The 2016 Democrat National Convention

[AFhusker]

 

 

For the Bernie fans out there.....has he ever said how he proposes to pay for all that massive new spending he would like to see? Trump or Clinton are scary enough but Sanders, he would be the worst of them. So glad he didn't get the nomination. That would've forced me into doing something very distasteful. Pretty concerning if he is influencing the dem platform.

 

First of all, he would obviously not ever be able to achieve his more outlandish ideas because the President doesn't have that kind of unchecked power.

 

However, this confuses me a little. Very consistently (and admirably, I think), you're frustrated and calling out the hypocrisy and the lack of integrity we're finding in both national parties, with hardly any kind of reference of any kind to actual policy. But then there's Bernie, who might be crazy with policy that he'll never be able to enact, but by all public accounts has been a consistent champion for the less fortunate in our country, isn't indebted to massive donors or to wall street, and seems pretty high up on the integrity list, but in his case you mostly only seem to look at "that idea is cuckoo".

 

What's the deal there? This isn't any kind of accusation or agression btw, just genuinely confused.

There's no deal, I just have various problems with each of them. Trump and Clinton have serious character flaws and just aren't likeable. Trump hasn't actually proposed any real policies, just rhetoric. Clinton is a liar and cheat and is a good example of what's wrong with our system. But Bernie is very likeable and says a lot of the right things. Problem is his policies aren't realistically acheivable. I don't disagree with him but damn, you can't give away everything he wants to the poor, give tax relief to the middle class, institute huge amounts of new spending, and expect all of that to be paid by the top 5%. It's just bad math. My comment about him being the worst is not about his character but rather his straight up socialist approach and utopian dreaming.

 

Well said.

[BigRedBuster]

I had to laugh at the whole Bernie being booed thing last night.

 

Come on dude. You spend months getting your followers all worked up and in a lather. Then, the day after proof of everything you have been preaching about is proved to be true, you then try to tell them to vote FOR the corrupt group you railed against?

What the hell do you expect???

[AFhusker]

Tax increases, mostly at the top, but also in general. The way most things get paid for. We can afford it, of course, which isn't the same as saying it's the best idea, or that it stood any chance of passing, or that it was going to be the panacea he wanted it to be.

 

I don't think it's a crazy idea by any means, though. I especially think his campaign was too high on ideology (good one as it may be) and too low on attention paid to policy detail. I hesitate to compare him to Trump on the latter regard, as that's some next level policy ignorance going on there.

 

Anyway. I'm very glad Bernie didn't get nominated either, so perhaps I'm not the best to give an answer.

Both sides are guilty of this as they promise the world to get elected, either fail to get it passed because they aren't realistic, they don't try, or flip flop after they are elected on the topic. Then they blame the other party for nothing getting done in an attempt to get reelected. The two latest examples are gun laws when the Dems sat in protest on the Senate floor. Well if they cared so much about the issue, why didn't they pass those laws in Obama's first two years when they had the 60 votes to pass anything they wanted and a President who would sign it off in a heartbeat? The next one will likely be Hillary if elected will sign TPP into law. She was for it, now is against it because nobody wants it on either side, but I fully expect her to go back to her original stance when the idea was first introduced.

 

With a little research we could find the same situation from the Republican side. The latest are Democrat because they have the white house.

[knapplc]

 

Tax increases, mostly at the top, but also in general. The way most things get paid for. We can afford it, of course, which isn't the same as saying it's the best idea, or that it stood any chance of passing, or that it was going to be the panacea he wanted it to be.

 

I don't think it's a crazy idea by any means, though. I especially think his campaign was too high on ideology (good one as it may be) and too low on attention paid to policy detail. I hesitate to compare him to Trump on the latter regard, as that's some next level policy ignorance going on there.

 

Anyway. I'm very glad Bernie didn't get nominated either, so perhaps I'm not the best to give an answer.

Both sides are guilty of this as they promise the world to get elected, either fail to get it passed because they aren't realistic, they don't try, or flip flop after they are elected on the topic. Then they blame the other party for nothing getting done in an attempt to get reelected. The two latest examples are gun laws when the Dems sat in protest on the Senate floor. Well if they cared so much about the issue, why didn't they pass those laws in Obama's first two years when they had the 60 votes to pass anything they wanted and a President who would sign it off in a heartbeat? The next one will likely be Hillary if elected will sign TPP into law. She was for it, now is against it because nobody wants it on either side, but I fully expect her to go back to her original stance when the idea was first introduced.

