Forums / Discussion / General

Democrats did suppress votes, though that was with the primary
other than gerrymandering I'm pretty sure it's the reps who generally do the suppression in the actual election

democrats did not suppress votes in the primary

They just shout this conspiracy theory with never any proof from a reliable source, and blogs don't count as reliable sources.

Back to the Post Office, the USPS Inspector General is now looking into Louis DeJoy's shenanigans.

Good thing, too.

Why suppress votes when you can just turn your machine against the non chosen? Or conveniently ignore your own rules when it's some billionaire that decides to run last minute?

it wasn't on purpose
no rules were changed.

Yeah brrent, unless it’s cnn it’s just a baseless conspiracy theory

While not on the same scale, to pretend Democrats do not interfere in elections is disingenuous.

Different means, same ends.

You do realize that reactionary means right wing don't you?

I've only ever seen him use it in response to attacks from the left, and he ignored me when I asked him this before
so no, I don't think he does

well yes and no. You are spreading right wing propaganda, but, I mean it in the sense that you post your immediate knee-jerk reaction without ever actually analyzing what you say.

>You are spreading right wing propaganda
You do realize the left hates the democrats right?
and facts aren't propaganda

yes, and correct

Anyone here see that the Proud Boys marched in protest down in Portland and even fired a gun yet no riot gear in sight?

Shocking
/s

25% of 18- to 24-year-olds,
19% of Hispanics,
15% of blacks,
22% of essential workers, and
31% of unpayed caregivers for adults

have "seriously considered suicide" in the past 30 dayshttps://t.co/DcK2dQK0ui pic.twitter.com/K8hQMh6O5N

— Joshua Benton (@jbenton) August 15, 2020

How elevated are those suicide ideation levels?

In 2018, 4.3% of Americans reported seriously considering suicide in the previous 12 months.

These numbers are for the previous 30 days. pic.twitter.com/sw6CArqQFW

— Joshua Benton (@jbenton) August 15, 2020

Yet another reason we need universal healthcare

IIRC its one of those words whose original meaning could be applied to any side; in this case as long as they were trying to revet to a previous state; but misuse has given an association with the right wing exclusively.

I think in the context of Western Liberalism reactionary tends to be one step beyond conservatism, in that it often seeks to bring back an older (often illiberal – monarchist/absolutist) form of government. However, in the context of places like Russia, there is a significant faction of reactionaries trying to bring back the USSR. The term itself was brought about the French Revolution though, and has been effectively associated with "right wing politics".

To be honest, I'm kind of exhausted and over the orthodoxy of political classification that was born out of the French Revolution, and is deeply rooted to the political divisions on the European continent 200+ years ago! Hell, even the left-right spectrum that was born out of the French Revolution in reality has little to no meaning in the American sense compared to European model.

Already given you many examples pooch
but you ignore them

you didn't.

Really is a shame Biden said he'd veto it

One of the many reasons I’m not voting for him

no, he supports universal healthcare, thats what obamacare/ACA is. Its single payer that he's against.
universal healthcare and single payer are different things.

I think people are exhausted arguing with someone who has a tendency to dismiss things that aren't hyper-literal examples, fixated on explicit definition of what is being discussed, despite the fact that most of us seem to understand the bigger picture here, the implicit words we use. I can understand that from your position until someone literally stuffs the ballots, or fidgets the numbers, you can make an argument that the primary wasn't fixed.

But that's not what we're talking about. First off both parties are actively engaged in what is considered an invisible primary. That is, the parties push a lot of insider resources, whether that is monetary, communications, etc, towards a particular candidate they want to see.

But more specifically, what everyone here is pointing out is this:

The DNC was bankrupt in 2016, and took large sums of money from Clinton, which was ethically and morally wrong.

According to the leaked Wikileaks emails, the DNC took active measures in deriding Bernie Sanders constantly, undermining his campaign.The staffers actively went to undermine his campaign in 2016

This led to the forced resignation of Debbie Washerman Schultz who was also responsible for disinviting Tulsi Gabbard from the primary debate. Who was adamant on maintaining the rules as long as they benefitted Hillary Clinton but more than happy to bend them when it was convinient to benefit Clinton we've seen Dona Brasil talk about how deep the interwoven relationship that Clinton had with the DNC.

And even in the 2020 election we've seen candidates completely snubbed. Unfair debates. Allowing last minute entry of Bloomberg and allowing him to debate after having other candidates forced out. And again an active campaign to snub Bernie Sanders as much as possible.

So yes poochy, no one is stuffing ballots, or changing the numbers.
But what all of us are referring to is the deliberate, and active engagement of the DNC to do everything they can to make sure that t he candidate of their preference is the one that wins.

That is what I think (I hope I am not wrong when I speak for us) we all mean. This is what we mean by the primary being fixed. That every other candidate has a literal boulder to push up a hill, while all Biden had to do is what he is doing now: bunker down and remain out of the spotlight too long.

>That is, the parties push a lot of insider resources, whether that is monetary, communications, etc, towards a particular candidate they want to see.

And that isn't cheating or unfair. There is nothing wrong with DNC members to voice support for one candidate over another.

>And even in the 2020 election we've seen candidates completely snubbed.

Who?

>Unfair debates.

unfair how?

