Why do Liberals support the Democrat party when they rig their own primaries?

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Wayfarer
Because there is an overwhelming amount of liberals who are angry at the DNC and are actively campaigning against the very elements that allowed those actions to occur in the first place. Tom Perez was on NPR this morning discussing some of the changes that are precipitating because of the backlash against the DNC for the shady crap they pulled to rob Bernie of the nomination.

Furthermore, ultimately, while we can be angry at the Democratic party for the malfeasance, we sure as hell aren't going to suddenly switch all of our preferences enough to vote Republican. At the end of the day, just as I assume many conservatives don't really like Trump, they still prefer conservatism in any form over liberalism (and that's why they still voted for him).

The problem being, a voter like myself, will never vote Democrat as long as it's shady and will be voting third party. That's why Hillary lost, the far left, didn't vote at all or voted third party. Democrats are going to lose again next time as well unless there are radical changes.

Perhaps. I imagine there are many out there like myself that will stomach a Democratic candidate over an independent I may like more simply because the odds of the independent winning are slimmer. Ultimately I think it probably best to use factual data/evidence (such as the most resent local elections like PA-18) as a weather-vane for how liberal voters are going to coalesce (or not as you suggest).

Mark my words though, that the DNC won't change and they'll just hope for the best. that's not a smart tactic.

I actually agree, and there is a part of me (and many other liberals) that fear that our campaigning to get the DNC to pull their heads out of their asses will fail and this very scenario will happen. Doesn't mean we give up though.

originally posted by: amfirst1
How can liberals support the Democrat party when they admitted that they can rig their own primaries because it is a private party?

Just wondering why liberals support this and liberals in the classic sense are centrists. If you are far left and claim to be liberal than you are really not liberal, u are a socialist. Is it democratic to rig your own primaries? I mean the root word for Democrat is Democracy right? Or mob rule? How can they be mob rule when the mob doesn't rule?

Liberals are defined as favorable to progress or reform. Liberals will tell you that they are centrists, no one wants to be labeled as an extremist. However, to be liberal means you must favor greater change than your predecessors. Failing to do so, accepting the status quo, negates their claim of liberalism. So, to continue to be liberal, each successive generation must out-liberal the previous meaning that the center of the range of liberalism is constantly shifting further and further to the left. As each generations liberal views become commonplace they must be replaced by views even more liberal. Liberalism, by definition, is a constant trend toward extremism.

With that perspective in mind, does any of this surprise you?

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: amfirst1
How can liberals support the Democrat party when they admitted that they can rig their own primaries because it is a private party?

Just wondering why liberals support this and liberals in the classic sense are centrists. If you are far left and claim to be liberal than you are really not liberal, u are a socialist. Is it democratic to rig your own primaries? I mean the root word for Democrat is Democracy right? Or mob rule? How can they be mob rule when the mob doesn't rule?

Liberals are defined as favorable to progress or reform. Liberals will tell you that they are centrists, no one wants to be labeled as an extremist. However, to be liberal means you must favor greater change than your predecessors. Failing to do so, accepting the status quo, negates their claim of liberalism. So, to continue to be liberal, each successive generation must out-liberal the previous meaning that the center of the range of liberalism is constantly shifting further and further to the left. As each generations liberal views become commonplace they must be replaced by views even more liberal. Liberalism, by definition, is a constant trend toward extremism.

With that perspective in mind, does any of this surprise you?

This is one silly hot take. There are innumerable lamentable conservative policies for liberals to rail against (long long into the future) without the need to dive into extremism for the sake of semantics. The supposed game of 'one-up-man ship' you reference is a boogeyman without basis in reality. Do you lament the 'liberal extremism' that fomented women's suffrage, or the recent relaxing of recreational marijuana laws?

Poor losers.
a reply to: amfirst1

a reply to: amfirst1

There is a clear difference between a liberal and a libtard.

