The 2016 Democrat National Convention

[cm husker]

But, they could still vote for Bernie.

 

No one says they can't.

 

He just won't have the mechanisms of an organized national party working for him.

 

I agree they should be up front, but on a fundamental level you don't have to get a DNC or RNC nomination to run for president.

 

That's why I have problems with the "we were robbed of our democracy" claims. Bernie supporters can still vote for him. It was his choice to pull out.

 

The political parties are not constitutional democracies, as far as I know.

[knapplc]

 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2016/07/26/missing-topic-from-dnc-day-one-isis-n2197872

 

The missing topic from day 1 - ISIS and the Dem's plan to do something about it. It isn't their strong point and recent events are playing into the 'law and order candidate's" (Trump's words for himself) hands.

 

Also, I saw all of the emphasis on stopping TPP as though that will differentiate them from Trump - however, Trump doesn't like TPP either. It sounded like they wanted to take the Trump message of returning jobs to the USA and make it their own message last night. Correcting bad trade deals has been a cornerstone of Trump's campaign. TPP was negotiated under a Dem president - Obama, NAFTA was signed into law under Clinton (though started by GHWB) so the Dems are every bit as guilty of outsourcing jobs as the repubs have been.

 

As Bernie and Warren talked about all of the programs, I thought I was listening to a convention of the Democratic Socialist Party of America. I was wondering if there were any Lenin signs in the crowd. How does one pay for all of these proposals but to replace one burden for another ( example burden to pay for tuition wt the higher tax burden). Yes, this is the most 'progressive' platform in the party's history and to me that is not a good thing. Communism is mighty progressive also. Is that over the top Maybe but one step leads to another and this party is led by the 1960's radicals of my youth. Ok I'll get off of my and stop my

Sorry about quoting myself but maybe I wasn't so 'over the top' after all (why doesn't this surprise me):

 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/dnc-convention-2016-soviet-flags-palestinian-flag-no-us-flags/

 

 

The dude in the gray shorts is wearing a US Flag bandana. There's a US flag visible to the left of the shoulder strap of the guy in the foreground.

 

Maybe the real question is, how long did they have to search before they found an image where it was really hard to see American flags in the Bernie march? That's all this is.

 

 

For example, I spent 30 seconds looking at Trump rally pics from Cleveland. Scandal! There's no flag in this picture!!!

 

[cm husker]

I'm sorry, but flying a soviet flag demonstrates a scandalous level of ignorance.

 

Just like seeing confederate flags at RNC events, seeing the flag that stands for state-sanctioned genocide, mass murder and totalitarianism causes me to lose all respect for the group flying it, and a lot of respect for those who allow it to be flown.

[cm husker]

I don't care if you fly an American flag. But I do care if you fly flags that represent things I find detestable.

[BigRedBuster]

But, they could still vote for Bernie.

 

No one says they can't.

 

He just won't have the mechanisms of an organized national party working for him.

 

I agree they should be up front, but on a fundamental level you don't have to get a DNC or RNC nomination to run for president.

 

That's why I have problems with the "we were robbed of our democracy" claims. Bernie supporters can still vote for him. It was his choice to pull out.

 

The political parties are not constitutional democracies, as far as I know.

But, that's not all that was happening. The party should be staying out of the propaganda between the two. Instead, the party was feeding negative propaganda to the press about Bernie.

That influences the masses to vote for one over the other.

 

Let me put it this way, would you think it's OK now if it came out next February that the Federal Election Commission was working behind the scenes to get Hillary elected instead of Trump? (or visa versa).

[zoogs]

As I said in a previous post, they are perfectly legal and able to do what ever they want and say what ever they want behind the scenes.

The issue should be with their voters. They put out the perception that.."OK, we are going to run a primary and give anyone who signs up for our party, a fair chance for you to vote to see who you want to represent you in the general election".

 

The entire thing is a sham.

I agree with this - mostly - but the issue is with how we've come to regard primaries over the years as an instrument of our very democracy, and not as a private organization's nomination process.

 

We talked about this a lot this primary season. Parties do want candidates who can win the national election, so putting them through the paces confers a useful legitimacy. Over time, the dog-and-pony show, as it were, becomes less of a focus group consultation and more of a public utility: parties run them as a public service and an open invitation for anyone to try for a hostile takeover. If they can't, complain that the system screwed the people.

 

The U.S. does not have a particularly sane or healthy system in this respect compared to the UK, IMO. I mean, if we want to have run-offs, then let's actually have national run-offs. Simple. Open. And not a bad idea.

[cm husker]

What if trump had decided to run as a D? Or David Duke? Should party officials (representatives who are paid to represent and guard the interests of a party) been required to give them an equal shake?

