tim Kaine.

Looking at other countries that don't have primaries or their equivalent, that's not true.

Thaluikhain:

aegix drakan:

Thaluikhain:
I think the primaries are a terrible idea, you should pick one candidate and the party gets right behind them, because otherwise, well, this happens.

Uhh...So you want a China-type system, where the rich elites pick who you are "Allowed" to vote for? In this case, why on god's green earth would they ever even try to put someone up who has any chance of serving anyone but their own interests?

A system like that basically ensures that every election is more or less Mitt Romney versus Tim Kaine.

Looking at other countries that don't have primaries or their equivalent, that's not true.

Are any of those countries as locked in to two parties as the United States?

If it's easy to form competitive parties, then you don't need primaries of these sorts, no. But if it's not easy, then without primaries or an equivalent there's a very serious concern about whether you can even call your country democratic.

In single member electoral district plurality voting such as in the United States, primaries are absolutely necessary, and not really even sufficient.

Seanchaidh:

Thaluikhain:

aegix drakan:

Uhh...So you want a China-type system, where the rich elites pick who you are "Allowed" to vote for? In this case, why on god's green earth would they ever even try to put someone up who has any chance of serving anyone but their own interests?

A system like that basically ensures that every election is more or less Mitt Romney versus Tim Kaine.

Looking at other countries that don't have primaries or their equivalent, that's not true.

Are any of those countries as locked in to two parties as the United States?

In Australia, the government is either going to be Labor or the Liberal-National Coalition. Minor parties don't really do anything, except possible add a small amount of numbers to a faction if the results are very close.

Saelune:
I refuse to hold anyone to higher standards than we hold the President.

It has nothing to do with holding anyone to higher standards than the President. Hillary's corrupt campaign demoralized the voters and brought about a Trump victory. You can say all you want that "oh but that's the right wingers fault for voting Trump!" but what the fuck were you expecting? Their interests weren't yours and will never be. Some of them would be happy to see you hanging by a noose.

Hillary managed to fuck up the election by driving away the less pragmatic or less conscious amongst Democratic voters. Your comment has no bearing on the reality you've been denying all this time so vehemently and still refuse to admit thanks to stubborn pride. She gave us Trump. Not the right wingers, not the Bernie Bros, Hillary is the primary responsible ON OUR SIDE (take note of this, because you've willfully skimmed past this point every time someone argues this with you) for a Trump victory.

You don't have to bend over and say you're wrong. But bringing up Trump in this topic while ignoring the fact it's exactly because of this topic we have Trump is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty.

Thaluikhain:

Seanchaidh:

Thaluikhain:

Looking at other countries that don't have primaries or their equivalent, that's not true.

Are any of those countries as locked in to two parties as the United States?

In Australia, the government is either going to be Labor or the Liberal-National Coalition. Minor parties don't really do anything, except possible add a small amount of numbers to a faction if the results are very close.

Do you not have party leadership elections somewhat like the UK (which seem to me to be a close analog of a Presidential primary, just with somewhat further reaching effects on the party?)

Seanchaidh:
Do you not have party leadership elections somewhat like the UK (which seem to me to be a close analog of a Presidential primary, just with somewhat further reaching effects on the party?)

Parties choose their own leaders from amongst their ranks by themselves, the leader of the party in power is the Prime Minister. If it's the Liberal-National Coalition in power, the leader of the Liberal party is PM, and the leader of the smaller National party is deputy PM.

The party can also chose to change leaders if they want, and that's cost 3 PMs their PMness in recent years.

JamesStone:
Hillary managed to fuck up the election by driving away the less pragmatic or less conscious amongst Democratic voters. Your comment has no bearing on the reality you've been denying all this time so vehemently and still refuse to admit thanks to stubborn pride. She gave us Trump. Not the right wingers, not the Bernie Bros, Hillary is the primary responsible ON OUR SIDE (take note of this, because you've willfully skimmed past this point every time someone argues this with you) for a Trump victory.

The margin between a Trump and Clinton victory was very small, any number of people's contributions could have been larger than it. You can blame Clinton for it if you like, but you can also blame Sanders and the Bernie Bros for costing the last vital umpteen thousand votes. You could certainly blame the media.