The tards are causing all the issues because they are:

a) in charge of all the media...which causes all the issues.
b) low-info folks who blindly vote for / support / carry out the violence espoused by the tards in charge of the media.
c) running the DNC

pipe = smoke it.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: amfirst1
How can liberals support the Democrat party when they admitted that they can rig their own primaries because it is a private party?

Just wondering why liberals support this and liberals in the classic sense are centrists. If you are far left and claim to be liberal than you are really not liberal, u are a socialist. Is it democratic to rig your own primaries? I mean the root word for Democrat is Democracy right? Or mob rule? How can they be mob rule when the mob doesn't rule?

Liberals are defined as favorable to progress or reform. Liberals will tell you that they are centrists, no one wants to be labeled as an extremist. However, to be liberal means you must favor greater change than your predecessors. Failing to do so, accepting the status quo, negates their claim of liberalism. So, to continue to be liberal, each successive generation must out-liberal the previous meaning that the center of the range of liberalism is constantly shifting further and further to the left. As each generations liberal views become commonplace they must be replaced by views even more liberal. Liberalism, by definition, is a constant trend toward extremism.

With that perspective in mind, does any of this surprise you?

This is one silly hot take. There are innumerable lamentable conservative policies for liberals to rail against (long long into the future) without the need to dive into extremism for the sake of semantics. The supposed game of 'one-up-man ship' you reference is a boogeyman without basis in reality. Do you lament the 'liberal extremism' that fomented women's suffrage, or the recent relaxing of recreational marijuana laws?

I am sorry if you disagree or don't get it, but liberalism is constantly trending toward the extreme. What is extreme by todays standards will barely be liberal by tomorrows and be the status quo the day after that. This is an easily examined and verified trend in society. Do some research and you will see it for yourself.

As for lamenting liberal extremism I would probably go with the fact that liberals were on the side of slavery while conservatives fought for equality. But why nitpick...

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: amfirst1
How can liberals support the Democrat party when they admitted that they can rig their own primaries because it is a private party?

Just wondering why liberals support this and liberals in the classic sense are centrists. If you are far left and claim to be liberal than you are really not liberal, u are a socialist. Is it democratic to rig your own primaries? I mean the root word for Democrat is Democracy right? Or mob rule? How can they be mob rule when the mob doesn't rule?

Liberals are defined as favorable to progress or reform. Liberals will tell you that they are centrists, no one wants to be labeled as an extremist. However, to be liberal means you must favor greater change than your predecessors. Failing to do so, accepting the status quo, negates their claim of liberalism. So, to continue to be liberal, each successive generation must out-liberal the previous meaning that the center of the range of liberalism is constantly shifting further and further to the left. As each generations liberal views become commonplace they must be replaced by views even more liberal. Liberalism, by definition, is a constant trend toward extremism.

With that perspective in mind, does any of this surprise you?

This is one silly hot take. There are innumerable lamentable conservative policies for liberals to rail against (long long into the future) without the need to dive into extremism for the sake of semantics. The supposed game of 'one-up-man ship' you reference is a boogeyman without basis in reality. Do you lament the 'liberal extremism' that fomented women's suffrage, or the recent relaxing of recreational marijuana laws?

As for lamenting liberal extremism I would probably go with the fact that liberals were on the side of slavery while conservatives fought for equality. But why nitpick...

I think you are conflating the monikers of Democrat and Republican with Liberal and Conservative. The Republican's who abolished slavery in the US in the 19th century are much closer to the Democrats of today than the Republicans of today.

Furthermore, if we take the terms at face value, Conservatism is for maintaining the status quo (which slavery was at the time), while liberalism is for changing the status quo (what ended up happening).

Your answer lies in the posts already made here...

Just because the Dems are corrupt doesn't mean I discount everything that I believe and vote for Trump.
I mean, you already know the answer to this question, but just want some back patting and stars.