 

The FEC is a totally different animal than a national political party. I don't consider that analogous in the least.

 

I'll just say this, I wish the powers that be had forced the RNC into a more responsible choice than Trump. Unfortunately that entire field was bereft of adult thinkers. Except maybe kasich and bush and they both ran weak campaigns.

 

I wish the RNC has been less unbiased and had favored them more.

 

We need some adults pushing back this populist tide. I sincerely feel that way.

 

Not saying the DNC officials were motivated by that rather than personal payoffs and favors though.

[BigRedBuster]

 

As I said in a previous post, they are perfectly legal and able to do what ever they want and say what ever they want behind the scenes.

The issue should be with their voters. They put out the perception that.."OK, we are going to run a primary and give anyone who signs up for our party, a fair chance for you to vote to see who you want to represent you in the general election".

 

The entire thing is a sham.

I agree with this - mostly - but the issue is with how we've come to regard primaries over the years as an instrument of our very democracy, and not as a private organization's nomination process.

 

We talked about this a lot this primary season. Parties do want candidates who can win the national election, so putting them through the paces confers a useful legitimacy. Over time, the dog-and-pony show, as it were, becomes less of a focus group consultation and more of a public utility: parties run them as a public service and an open invitation for anyone to try for a hostile takeover. If they can't, complain that the system screwed the people.

 

The U.S. does not have a particularly sane or healthy system in this respect compared to the UK, IMO. I mean, if we want to have run-offs, then let's actually have national run-offs. Simple. Open. And not a bad idea.

 

I agree. They are private organizations and they are allowed (within certain legal guidelines) to run their organization as they see fit.

 

The real education needs to come to the public. The parties have done a masterful job of buffaloing so many people into thinking they are working for and representing THEM. When, in fact, they are just using them for power and money.

 

The really sad thing is, the party brain washes the masses, the masses give the party power......the rest of us are left with very little ability to truly launch and back a third party because the brainwashed masses have given these two parties so much power.

 

In a sane world, this revolution of emails would cause a revolt and the Democratic party and their primaries would lose one hell of a lot of power and ability to do what they do. Instead, there will be enough people blindly following along that somehow they will actually gain power over these people.

[BigRedBuster]

What if trump had decided to run as a D? Or David Duke? Should party officials (representatives who are paid to represent and guard the interests of a party) been required to give them an equal shake?

 

The FEC is a totally different animal than a national political party. I don't consider that analogous in the least.

 

I'll just say this, I wish the powers that be had forced the RNC into a more responsible choice than Trump. Unfortunately that entire field was bereft of adult thinkers. Except maybe kasich and bush and they both ran weak campaigns.

 

I wish the RNC has been less unbiased and had favored them more.

 

We need some adults pushing back this populist tide. I sincerely feel that way.

 

Not saying the DNC officials were motivated by that rather than personal payoffs and favors though.

I fully understand the FED and the DNC are two totally different animals. I almost added that to my post but it got way too long.

 

However, the brainwashed public doesn't view them as different. The vast majority of members of these parties believe the DNC (in this case) organized a fair and square primary system and presented two candidates for the public to decide on. That is the farthest from the truth. That's why I have said it's a total sham and a fraud.

[TGHusker]

 

 

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2016/07/26/missing-topic-from-dnc-day-one-isis-n2197872

 

The missing topic from day 1 - ISIS and the Dem's plan to do something about it. It isn't their strong point and recent events are playing into the 'law and order candidate's" (Trump's words for himself) hands.

 

Also, I saw all of the emphasis on stopping TPP as though that will differentiate them from Trump - however, Trump doesn't like TPP either. It sounded like they wanted to take the Trump message of returning jobs to the USA and make it their own message last night. Correcting bad trade deals has been a cornerstone of Trump's campaign. TPP was negotiated under a Dem president - Obama, NAFTA was signed into law under Clinton (though started by GHWB) so the Dems are every bit as guilty of outsourcing jobs as the repubs have been.

 

As Bernie and Warren talked about all of the programs, I thought I was listening to a convention of the Democratic Socialist Party of America. I was wondering if there were any Lenin signs in the crowd. How does one pay for all of these proposals but to replace one burden for another ( example burden to pay for tuition wt the higher tax burden). Yes, this is the most 'progressive' platform in the party's history and to me that is not a good thing. Communism is mighty progressive also. Is that over the top Maybe but one step leads to another and this party is led by the 1960's radicals of my youth. Ok I'll get off of my and stop my

Sorry about quoting myself but maybe I wasn't so 'over the top' after all (why doesn't this surprise me):

 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/dnc-convention-2016-soviet-flags-palestinian-flag-no-us-flags/

 

 

The dude in the gray shorts is wearing a US Flag bandana. There's a US flag visible to the left of the shoulder strap of the guy in the foreground.