Personally, I think that when Taylor Swift told people to vote, she added "for the not cartoonishly evil person", she might have gotten (barely) enough extra Clinton votes from her fans to swing the election. Should we blame her for choosing to be apolitical?

Thaluikhain:

Seanchaidh:
Do you not have party leadership elections somewhat like the UK (which seem to me to be a close analog of a Presidential primary, just with somewhat further reaching effects on the party?)

Parties choose their own leaders from amongst their ranks by themselves, the leader of the party in power is the Prime Minister. If it's the Liberal-National Coalition in power, the leader of the Liberal party is PM, and the leader of the smaller National party is deputy PM.

The party can also chose to change leaders if they want, and that's cost 3 PMs their PMness in recent years.

JamesStone:
Hillary managed to fuck up the election by driving away the less pragmatic or less conscious amongst Democratic voters. Your comment has no bearing on the reality you've been denying all this time so vehemently and still refuse to admit thanks to stubborn pride. She gave us Trump. Not the right wingers, not the Bernie Bros, Hillary is the primary responsible ON OUR SIDE (take note of this, because you've willfully skimmed past this point every time someone argues this with you) for a Trump victory.

The margin between a Trump and Clinton victory was very small, any number of people's contributions could have been larger than it. You can blame Clinton for it if you like, but you can also blame Sanders and the Bernie Bros for costing the last vital umpteen thousand votes. You could certainly blame the media.

Personally, I think that when Taylor Swift told people to vote, she added "for the not cartoonishly evil person", she might have gotten (barely) enough extra Clinton votes from her fans to swing the election. Should we blame her for choosing to be apolitical?

What a ridiculous comparison. Was Taylor Swift the one running? Was Sanders the official candidate, and did he not support Clinton after his defeat in an attempt to stop Trump?
The only people responsible for the Clinton campaign are Clinton and her staff. The people that we should blame for hijacking a general election and then doing such a pathetic, idiotic, embarrassing job at running a presidential campaign they lost against Donald Trump of all people are them and no one else.

Stupid excuses for a bad candidate. Clinton's fault of being such a massive piece of shit a presidential race with Donald Fucking Trump is no one's but her own. And the last people defending her will hopefully realize it's the hill they'll die on if they choose to stay.

inu-kun:

Except for the dictionary defition of it...

That's not the dictionary definition, though. You just made that up. That's why the vast majority of socialist/ social-democratic parties advocate partial public ownership, or public ownership of utilities, but very rarely full public ownership of all enterprise.

inu-kun:
And that doesn't entail a full tax exemption, just lowering some of the taxes.

I genuinely don't know where this is coming from. Neither of us were talking about full tax exemption until just now.

inu-kun:

So I guess that you believe higher taxes created by Brexit will have no effect on UK economy?

Similarly, I have no idea where this has come from. I gave no indication at all that I believe higher taxes have no impact on the economy.

You really seem to just be responding to things nobody is saying, now.

JamesStone:
The only people responsible for the Clinton campaign are Clinton and her staff. The people that we should blame for hijacking a general election and then doing such a pathetic, idiotic, embarrassing job at running a presidential campaign they lost against Donald Trump of all people are them and no one else.

Oh? Don't the voters get a say in who they cast their votes for? If all the Bernie or Bust types had decided not to avoid voting for Clinton because she wasn't Sanders, Trump would not be PotUS. One might also say something about Trump voters.

In any case, anything affecting and involving all of society, like an election is supposed to, cannot be put on one tiny section of society. Unquestionably the media plays a massive role, grass roots support (at least in theory) likewise.

EDIT: Having said that, the people most responsible for Trump are, of course, Trump and his supporters.

JamesStone:
Snip

You mean the campaign that still had more people voting Democrat, regardless, where everyone who voted for Trump has to eat twice as much crow as everyon else? The one where a small group of men made the wrong call and we're all paying for it, because of them and the Republican Party's inability to find anybody better than the worst? Right, gotcha.

FalloutJack:

JamesStone:
Snip

You mean the campaign that still had more people voting Democrat, regardless, where everyone who voted for Trump has to eat twice as much crow as everyon else? The one where a small group of men made the wrong call and we're all paying for it, because of them and the Republican Party's inability to find anybody better than the worst? Right, gotcha.

Yes. Are you suggesting I said that the Republicans aren't to blame? They are, but in the same way you blame a dog for shitting in a rug. It's to be expected.