 

With a little research we could find the same situation from the Republican side. The latest are Democrat because they have the white house.

 

Yes, that is exactly what happens. Obama with Guantanamo is another example that pops directly to mind. It's why "campaign promises" are a cliche.

[AFhusker]

 

 

 

JJ, you're aware that the Democratic party is a private organization, and not the actual government, right?

 

This isn't remotely like Watergate. It's the Panama Papers.

Correct. From what I have seen anyway, the things in the emails are perfectly legal for the DNC to be talking about. However, it should show their members something very disturbing in the behind the scenes operations of a political party. And...for the record.....The Republicans should feel very uneasy about this too.

 

This is what happens in political parties. It's a bunch of total scum bags that really don't give a flying rip about you or me. All they care about is that person who can raise 1,000,000 for the party and how can we beat the other party (no matter if is't morally right or not).

 

I will 102.73% guarantee that, were the RNC emails hacked, there would be similar conversations about Trump. Like Bernie, Trump is an outsider to the party who usurped the primaries and diverted them from what the party wanted. Unlike Bernie, Trump actually won.

 

Just because Trump won doesn't mean the Republican party is happy about it, and didn't try to prevent it.

 

Let's not kid ourselves.

 

How about we wait until the RNC actually gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar also before we use that to excuse the actual transgressions of the ones who did get caught this time? And, if you're right about the RNC not wanting Trump (like you probably are), does that make what the DNC did any better? No, it doesn't. Once again, two wrongs don't make a right. My point isn't that the repubs are better but rather that both national parties are not worthy of anyone's support.

 

These things so often seem to go against the R's and in favor of the D's. Surely, you wouldn't begrudge anyone the opportunity to present the other side of the coin when it appears.

 

The problem here is that it makes the DNC look hypocritical when it comes to support of minorities and speaking out against corruption in Washington. They can't go to their usual game plan of trying to win over minorities by calling the GOP racist, at least for this election.

 

To me that was the funniest part last night that they were trying to get people to believe that Hilary would fix the corruption in Washington when she is the shining example of being corrupt. That was just as bad when they try to say that she would also fix the flawed criminal justice system because it doesn't work. Once again she is a prime example that and I am quoting Warren here that the system works for those "who are elite and guilty than poor and innocent." Warren was right, and Hillary would be in jail if that wasn't the case. They also try to say that she would push back and control Wall Street and anyone who has paid attention knows that isn't going to happen. It was also funny when Warren said that she was scared that the American Dream was in danger of dying by not being allowed to have your hard work payoff and lead to success because of corruption. Then the next person to speak was Senator Bernie Sanders...that is the definition of irony right there.

 

It was also obvious that the RNC didn't want Trump and would have loved to sabotaged him so he wouldn't get the nomination. But this is where the difference is between the two parties, there were rules that were upheld against this type of corruption from happening. It guaranteed that the will of the people (regardless of what you think about who they picked) was going to choose the GOP candidate, which we now know isn't true on the DNC side. People's vote didn't matter on that side and the will of the people meant nothing to them. They already had their nominee picked before the primary started. That is the major difference that I saw at least how things were handled between the two so far and I give the RNC credit for allowing the people to pick the nominee as that is the way it is supposed to be in this country.

[TGHusker]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Agree here. I'm going to give the D higher ups some credit and think that it was a great plan to get Warren/Sanders out of the way night 1. Appease the far left of the party right away, then hopefully move on with some more "centered" speakers. Bill tonight, then Obama/Biden/Kaine on Wednesday. And then Chelsea and Hillary on Thursday.

 

Yes, that sounds pretty reasonable. One thing I'll have to give Bernie kudos for is that he didn't pull a Cruz and walk off the platform not endorsing Hillary. My wife and I observed that as a stark contrast (Cruz ended up looking pretty small) and the Dems will be better for it. His delegates got their time in the sun and he presented his full 'sermon' without alienating the Clinton supporters. We'll see how well the Bernie supporters fall in line the rest of the week.

 

What Bernie did was punk out on his supporters which is why he was booed earlier in the day. He ran against the corruption of the party and when he has proof of it, falls in line like the rest of the sheep. I have more respect for Cruz now than I do Bernie and I can't stand Cruz. This makes his entire run a sham it is sad that he wilted when it was his time to shine.

 

Does anyone else see a problem with Hillary immediately hiring Wasserman-Shultz to Co-Lead her General Election Campeign after she was forced to resign?

