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

a reply to: amfirst1

Well, not to nitpick or anything, but Bernie wasn't exactly a Democrat proper, he was a "Democratic Socialist," or whatever title he made up for himself.

There really were not a ton of Democrats jumping on the Bernie bandwagon, although they probably should have, because he was a more believable human being by far than that robot that lost to Trump.

But I think that distinction is why there wasn't a lot of outrage from the average Democrat (or even the knowledge that it actually happened)--they don't care because it wasn't their candidate.

Now, if the DNC and Sanders had colluded to rig the primary against Hillary, I bet that the outrage would have been deafening and swift.

Remember, the average voter is about as apathetic as a slug, so as long as it doesn't really affect their interests, who cares, right?

That happens on both sides, for sure, and I'd be willing to bet that similar things happened against, say, Rand Paul during the primary debates, but it just hasn't really been proven to the extent that this conspiracy against Bernie was.

The sad thing in the end, though, is that Bernie eventually went full-retard and started publicly applauding Clinton, pissing off his own supporters, so not only did Clinton and the DNC piss off his supporters, Sanders took the torch and did it himself, and in doing so, he betrayed many of his core political values.

It's all a dog and pony show, and always has been...Clinton and the DNC just happened to get caught this time. It's blatantly obvious that Hillary Clinton is very sloppy.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: Swills

What does refusing corporate donations have to do with justice?

Playing word games again, I see. Counting on your target audience to be stupid as s#.

"Let's throw the word 'justice' in there! Everybody likes justice! Free justice for everyone!"

I don't think you understood Swill's post.

"Justice Democrats" it the actual, factual name of a political movement. No word games, no semantics from Swill. You would know that if you had clicked the link he/she provided. Try it, here it is again.

Justice Democrats

The Republican party wanted to Jeb Bush as the nominee. They planned everything around getting Jeb through the primaries. Trump was a wild card that was not anticipated, so their manipulation wasn't as effective. The leftist media coverage helped Trump immensely.

What was interesting though was how Trump knew the typical right voter had illegal immigration as a hot button issue. Remember, the traditional GOP candidates all supported illegal immigration. It wasn't until Trump came along that he forced the issue.

The right tried to cover up their manipulation by including other candidates who really were there to suck votes away from guys like Ted Cruz. The Democrats were more open with their manipulation by basically only putting forth Hillary.

a reply to: NthOther

Well, you're making no sense. All I can gather is that you want to attack me so I'll just end our convo here.

a reply to: MostlyReading

I'm a He, and you are correct. I too told him to actually read up on them but all he wants to do is attack me. Typical, really.

To be fair, there is not much to choose from. I'm just surprised that even after all the election rigging, the debate cheating, the evidence destroying, the lying and conniving, the DNC is still in business and going strong. Due to corruption, democrats need a new governing body for their party.

originally posted by: crtrvt
It is important to realize that both "the Democrats are bad and need fixing" and "the Republicans are far, far worse" are true statements that can coexist.

The DNC isn't far from being a full fledged communist party, so I fail to see how the GOP is "far, far worse".

a reply to: Thejoncrichton

You can pretty much chalk up statements like that to heavy bias and the "sports team" attitude.

Frankly, anything you (or anyone) says that questions it will place you squarely in the camp of the opposing team.

I really don't know how we can all work past that, but I do feel its important. Not only that, but in learning how to effectively and meaningfully interact with those of a conflicting bias could lead us to a society that is more capable of taking in the big picture.

Bias used to grasp the totality of circumstances, instead of prevent it, would be a helluva thing to see.. and arguably more likely than eradicating bias altogether.

Bernie isn't even a Democrat, he's an independent. I am surprised that a person who is not a member of the Democrat party was allowed to be in a Democratic primary anyhow.

originally posted by: Swills
a reply to: jjkenobi

Proof? Well, I haven't looked into the 2012 subject since then so I have nothing. Ron Paul stated in that video at the time he had no proof but was still very suspicious. Ron wasn't accepted by the GOP, just like Trump, but unlike Trump, Ron didn't have the name recognition that Trump did nor did he have the full support of the right wing media, like Fox News and such.

But in all fairness, if Ron Paul would have pulled his pants down at every other rally, or did something equally as crazy, the news would have reported on it, giving him the name recognition Trump got. I fully believe that is how Trump did what he did. Perhaps not going full monte, but doing things equally as crazy. It's why I don't call him stupid. He knows how to play the game as good as anyone.

It's a shame.

The democratic party holds a primary to give the illusion of competition. In reality, they control it with super delegates. There is no way to win, unless they want the candidate to win. Sanders never had a chance.

It makes me wonder how Obama got traction to beat Clinton the first time around. Surely she was the chosen one back then...he's the anomaly.

The Republicans, to their credit, don't have super delegates.

a reply to: Swills

I supported Ron Paul too, then this time I was all in for Trump seeing that all sides were attacking him lead me to believe he is not one of them.

However, the rigging which is done by both sides. The Democrats are on a whole different level of rigging. I mean they are pretty blatant like in your face blatant and that you can't do anything about it. It's almost insulting. On the GOP side you can still win through the rigging if you have big enough support, but on the Dems, u got no chance unless the political elites give u the OK.

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).

a reply to: Edumakated

Trump knew the issues because he has always been a economic Nationalist. I mean he is not full conservative but a hybrid also he follows Drudge so he has a good pulse of what people are thinking. Drudge provides a variety of viewpoints, so anyone who follows him would understand the climate and thoughts of the average person.

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.

a reply to: amfirst1

I was under the impression that Drudge was a conservative pundit/news source.

I am not aware of any of my liberal compatriots that read/frequent it.

Perhaps a more accurate statement would be that Drudge represents the climate and thoughts of the average conservative.

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).

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).

You have a point, but...

If the Democrats aren't appealing to the far left or progressives, but the Republicans are...that spells trouble for the future.

Say what you will about him, but Trump appeals to the Republican base, especially the far right. As does mike Pence.

Hillary, did not appeal to the far left.

I can see how a good democratic candidate could win, but it's an uphill battle. Easily avoidable by overhauling the democratic party to appeal to progressives and anyone who doesn't like shady, unethical behavior.

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

a reply to: Wayfarer

Drudge is actually a gay guy. But his site has a lot of left leaning views too. He basically reports what is hot for the day. Just because he also allows right and independent news coverage on his site does not make him far right. He gives leftists just a big as a platform. I would say 50/50 coverage. So it's funny when people claim that it's a right wing site.

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: Wayfarer

Drudge is actually a gay guy. But his site has a lot of left leaning views too. He basically reports what is hot for the day. Just because he also allows right and independent news coverage on his site does not make him far right. He gives leftists just a big as a platform. I would say 50/50 coverage. So it's funny when people claim that it's a right wing site.

I genuinely was unaware that he presented an apparent equitable distribution of views. I'll have to check it out for myself it seems.