If I saw a grown ass man shitting in a rug I'd be way more mad.

(This is in no way to say all Republicans are dogs or possess the intelligence of one. It's to say that you keep deflecting the blame from what the Democrats did by pointing to the Republicans as if the difference between the two parties' way of handling things wasn't supposed to be the fucking point in the first place).

Thaluikhain:

JamesStone:
The only people responsible for the Clinton campaign are Clinton and her staff. The people that we should blame for hijacking a general election and then doing such a pathetic, idiotic, embarrassing job at running a presidential campaign they lost against Donald Trump of all people are them and no one else.

Oh? Don't the voters get a say in who they cast their votes for? If all the Bernie or Bust types had decided not to avoid voting for Clinton because she wasn't Sanders, Trump would not be PotUS. One might also say something about Trump voters.

In any case, anything affecting and involving all of society, like an election is supposed to, cannot be put on one tiny section of society. Unquestionably the media plays a massive role, grass roots support (at least in theory) likewise.

EDIT: Having said that, the people most responsible for Trump are, of course, Trump and his supporters.

If Clinton hadn't been so incompetent at even immoral political games that the primary's hijacking in her favor wasn't blisteringly obvious, there wouldn't be a Bernie or Bust crowd. That crowd was one born of indignation and a well justified feeling of being wronged. Clinton supposedly could win without going full throttle at fucking Bernie over, couldn't she? Funny why she didn't.

Yes, the Bernie or Bust crowd has their own personalities and capability to make decisions. I'm not saying both them and Trump voters are pristine innocent children who just can't be at fault for their actions. I don't agree with neither, because I'd have voted for Clinton if I lived in America to stop Trump from happening.

Yet the Trump voter's fuckery was entirely predictable and outside of the Democrats' control. The one-man fanatics that exist in all elections are outside of the Democrats' control. What is inside the Democrat's Party Leadership's control is not be such massive, unapologetic and incredibly dumb pieces of human garbage that Hillary Clinton's corruption and scheming became so obvious and in-our-faces that it made some people who'd have otherwise voted for her turn away in disgust.

Are these people that turned away in disgust right? No, absolutely not, because the side they turned had Trump in it. But is Clinton and her shit-for-brains campaign not to blame for the brunt of this mess? Oh damn straight they are, and anyone who doesn't see that is at best intellectually dishonest and putting party/ideological loyalty above a simple analysis of the facts.

If we're supposed to be talking about it now, as Saelune so stubbornly insists we shouldn't? Fuck yes we should. To avoid this bullcrap from happening again the Democrats need a shift to the right direction, not this centre-right bollocks (with admittedly centre-left social policies) that people are sick and tired of. The sooner "we" (the Leftist Americans) talk this out and try to at least organize enough to stop excusing their Party every time they fuck up and give them a push in the right direction, the sooner they can be ready for the next time a candidate like Trump appears, or (Yog-Sothoth forbids Trump wins again) for the 2020 elections.

JamesStone:
Snip

I don't want it to be expected. I wanna put his nose in the shit and get some acknowledgement that he was bad. I wants some goddamn behavorial modification. This rug is rather important to me.

FalloutJack:

JamesStone:
Snip

I don't want it to be expected. I wanna put his nose in the shit and get some acknowledgement that he was bad. I wants some goddamn behavorial modification. This rug is rather important to me.

That metaphorical dog isn't yours though, he's out of your control, and you trying to put his nose in the shit is more likely to end up with your hand in a bandage along with a nasty infection due to the dog's tendency to eat its own feces.

That dog is going to keep shitting on your rug if it can. What the Democrats need to do is come up with a better rug that is stainproof, or to position the rug in a way that the dog can't get to it. The Hilary Clinton rug was a careless and blatant invitation to be shit on.

FalloutJack:

JamesStone:
Snip

I don't want it to be expected. I wanna put his nose in the shit and get some acknowledgement that he was bad. I wants some goddamn behavorial modification. This rug is rather important to me.

The dog is out of your control in this metaphor. The roommate that is shitting on your rug is not, since it's your house and you pay most of the bills.