 

It's also funny how people's pro Bernie signs were being confiscated last night. But you don't see that covered on 99% of the news channels.

 

http://www.attn.com/stories/10203/sanders-supporters-signs-confiscated-at-dnc

 

A vote for this version of the DNC is a vote for corruption. The entire party is a sham and If people understandably don't like Trump, then I would seriously think about voting 3rd party to show that this crap isn't going to be acceptable anymore. That will send a message to both parties that they need to get their sh#t together as that is the only way to start any kind of real change.

 

That is another way of looking at it and I understand your point. Maybe Bernie is a realist (of course his policies aren't too realistic financially) and thinks the only way to advance his program is to work wtin the party.

[Moiraine]

AF, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion you have in your last paragraph. Both parties are corrupt. These e-mails were made public but the GOP fought against Trump all along the way and he even accused them (and Fox) of being biased against him.

 

It's really hard to believe there weren't similar conversations going on behind the scenes with them, seeing as they were more publicly against Trump than the Democrats were against Sanders.

[TGHusker]

 

 

 

 

JJ, you're aware that the Democratic party is a private organization, and not the actual government, right?

 

This isn't remotely like Watergate. It's the Panama Papers.

Correct. From what I have seen anyway, the things in the emails are perfectly legal for the DNC to be talking about. However, it should show their members something very disturbing in the behind the scenes operations of a political party. And...for the record.....The Republicans should feel very uneasy about this too.

 

This is what happens in political parties. It's a bunch of total scum bags that really don't give a flying rip about you or me. All they care about is that person who can raise 1,000,000 for the party and how can we beat the other party (no matter if is't morally right or not).

 

I will 102.73% guarantee that, were the RNC emails hacked, there would be similar conversations about Trump. Like Bernie, Trump is an outsider to the party who usurped the primaries and diverted them from what the party wanted. Unlike Bernie, Trump actually won.

 

Just because Trump won doesn't mean the Republican party is happy about it, and didn't try to prevent it.

 

Let's not kid ourselves.

 

How about we wait until the RNC actually gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar also before we use that to excuse the actual transgressions of the ones who did get caught this time? And, if you're right about the RNC not wanting Trump (like you probably are), does that make what the DNC did any better? No, it doesn't. Once again, two wrongs don't make a right. My point isn't that the repubs are better but rather that both national parties are not worthy of anyone's support.

 

These things so often seem to go against the R's and in favor of the D's. Surely, you wouldn't begrudge anyone the opportunity to present the other side of the coin when it appears.

 

The problem here is that it makes the DNC look hypocritical when it comes to support of minorities and speaking out against corruption in Washington. They can't go to their usual game plan of trying to win over minorities by calling the GOP racist, at least for this election.

 

To me that was the funniest part last night that they were trying to get people to believe that Hilary would fix the corruption in Washington when she is the shining example of being corrupt. That was just as bad when they try to say that she would also fix the flawed criminal justice system because it doesn't work. Once again she is a prime example that and I am quoting Warren here that the system works for those "who are elite and guilty than poor and innocent." Warren was right, and Hillary would be in jail if that wasn't the case. They also try to say that she would push back and control Wall Street and anyone who has paid attention knows that isn't going to happen. It was also funny when Warren said that she was scared that the American Dream was in danger of dying by not being allowed to have your hard work payoff and lead to success because of corruption. Then the next person to speak was Senator Bernie Sanders...that is the definition of irony right there.

 

It was also obvious that the RNC didn't want Trump and would have loved to sabotaged him so he wouldn't get the nomination. But this is where the difference is between the two parties, there were rules that were upheld against this type of corruption from happening. It guaranteed that the will of the people (regardless of what you think about who they picked) was going to choose the GOP candidate, which we now know isn't true on the DNC side. People's vote didn't matter on that side and the will of the people meant nothing to them. They already had their nominee picked before the primary started. That is the major difference that I saw at least how things were handled between the two so far and I give the RNC credit for allowing the people to pick the nominee as that is the way it is supposed to be in this country.

 

agree 100% - listening last night I was beginning to wonder if the Dems know what a mirror is. They were throwing out accusations left and right and all I could think of was how they were violating or ignoring the same issues in their own party and candidate.