Also, Democrats like communists?? Jesus, turn of the conservative talk radio. This is why no one takes the extreme right (which has taken over the party mind you) seriously. The Dems in the USA are center-right corporatists. Just a few steps away from the Repubs. There is no left here, and certainly not an extreme one.

Why do Liberals support the Democrat party when they rig their own primaries?

Because why would I vote for evil asshats that want to give all my money to 1% of the population while taking away important righs like birth control, clean air and unions?

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: amfirst1
How can liberals support the Democrat party when they admitted that they can rig their own primaries because it is a private party?

Just wondering why liberals support this and liberals in the classic sense are centrists. If you are far left and claim to be liberal than you are really not liberal, u are a socialist. Is it democratic to rig your own primaries? I mean the root word for Democrat is Democracy right? Or mob rule? How can they be mob rule when the mob doesn't rule?

Liberals are defined as favorable to progress or reform. Liberals will tell you that they are centrists, no one wants to be labeled as an extremist. However, to be liberal means you must favor greater change than your predecessors. Failing to do so, accepting the status quo, negates their claim of liberalism. So, to continue to be liberal, each successive generation must out-liberal the previous meaning that the center of the range of liberalism is constantly shifting further and further to the left. As each generations liberal views become commonplace they must be replaced by views even more liberal. Liberalism, by definition, is a constant trend toward extremism.

With that perspective in mind, does any of this surprise you?

This is one silly hot take. There are innumerable lamentable conservative policies for liberals to rail against (long long into the future) without the need to dive into extremism for the sake of semantics. The supposed game of 'one-up-man ship' you reference is a boogeyman without basis in reality. Do you lament the 'liberal extremism' that fomented women's suffrage, or the recent relaxing of recreational marijuana laws?

As for lamenting liberal extremism I would probably go with the fact that liberals were on the side of slavery while conservatives fought for equality. But why nitpick...

I think you are conflating the monikers of Democrat and Republican with Liberal and Conservative. The Republican's who abolished slavery in the US in the 19th century are much closer to the Democrats of today than the Republicans of today.

Furthermore, if we take the terms at face value, Conservatism is for maintaining the status quo (which slavery was at the time), while liberalism is for changing the status quo (what ended up happening).

Thats a pretty broad description. Things are always changing. That doesn't mean it is due to liberal influence.

The association between the parties and the characteristics has always been there. But in a way you have confirmed my earlier statement. The shift is toward liberal extremism. The parties are different today than they were 150 years ago. And they have never been more diametrically opposed than they are now and the gap is still widening. This indicates a shift away from centrist views by at least one of the two. The desire to resist change for the sake of change does not extend to the point of failing to right a significant wrong.

The parties are moving further apart. One of them is dedicated to remaining firmly entrenched in tradition. That leaves the shifting to the other party. I stand by my original assessment. The left is, by its very nature, destined to travel toward extremism. That having been said, it is only small steps taken one at a time by which this transformation will take place. By the time the left reaches what is considered extreme by todays standards, it will be but one small step from what is then a centrist point of view.

originally posted by: amfirst1
How can liberals support the Democrat party when they admitted that they can rig their own primaries because it is a private party?

Just wondering why liberals support this and liberals in the classic sense are centrists. If you are far left and claim to be liberal than you are really not liberal, u are a socialist. Is it democratic to rig your own primaries? I mean the root word for Democrat is Democracy right? Or mob rule? How can they be mob rule when the mob doesn't rule?

Just wondering what would you suggest to these liberals? Don't vote? Vote Republican? Try to change the system?

originally posted by: amfirst1
How can liberals support the Democrat party when they admitted that they can rig their own primaries because it is a private party?

Just wondering why liberals support this and liberals in the classic sense are centrists. If you are far left and claim to be liberal than you are really not liberal, u are a socialist. Is it democratic to rig your own primaries? I mean the root word for Democrat is Democracy right? Or mob rule? How can they be mob rule when the mob doesn't rule?