Y'know what, fuck it, this quick metaphor wasn't meant to be stretched like this and I'll admit it's kinda mediocre even if left alone. You have two scenarios: the Democrats' shittery and the Republican's shittery. You have no control over the Republican's shittery, but you do have control over the Democrats' shittery to a certain degree.

New metaphor. The Republicans are foreign invaders in medieval times while you're safe behind your castle. But it rains and the walls crumble down because the wall engineer was bad. People like you and Saelune are the guys seeing the wall engineer getting yelled by everyone and saying "BUT IT'S THE INVADER'S FAULT!".

Yeah mate, what did you expect? They are the adversary, the enemy. They would never be at your side. Your side failed you. You can do nothing to fix the enemy side, but you can at least try to fix yours.

His politics are generally anethema to me, but man, Bernie v Trump would have been one hell of an election. Those debates would have been electric. As it was, it almost felt like the air had been let out of the Democrat side. Like a slow leaking balloon. "Of course she won, and I CAN'T vote for Trump, so here I am." Also, not saying the result would have been different, but the passion that Bernie's people had, going against the passion Trump's people showed would have been a once in a lifetime event.

JamesStone:
Snip

No, that metaphor is bad too. I have a better way to show what's wrong with this picture. I mean, you assume I have more control over anybody more than anybody else. The real deal is influence. You're not 'on my side', but you're open to influences, presumbly, if you like things to turn out better for you in some manner. The problem is that you - and alot of people, let's be honest - are way into zero sum, all or nothing, extremes and no middle ground. So, everything you see is not immediately successful, or not fully successful, is automatically a complete failure in your eyes.

For instance, you want to go on yammering about Democrats to no purpose. I say to no purpose because you attribute a black status of evil to a bunch of grays and that's just silly. You say 'The Democrats failed'. Hah, no. The Republicans failed. They allowed this. He who causes the biggest explosion is at the most fault. The Republican Party is a pile of shit and I don't even see you denying it, so we'll accept that as fact. So, you decide to attack the Democrats because they're dirty. So what? You're flicking boogers at 'Take Bribes' McGee while ignoring the imminent threat of 'Fuck The World' Johnson. You achieve nothing because your cup of water doesn't even begin to address the fire lit up behind you.

You saying 'nothing can be done' about Republicans is just going 'I give up all human rights to everything ever'. You may as well stop discussion, then, because you are giving up any need to assert yourself, otherwise. Really, if Trump is so untouchable for you, do something about the guys underneath him. I really don't care what you do, but as long as you do nothing but sneer at the direct opposition to the PROBLEM, you do nothing to solve it. Deal with what matters. Forget this tiny obsession with Democrats. Yes, they did a bad. Whoop-de-do. Priorities, dammit. They'll still be around to razz when you deal with the real issues.

FalloutJack:
You saying 'nothing can be done' about Republicans is just going 'I give up all human rights to everything ever'.

Nope.

image

Seanchaidh:
Snip

Well, I guess you've given up on discussion, because you're not really saying anything.

FalloutJack:

Seanchaidh:
Snip

Well, I guess you've given up on discussion, because you're not really saying anything.

Can you not see the image?

Voted Trump: 19.5%
Voted Clinton: 19.8%
Didn't vote: 29.9%

Double rainbow, what does it mean?!

Most people aren't Republicans. Most people aren't corporate Democrats, either. Republicans can be just as Republican as they want and we can beat them. There is no "giving up" inherent in chiefly blaming the alternative for being insufficient and writing off committed GOP voters.

Indeed, 66% of Trump voters were voting against Clinton rather than for Trump. That's another important point.

Seanchaidh:
Snip

What does that have to do with my berrating James, though?

FalloutJack:

Seanchaidh:
Snip

What does that have to do with my berrating James, though?

Having no expectations for Republicans and Republican voters doesn't mean giving up on winning politics, and consequently doesn't mean giving up on "all human rights to everything ever".

Seanchaidh:

FalloutJack:

Seanchaidh:
Snip

What does that have to do with my berrating James, though?

Having no expectations for Republicans and Republican voters doesn't mean giving up on winning politics, and consequently doesn't mean giving up on "all human rights to everything ever".

I was saying HE won't do anything, because he won't and he said he won't. So, again, not sure what you're going on about.

inu-kun:
Any tl;dr to this? It sounds more like a telenovela than an article.

Also the implication Bernie had an actual shot of presidency...