Yes, the Dem primaries were rigged from the beginning and the eml scandal verifies this. All of this couldn't happen to a nicer nominee

[TGHusker]

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/07/5-economic-facts-democrats-will-avoid-at-their-convention

 

 

Interesting info from a conservative commentary. Charts tell the story - linked commentary fills in the info

 

[AFhusker]

AF, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion you have in your last paragraph. Both parties are corrupt. These e-mails were made public but the GOP fought against Trump all along the way and he even accused them (and Fox) of being biased against them.

 

It's really hard to believe there weren't similar conversations going on behind the scenes with them, seeing as they were more publicly against Trump than the Democrats were against Sanders.

Yes they are both corrupt, but the difference was that there were rules in place to prevent the elitists from picking the nominee on the GOP side and the RNC didn't change them just to get rid of Trump.The people got who they voted for regardless of what people think of who they picked. That is why the elitists on the GOP side had to go public to try to sway the voters to not vote for Trump because they are the ones that had the ultimate control. I am sure that it still drives them crazy that they couldn't fix the primary the way the Dems did.

 

The DNC picked Hilary from the start and lied to everyone saying that the party was fair and in good shape. Which is obviously not the case and that the will of the people on the Dem side didn't matter not only because of the elitist "super delegates" but because there are states where Bernie won by big margins and received less delegates than Hilary did. How does that make any sense? So that is why they didn't have to go public, although they almost did go public if you look through some of those emails.

[zoogs]

 

Both sides are guilty of this as they promise the world to get elected, either fail to get it passed because they aren't realistic, they don't try, or flip flop after they are elected on the topic. Then they blame the other party for nothing getting done in an attempt to get reelected. The two latest examples are gun laws when the Dems sat in protest on the Senate floor. Well if they cared so much about the issue, why didn't they pass those laws in Obama's first two years when they had the 60 votes to pass anything they wanted and a President who would sign it off in a heartbeat? The next one will likely be Hillary if elected will sign TPP into law. She was for it, now is against it because nobody wants it on either side, but I fully expect her to go back to her original stance when the idea was first introduced.

 

With a little research we could find the same situation from the Republican side. The latest are Democrat because they have the white house.

Yes, that is exactly what happens. Obama with Guantanamo is another example that pops directly to mind. It's why "campaign promises" are a cliche.

 

I agree on promises.

 

I don't think it's accurate to say that when a party has control of Congress and they have sixty seats, that they can pass everything they want to -- and that anything they didn't is a sign that they didn't care.

 

There is a finite amount of political capital. Obama expended an enormous amount of that on the ACA, and look at the fury it met -- the years of constitutional challenges, ongoing fights, and charges that he "rammed this through" without bipartisan consent. Whatever he may have felt about the state of gun laws in 2008, I don't think it's fair to hold him to the fire for not blowing that up into another political fracas. Healthcare reform was a major accomplishment.

 

For further context, in 2008 DC v Heller had just been handed down. After Aurora, Sandy Hook, Obama has been forcefully arguing (to much scorn, by the way) for gun control in a political climate where it is doomed. On the one hand you could argue he could have gotten even more done. On the other, even the limited actions and compromises Obama has achieved has resulted in half of Congress feeling he's too insistent on getting his own way.

[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/

 

[cm husker]

Why is it bad for leadership in a party to pull for or against certain candidates?

 

Sure, they shouldn't do it in a two faced way, from an integrity and PR perspective, but what's wrong with that? If you don't like it, form a different party. Bernie should have been running as a socialist in the first place.

[BigRedBuster]

Why is it bad for leadership in a party to pull for or against certain candidates?

 

Sure, they shouldn't do it in a two faced way, from an integrity and PR perspective, but what's wrong with that? If you don't like it, form a different party. Bernie should have been running as a socialist in the first place.

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. It's no different than the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy finally figures out that there's a short old man behind the curtain controlling everything. It's fake.

 

That statement is blatantly false. Now, who is "the party"? Is it the elitists who run the party and behind the scenes decide who is going to win? Or, is it the millions of people who support that party, vote for that party and send that party money?

 

I would say it's the latter. The "leaders of the party" should be working to form a system where the masses of members choose who they want to represent them. The way it's been working, the leaders "use" the masses of people to gain power and make millions of dollars on the backs of these people. They do it through a complete fraud.

 

WOW...am I so glad I am free from supporting these scams.

[BigRedBuster]

The US is supposed to be a Representative Republic. Meaning, the people are supposed to vote to see who they want representing them in Washington.

 

Right now, at least as proven in the Democratic party, that is a total sham.