They like winning and that's the only way they can.

Cheat.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Ron Paul Openly Calls GOP Election Fraud

Ron paul, wasn't he a texan that ran for prez yrs ago?

Made a bunch of money off medicare or something?

originally posted by: intrepid
Ask Bernie supporters that question.

Easy... When it became abundantly clear that the will of the voters was being usurped through the use of B.S. Super delegates, I washed my hands of both major parties and voted for myself as a write in candidate.

Living in NY, all of our Electoral College votes were guaranteed to go to Hillary and not Trump. And Trump is as much of a Republican as I am a Martian so it's not as if I was wasting a vote by writing in my own name and it was the only legitimate form of protest against the duopoly of American politics that were forced to endure.

The system we have in place bares little resemblance to what the founding fathers envisioned and instead focuses on keeping all of us as divided as possible because were easier to control when it's an "us vs. them" attitude. Or in the parlance if Facebook and ATS, libtards vs fascists. It's too bad that as a society, complacency is far too commonplace so neither side can grasp simple concepts.

For example, Republicans aren't the gun toting child killing proponents that the more vocal parties on the left portray them as. You've got the entire gamut of conservative ideologies from RINO's like McCain to Tea Party flunkies like Palin and Bachman and then the rabid evangelical wing like Pence and the scarier evangelicals like Cruz who is in his own way, scary smart and even scarier religious.

Especially when his father believes he was ordained by God to rule America and bring us back to a time where women were subservient second class citizens and young earth creationism will be a primary part of public school curriculum in place of traditional Earth sciences like Geology and Biology.

And then the flip side of that is that anyone who isn't a foaming at the mouth rabid neocon is automatically a gun grabbing baby killer who wants to sneak into the homes of devoutly religious evangelical Christians and perform abortions on their woman folk while they're sleeping because anyone remotely left of center is a full on Communist memorizing everything written or espoused by Marx, Lenin and Che Guevera. All in spite if the fact that there is an equally wide gamut of ideologies espoused by members of the Democratic Party or liberal independents ranging from Democratic Socialists like Bernie to the goofy drunken Irish uncle like Biden to Hillary who in all honesty is essentially a neocon wearing the skin of a human pretending to be a democrat.

All the while, our overly complacent society focuses almost exclusively on these peripheral and meaningless moments of subtext and subterfuge whileand being entirely distracted from facts because each side is too busy pointing fingers and assessing blame. Meanwhile, both parties are globalists who use us as pathetic pawns in their game of Chess for self profit Because our own willful ignorance runs so deep that we think we are hating an opponent while the reality is that we are really hating and loathing the aspects of ourselves that we see in "them" and never for a moment can we take the blinders off and attempt to open our own eyes and see our own truths let alone our own failings and short comings. Because if we did that, we would find that there is far more that binds us together than there is that separates and divides us.

If we started to do that, then we would awaken en masse and finally realize that it is the money, the banks, the lobbyists and special interest groups and NGO's that are the real enemies here and not each other.

Too bad that even pretending that the truth is even a possibility let alone an inevitability is giving Americans far too much credit. Look at what's going on right now... There are 2 huge topics occupying everyone's minds. Guns/ the second amendment and Teumps failings as a man. He F@'d a porn star... Big deal. He did and does what every other narcissist with money does. Abuses his position and his power for his own gain. The only POTUS's in recent history that I can think of who didn't fall into that trap were Reagan, W. and Obama and I could write a half dozen books about their political failings.

Unfortunately, we as a nation, have the politicians in power that we deserve because we're lazy and complacent do allowed ourselves to be swayed by bull s# and eagerly ate it up and came back to the buffet for second helpings because they told us it was filet mignonette and lobster. Call it what you want but it's still a steaming pile of S# and nobody wants to admit they could be duped because part of the entire concept of America's Exceptionalism is self delusion.