He would have wiped the floor with a clown like Trump. Running against someone like Hillary was literally his only chance of winning the presidency.

FalloutJack:

JamesStone:
Snip

No, that metaphor is bad too. I have a better way to show what's wrong with this picture. I mean, you assume I have more control over anybody more than anybody else. The real deal is influence. You're not 'on my side', but you're open to influences, presumbly, if you like things to turn out better for you in some manner. The problem is that you - and alot of people, let's be honest - are way into zero sum, all or nothing, extremes and no middle ground. So, everything you see is not immediately successful, or not fully successful, is automatically a complete failure in your eyes.

For instance, you want to go on yammering about Democrats to no purpose. I say to no purpose because you attribute a black status of evil to a bunch of grays and that's just silly. You say 'The Democrats failed'. Hah, no. The Republicans failed. They allowed this. He who causes the biggest explosion is at the most fault. The Republican Party is a pile of shit and I don't even see you denying it, so we'll accept that as fact. So, you decide to attack the Democrats because they're dirty. So what? You're flicking boogers at 'Take Bribes' McGee while ignoring the imminent threat of 'Fuck The World' Johnson. You achieve nothing because your cup of water doesn't even begin to address the fire lit up behind you.

You saying 'nothing can be done' about Republicans is just going 'I give up all human rights to everything ever'. You may as well stop discussion, then, because you are giving up any need to assert yourself, otherwise. Really, if Trump is so untouchable for you, do something about the guys underneath him. I really don't care what you do, but as long as you do nothing but sneer at the direct opposition to the PROBLEM, you do nothing to solve it. Deal with what matters. Forget this tiny obsession with Democrats. Yes, they did a bad. Whoop-de-do. Priorities, dammit. They'll still be around to razz when you deal with the real issues.

The problem is though that the blue wall had broken. By that wall breaking, it shows that the democrats had lost hold of key states. Clinton lost the election and how she ran it is troubling. She put most of her efforts in the coats and did not really get her message across. To ignore the reason why the democrats lost a supposed to be easy win is a grave mistake.

Just because Trump is worse dose not mean that the problems that face the Democrats should be ignored. Letting a problem fester is never a good thing. Preventing the worst of Trump is a priority, but making changes and improvements to the democrats is also needed if you want to prevent another Trump election. If the problems that the democrats have are not taken care of before the next election, trump could win aging. By not making necessary changes, the democrats will lose people due to lack of faith or that they are too corrupt.

flyingwolf26:
Snip

Well, I didn't say ignore. This is a matter of prioritizing. The forest is on fire. It needs loads of water now. Leave the guy smoking in the non-smoking section alone and go douse the flames. You can always get the other one later, when it matters.

FalloutJack:

flyingwolf26:
Snip

Well, I didn't say ignore. This is a matter of prioritizing. The forest is on fire. It needs loads of water now.

There's an awful load of gasoline mixed with your water though, perhaps you should take the time to ensure your water is clear and not going to make things worse before dousing the fire, the survival of your metaphorical forest depends on it.

FalloutJack:

flyingwolf26:
Snip

Well, I didn't say ignore. This is a matter of prioritizing. The forest is on fire. It needs loads of water now. Leave the guy smoking in the non-smoking section alone and go douse the flames. You can always get the other one later, when it matters.

The way you win elections is grassroots organizing behind candidates with a message that plays well to the problems facing ordinary Americans. The Democratic Party's fundraising model, reliant as it is on large donations from very wealthy people, gives the party an incentive to select candidates with messages that do not play well to the problems facing ordinary Americans because the people giving them money don't experience the problems facing ordinary Americans and hence aren't turned on by candidates who talk about those issues. Party strategy is influenced by morons like this guy, Cloobeck:

That's a problem. So, we talk about how bad the Democrats are and what they need to do to reform. We talk about that so that people will get involved in grassroots organizing. We talk about that so that people like Lee Carter (D-Va) can be shunned by their state party and

win

anyway

.

It can't be about falling in line behind the Democrats no matter what they do because the inadequacy of the Democratic Party is the condition which allows the GOP to be competitive in its current form. You might think that's fine-- and everyone should be like you, so you might think, and if you just browbeat them enough, maybe they'll start to agree-- but it's evidently not a reliably winning formula as we saw in 2016. The popularity of either party rests on the ugliness of the most readily available alternative: that's not an inherently stable state of affairs and it is not difficult to see how it can lead to some very ugly places.

