Does the word "fixed" have any meaning in regard to a Political Party's actions? Should it?

Much ado has been made over the ongoing fringe theory that somehow Bernie Sanders was "cheated" or that the Primary-Caucus process was "fixed" in the 2016 Democratic nominating process.

These are clearly statements of pure emotion, but we shouldn't disregard them or discount them out of hand.

The Two-Party system in the US is not featured in our Constitution. President Washington in his Farewell Address counseled us AGAINST political parties.

Sadly, upon the inauguration of John Adams, we saw some of the very worst political polarization in our history displayed in the Alien and Sedition Acts, sponsored, notably, by a President and his allies in Congress. (Sound familiar?)

Thankfully, the Republic survived, and has continued on through our history mostly intact -- certainly not exactly what the Founders initiated, but still, intact.

Why do I say that? The idea of Party is completely inimical to the idea of the Republic ... out of many, one nation ... etc.

Back to the Democratic nomination process in 2016.

Bernie Sanders is and always has been a left-leaning Independent who has "caucused" with the Democrats on most issues.

He was not and is not a Democrat. He became a Democrat only for the short period of time he was running for the nomination.

Now, what do we know happened in 2016? It came to light last week that the election of 2012 had basically left the DNC deep in debt.

An agreement came to light between the Clinton campaign and the DNC that the debt would be cleared and operating funds would be provided by the Hillary campaign to the DNC in exchange for some controls over how that money was spent.

That's it. Secret or not, that's the "big scandal." The DNC was broke, and Clinton bailed it out.

In terms of "Sanders being cheated" ... how did that happen again? That requires some action against Sanders (yes, I know that DWS and company wrote a few nasty little emails) that was taken to diminish his equal chances?

What were those? Was he excluded from any debates? Was he kept off of Primary or Caucus ballots? Were votes illegally attributed to Clinton that were cast for Sanders? Were the election totals fraudulent?

No ... we have zero evidence of any of that happening.

Well, some would argue, there were superdelgates that were "in the bag" for Clinton. Yes, there were. The DNC has the right to set up its nominating process as it wishes. Sanders was aware of the existence of Superdelegates when he "joined" the party for a few months.

As I have argued this across several threads ... it became clear to me that a basic understanding of what a Primary or Caucus is seems to be lacking on the part of many ... these are PARTY elections.

They are intended for members of a political PARTY to voice their opinions for a certain candidate. The fact that party leaders are involved and have a disproportionate effect on the outcome is not unethical or illegal or even questionable ... because those factors are functions of the TWO PARTY SYSTEM.

The Two Party system is the issue.

Yet, the Two Party system is unavoidable under our Constitution The First Amendment guarantees a right to association.

So how do we defeat a system that we all in our guts know is not in the best interests of the American people?

a reply to: Gryphon66

So how do we defeat a system that we all in our guts know is not in the best interests of the American people?

Set aside or completely put down partisan bullsnip and start over. For lack of a better term at the moment, the peoples party or something like that.

How much cash did the DNC occupy from Sanders supporters, do you happen to know?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

So how do we defeat a system that we all in our guts know is not in the best interests of the American people?

Put away the poop slingers and actually start discussing it?

a reply to: JinMI

a reply to: Bone75

Put away the partisanship. Fair enough. How do we do that? We are continually innundated by media that supports that system.

How much did Sanders raise for the DNC? /shrug

According to this site he raised around 228 million and spent about that much.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Looks like he spent half a mil more than he brought in, so maybe that's a moot point. Even still, after he lost, he tossed his hat in with HRC.

Media is good for one thing, destruction. Soon it will be time to build. Build something bigger, better than what exists now. A counterbalance to the madness that has swept over the west. How? I do not know.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Gryphon66

Looks like he spent half a mil more than he brought in, so maybe that's a moot point. Even still, after he lost, he tossed his hat in with HRC.

Media is good for one thing, destruction. Soon it will be time to build. Build something bigger, better than what exists now. A counterbalance to the madness that has swept over the west. How? I do not know.

I'm afraid that I do know the answer, and it will not contribute to our continued evolution.

Example: how many people (on any political side) would say that the press that supports "the other side" should be made illegal, because "all they do is lie."

Example: how many people would agree that "political parties should be done away with" because "all they do is lie."

That's over half of the First Amendment struck right there.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't believe that off the cuff statistic to be accurate but for argument sake, let's go with it. It's a problem and one that can be remedied with education. Also it begs the free market for a proper alternative. Something to be built.