 

Maybe the real question is, how long did they have to search before they found an image where it was really hard to see American flags in the Bernie march? That's all this is.

 

 

For example, I spent 30 seconds looking at Trump rally pics from Cleveland. Scandal! There's no flag in this picture!!!

 

 

Ok, I forgot to put on my microscope glasses to see those flags!!! Actually I agree wt CM - no problem not seeing the American flag - too much wrapping one self in the flag already in politics but I do have a problem wt people flying the flag that is antithetical to everything our country stands.

[Danny Bateman]

 

It's not an excuse. That's literally what's happening. Russia is attempting to meddle in the presidential election. Manafort worked to install a Russian handpicked president of Ukraine in the past. Russia loves Trump and Trump loves Russia.

 

You can turn a blind eye to that if you want.

 

Whether or not the DNC is competent is a different discussion.

So a world where 2 of the 3 (if not the top 2) world superpowers get along for the first time in ~70 years is a bad thing?

 

I don't know, but I think that I prefer it to the kind of relationship that HC would cultivate.

 

 

Way late (just got back from vacation), but...

 

Putin most likely views Trump as a purely destabilizing force. If he does find a way to back out of NATO and the EU, there are not large alliances to keep his unbridled quest for power in check.

 

Trump destabilizes Europe, Putin snatches as much power as he can, flatters Trump, grabs some more.

 

It's not that hard to envision. Putin would use him like a tool for his own benefit as much as Trump allows him to.

[HuskerNation1]

Perhaps Bill Clinton will change things tonight, but it appears that the Democratic party has lost touch with reality. Last week Obama gave a speech that stated that there is not that much violence or terrorism going on in the world right now, and what was stated at the RNC doesn't jive with the American people. Then yesterday in the first day of the DNC, there were 61 speeches, and not a single speech mentioned the words ISIS once. How does that happen? And now tonight the Dems are making a big push for Black Lives Matter including bringing Michael Brown's mom on stage...her son was shown to have been taking aggressive actions toward law enforcement, yet the Dems continue to push the narrative that the cops are bad. I am sure there are better examples of where it was 100% certain the cop was in the wrong, yet they are bringing up this toxic Ferguson racial incident to help get their black voters energized. I really don't know what the Democratic party stands for anymore.

[HuskerNation1]

Wasn't the Democrats goal of this week at the DNC to convey UNITY? It looks like Bernie's delegates have staged a walk out of the convention. I wonder if they will walk out in the middle of Kaine's speech tomorrow night. There is anything but unity right now among the Dems. I look for Jill Stein's numbers to possibly double as she's been around 3 or 4% in most polls to date.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/26/demexit-sanders-delegates-walk-convention-protest/

[zoogs]

The really sad thing is, the party brain washes the masses, the masses give the party power......the rest of us are left with very little ability to truly launch and back a third party because the brainwashed masses have given these two parties so much power.

Ah, we, the few and the sane, a merry enlightened band in a sea of lemmings! It's a comforting tale, but only that.

 

Parties consolidate support because when people organize to accomplish what they want. Then their opposers organize against them. People with issues preferences pick accordingly, hoping their elected officials start down a contrary path. It doesn't mean they're brainwashed or don't think. I'd argue they're quite rational actors as voters, really.

 

If a minor party becomes a behemoth, they will be beset by the same political attacks. Large organizations are cumbersome, and have self-serving powerbrokers. Fact. Please *do* pick a minor party because they champion your issues. Please *don't* fool yourself into thinking they're simply more noble.

 

In a world where all major parties are moderate and have platforms of baseline decency (I think the current LP does have the latter), I think a lot of us here would become a lot more apolitical. That is not this world.

[Danny Bateman]

Perhaps Bill Clinton will change things tonight, but it appears that the Democratic party has lost touch with reality. Last week Obama gave a speech that stated that there is not that much violence or terrorism going on in the world right now, and what was stated at the RNC doesn't jive with the American people. Then yesterday in the first day of the DNC, there were 61 speeches, and not a single speech mentioned the words ISIS once. How does that happen? And now tonight the Dems are making a big push for Black Lives Matter including bringing Michael Brown's mom on stage...her son was shown to have been taking aggressive actions toward law enforcement, yet the Dems continue to push the narrative that the cops are bad. I am sure there are better examples of where it was 100% certain the cop was in the wrong, yet they are bringing up this toxic Ferguson racial incident to help get their black voters energized. I really don't know what the Democratic party stands for anymore.

 

Let's not equate these mothers coming on stage and pleading for less death and more togetherness with pushing a "cops are bad" narrative.