>Allowing last minute entry of Bloomberg and allowing him to debate after having other candidates forced out.

so giving more candidates a chance to debate is bad now? The ones "forced out" had their chance and failed.

>And again an active campaign to snub Bernie Sanders as much as possible.

They did literally every single thing bernie asked for in 2020. removed super delegates, changed iowa's voting system (which is why they had so many problems!), removed caucus voting in some states. There were no excuses.

>active engagement of the DNC to do everything they can to make sure that t he candidate of their preference is the one that wins.

Which is no where near the same as rigging the election. Guess what? There are pro-bernie DNC members too. Its part of the game to gain support amount party officials.
Its SUCH a stupid arguement too because Trump was HATED by every establishment republican, but he won. No excuse for bernie.

Ideally it is not up to the DNC staffers to determine or prioritize a candidate over another. If we're going to make the case that the people of the country should determine the best candidate, then it shouldn't be up to the staffers to undermine a candidate that people may prefer.

The DNC constantly changed it's rules about the participation in debates. Not clarifying it's own rules until last minute keeping certain people like Governor Bullok out. Or when Tulsi Gabbard pointed out the DNC changed the criteria of which polls they'd accept for qualification to debate in the second debate. Constantly moving the goal post so she wouldn't be able to debate. They did the same with Andrew Yang changing the rules a day after he met the criteria to debate.

During the debates Andrew Yang, along with Marianne Williamson and Eric Swalwell, complained of microphone problems not allowing them to speak unless called upon when other candidates seemed to be able to freely interject at all times. In the 5th debate it took a full 32 minutes before Yang was even allowed to speak, and he was consistently given far less time to speak than other candidates. Or when the moderator for the seventh debate asked Elizabeth Warren about Bernie Sanders and I quote ""Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?"" despite the fact that literally a minute before Bernie Sanders denied this occurred.

>so giving more candidates a chance to debate is bad now?
Yes. In January, Michael Bloomberg became the only candidate to simultaneously reach the polling threshold and fail to reach the donor threshold since the DNC began requiring both with the third debate. When you're literally bending the rules for preferential treatment that's literally bad. I don't really know how you could justify it – unless you don't give a damn about any consistency, rules, or fairness and believe that the ends always justify the means.

>Which is no where near the same as rigging the election. Guess what?

I repeat: you have a tendency to take things in a hyper literal frame. Unless it is literally someone fidgeting the numbers, or outright changing the outcome of an election you view it as perfectly okay. That the establishment at the DNC would do everything they can to make it as difficult as they can for certain candidates over others doesn't both you – it's not literally rigging. That certain candidates were treated entirely unfairly, and others were privileged – effectively spitting in the face of the electorate that is supposed to, ideally, have some say in who they choose, is perfectly fine in your eyes. Well to other people, most people, if the process is unfair, if the environment that these candidates are acting is in inherently unfair, to those people, to many of us, it is rigged.

So yes. We get it. It's not rigging in the most literal sense of the word. But for all of the people who genuinely want a fair, balanced, and democratic approach to the selection process, this is an insult. It's not just Bernie. The whole system is openly, blatantly, corrupt. It makes it increasingly difficult to have faith in the process.

And that Trump was able to get the nomination despite the GOP establishment being vehemently against him says more about the fairness of the GOP over the DNC in their nominee process.

oh look, more evidence to show i'm right about this

Tom Perez tells @AP that the 2020 caucuses should be the last the party ever holds. https://t.co/O58BeNKYsO

— Christopher Cadelago (@ccadelago) August 17, 2020

That says nothing

btw, Bernie Sanders is speaking at the DNC convention today. They sure out there to silence him, huh?

By giving karsick 45 minutes to speak, and shunning actual progressives the Dnc continues to show there is only one political ideology allowed in power in the us

>shunning actual progressives

lol, Bernie isn't an actual progressive anymore? Or you gonna say bernie was shunned by… giving him a full speaking time slot?

At the risk of being banned I want to say to you
Fuck you you dishonest, feckless, evasive, stuck up, smug, unprincipled, aimless, self-sucking, shit-eating, piece of garbage.
Sorry for not contributing to the conservation, cunt.

In what can only be described as blatant virtue signaling and comically ironic, Trump has issued a posthumous pardon for Susan B. Anthony for the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment.

Now if only he was clever, he would've pardoned Snowden
then again I highly doubt they'd let that happen

Cant pardon snowden as he's got no charges filed against him.

A good question is why didnt any president do it earlier, seems like a no brainer really for some cheap cred.

Trump administration is using a private security company to detain migrant children at hotels.

So you mean they're actually not using cages?

I guess he is different from obama after all

Volume 5 of the Senate Intel Report has been released today, and it is scathing.

A summary.

Sexism is over

checking in on the dem convention pic.twitter.com/IYqPOlKHa7

— jordan (@JordanUhl) August 18, 2020

How does it keep getting worse. After Kasich and Klobuchar I can't believe it keeps getting worse.

And it’s just gonna go downhill from here
thsi is what happens when we let the elites tell us what to do

Not sure if they are just high as hell off of Boomer Energy

or

they realize that they are going to lose 2020 so why even bother?

Nah, they want trump to win, 4 more years they can ignore progressives and champion “all that matters is beating trump”