Sensationalism in media won't come to an end by laws. Only by folks choice.

ahahahahaha
hahahahaha

now the dems cheating sanders is BOTH parties fault?

ahahahhah

hillary is that you?

if the dems had an HONEST process you wouldnt have to make bs excuse threads like this

by all means keep this up tho
you people will ensure the end of the dnc

originally posted by: shooterbrody
ahahahahaha
hahahahaha

now the dems cheating sanders is BOTH parties fault?

ahahahhah

hillary is that you?

if the dems had an HONEST process you wouldnt have to make bs excuse threads like this

by all means keep this up tho
you people will ensure the end of the dnc

Congratulations on clearly demonstrating a big part of the problem.

Now, any thoughts toward the topic of how we can overcome/diminish the power/impact of political parties in the US?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't believe that off the cuff statistic to be accurate but for argument sake, let's go with it. It's a problem and one that can be remedied with education. Also it begs the free market for a proper alternative. Something to be built.

Sensationalism in media won't come to an end by laws. Only by folks choice.

What "off the cuff" statistic are you talking about?

Remedied with education? How? In the public school system? In the private school system which is split between religious schools and schools for the children of the elite?

Begs the "free market" for a solution to what? The media? Political parties?

a reply to: Gryphon66

a big problem is pointing out yoyr bs partisan BOTH do it spin???

get a clue
get the crap out of your party
quit blaming everthing BUT hillary

jesus even warren spoke out against this bs

you need another break

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66

a big problem is pointing out yoyr bs partisan BOTH do it spin???

get a clue
get the crap out of your party
quit blaming everthing BUT hillary

jesus even warren spoke out against this bs

you need another break

And now you want to talk about me. Please stop the off-topic nonsense.

I wouldn't say the primary was 'rigged'. I would say Hillary had an unfair advantage because of her financial agreement with the DNC. It's possible that she still would have won the primary without that advantage but we will never know. Can that advantage be quantified into how many voters might have voted for Bernie if it had been a true level playing field? The number of debates was limited apparently in an effort to prevent giving him coverage and air time to attack her positions. How many people would have voted differently in the primary if they had seen more debating?

a reply to: Khaleesi

Bernie raised funds for the DNC as well. I'll still be glad for any concrete evidence toward proving that Clinton's arrangement to fund the DNC changed anything for Sanders.

But that's only the point-of-departure. I think we all agree that the two main political parties in this country are corrupt.

That corruption is no better or worse when one side is "caught" doing it.

The topic here is how can we make a difference in defeating these power structures without tearing down our Constitution in the process.

Or, that's what I wanted to talk about, anyway.

a reply to: Gryphon66

how much is hillary paying you to spew this nonsense?

the gop didnt cheat
trump won
the gop didnt want him to

the dnc GAVE hillary CONTROL of the party a year before she won

nothing wrong with that eh?

alex jones now has more credibility than you

a reply to: Gryphon66

Your whole thing is lost by one single point. The people. It doesn't matter if it's legal, up to them, ect. They are a political party and machine, they rely on the opinions and feeling of their voters. Super-delegates and their party act against the wishes of their base at their peril. The fact that many super-delegates were in the bag for Hillary did not and does not set well with a large portion of the democratic base that supported Bernie. He did not get a fair shake, legal be damned, this is not about legality, it is about right and wrong and the opinions of the voters, aka citizens that ultimately decide all this in the end that matters. You gain nothing by arguing the legality of it, as it has jack and # to do with legality but wrong underhanded corrupt bull#.

This is why the democratic party is imploding it forgot that real people where important, and people are waking up to how non important they are to the party.

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: Gryphon66

So how do we defeat a system that we all in our guts know is not in the best interests of the American people?

Put away the poop slingers and actually start discussing it?

This!

It should not take tons of money to run for POTUS in a modern world where information flows cheaply thanks to the internet.

For example, anyone wanting to run for POTUS could just submit a resumé made available on the internet (and alternately accessible to those without internet).

Then via a primary election the list of candidates is narrowed down to a handful -- like 10-20 candidates. All 50 states on the same day. Those candidates select running mates.

Then all those candidates answer a series of essay questions on policy positions, personal background, etc.

Then we have debates between them.

Then we vote.

...or something like that. I am sure what I have come up with can be greatly improved by others' input. But, we do need to discuss an alternative system rather than focus on slinging poop *two party style*.

I don't see why we need or should even want political party involvement when the process could have so much more integrity.

Maybe the whole Sanders running as a Democrat was a "pre-fix"?

Sanders and the DNC and the Clinton Campaign already knew that many Sanders voters couldn't even vote in primaries because the deadlines for registering as a Democrat were going to be missed.

Has anybody studied the states requirements vs the possible results ?

a reply to: xuenchen

Well, that would be a win-win for the DNC & Hillary. They get a bunch of newly registered Democrat voters but not enough to deliver Bernie the win.

Dirty tricks but nothing illegal.

More reason to want to end this political party nightmare.

a reply to: Puppylove

Perhaps the Dems are imploding, perhaps not. I do agree that neither party acts on behalf of the people.