It has to be about organizing the grassroots, blasting a message that resonates, and going around the media filter.

The greatest threat right now isn't tax reform, it's the abolition of net neutrality. If tax reform happens, that sucks. If net neutrality goes away, that's one less very powerful tool we have to coordinate strategy against all such tax reformation attempts in the future. Policy now is important. Power now is even more important because power now means power and policy later.

Sonmi:
Snip

Seanchaidh:
Snip

I think perhaps that you two are the ones seeing gasoline because you want to see gasoline. You're talking about a drop in the bucket of problems, no matter how much you try and make it look big. It's not big. Go deal with the big problem first.

FalloutJack:

Sonmi:
Snip

Seanchaidh:
Snip

I think perhaps that you two are the ones seeing gasoline because you want to see gasoline. You're talking about a drop in the bucket of problems, no matter how much you try and make it look big. It's not big. Go deal with the big problem first.

Losing elections is a big fucking problem. Winning elections is how we fix it. That you can dismiss what we're saying as trivial is mystifying.

FalloutJack:
I think perhaps that you two are the ones seeing gasoline because you want to see gasoline. You're talking about a drop in the bucket of problems, no matter how much you try and make it look big. It's not big.

It was big enough to lose them an unlosable election, and most of all, lose the Democratic firewall; the one thing they weren't allowed to lose.

To claim that there is no problem whatsoever is myopic to the extreme, and this notion that there is no time for the Democratic Party to focus on improving is a false one. If the Democrats want to deal with "the big problem" they have to improve, the Republicans have shown themselves to be ruthless, and playing the lesser of two evils isn't working for the DNC anymore. It's either you fix your shit, or you keep losing to candidates like Roy Moore or Greg Gianforte.

Luckily, movements to take out trash like Diane Feinstein or Joe Manchin is picking up in momentum, and there might actually be some hope on the horizon for the Democrats should everything go according to plan.

Interesting article I read on Vox just now:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/11/14/16640082/donna-brazile-warren-bernie-sanders-democratic-primary-rigged

Vox has typically been pro-Clinton, so I expected this article to be an apologia, but it turned out to be only partly that. On the one hand, it argues that the DNC was really weighted in favour of Sanders, which I found a little on-the-nose.

On the other hand, it makes the salient point that Clinton had essentially locked down the nomination well before the primaries ever began because Clinton had been building for a presidential run ever since 2011. She had a massive war chest, endorsements from everyone whose opinion mattered at the time, all the connections and experience that come with three decades in politics and the support of the incumbent president. To every other potential Democratic candidate, running against Clinton seemed like a big risk with no reward. She seemed like an incredibly strong candidate...at the time.

And I was surprised to learn that Clinton was sitting at a 55% approval rating as late as 2014. I mean, with all the hate I've seen thrown at her last year, I expected her to be at least consistently hated. But the Democrat voters seemed fine with Clinton up until she actually started running for president. And then when she was running, her efforts to make sure she had the primary locked down had the effect of making it look like she...had the primary locked down. And that's what turned voters against her. The perception that they were being told who to vote for.

I mean, that and the emails. Emails emails emails emails! Never stop talking about those emails.

Seanchaidh:
Snip

Sonmi:
Snip

Still the fault of the people, and it will always be the fault of the people. Right now, I'm being told there are Republicans who are wearing diapers in public and/or smashing coffee machines for uhh...reasons. Go on. Keep telling me it's dem dirty dems. You condemn yourselves every time.

bastardofmelbourne:
And that's what turned voters against her. The perception that they were being told who to vote for.

Still glossing over the Khan-like foreign policy and utterly uninspiring domestic policy?

FalloutJack:
Still the fault of the people, and it will always be the fault of the people. Right now, I'm being told there are Republicans who are wearing diapers in public and/or smashing coffee machines. Go on. Keep telling me it's dem dirty dems. You condemn yourselves every time.

What a blatant and idiotic whataboutism.

Some Republican voters acting like mentally-deficient morons in public has nothing to do with the Democratic Party's inability to appeal to the depressed, mostly working class, electorate, which represents 42% of eligible voters.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here