The 2016 US Election (Part II)

[FireNexus]

I don't think anyone's denying money in politics is corrupting. I think we're denying, convincingly for me, that the corruption is going to have a bigger influence on her ultimate likelihood of removing money than the sheer fact of how hard Democrats are fucked in the ass by it.

Democrats lost a lot of power on the back on Citizens United. They're outspent 3-1 at all but the presidential level. If they ever want to take back statehouse, governor's mansions and be able to hold Congress, they have to get money out. If Clinton wants a positive legacy, she has no choice but to try and make that happen.

And if she does, she'll be a hero on the level of FDR for a century. She knows that, and so no matter what her morality Intrust her to make that decision. I also think tales of her evilness are exaggerated, but it really is irrelevant to be basic "Will she drop the money?" question.

[Lord MJ]

I don't think anyone's denying money in politics is corrupting. I think we're denying, convincingly for me, that the corruption is going to have a bigger influence on her ultimate likelihood of removing money than the sheer fact of how hard Democrats are fucked in the ass by it.

Democrats lost a lot of power on the back on Citizens United. They're outspent 3-1 at all but the presidential level. If they ever want to take back statehouse, governor's mansions and be able to hold Congress, they have to get money out. If Clinton wants a positive legacy, she has no choice but to try and make that happen.

And if she does, she'll be a hero on the level of FDR for a century. She knows that, and so no matter what her morality Intrust her to make that decision. I also think tales of her evilness are exaggerated, but it really is irrelevant to be basic "Will she drop the money?" question.

The problem with that is first that money in politics has literally fueled clinton's career for decades. She's a part of that bubble.

Secondly the Democrats response to money in politics has been to double down and move further into a center right political stance because that's where the donor sweet spot is. They are likely thinking that the GOP will go so far into crazy town that donor money will flip from the GOP to the Democrats.

Thirdly, Democrats in this election have constructed a narrative that money is not corrupting and that it's an insult to even suggest that. Which means they are willing to flip flop whenever it is convenient to them on the subject. That is not reassuring.

[FireNexus]

This "Democrats continue to push center right" nonsense can only be coming from someone who politically awakened during or after the 2008 election. Democrats have swung hard left since the 1990s. That Obama governs from the center-to-slightly-right is usually the implicit or explicit justification for this belief. The problem is that Obama was always center-right. The Democratic Party was also much further right even as recently as 2010. Remember that a public option couldn't pass a Democratic congress. A public option would easily pass if Dems controlled the House and Senate tomorrow.

The Democrats haven't forked right. Their base has gone left, faster than anybody thought, and they've been slow to react.

[FireNexus]

And regarding the "money is not corrupting" narrative... No. "Clinton is not corrupt, and it's an insult to suggest she is without being able to give an example when asked despite it being literally the most obvious question a politician has ever been asked about an attack they've levied" is the narrative. Money corrupts, but it corrupts because it gives an outsized advantage to people who match the political predilections of the people rich enough and crazy enough to spend a billion dollars every four years.

As far as your baseless accusation that Democrats are thinking they can go right to get the money, kindly back it up or concede it. That would be a massive conspiracy that would be impossible to keep quiet. And the actual behavior of governing in the party would be swinging right, rather than the actual leftward swing that has occurred.

[Lord MJ]

This "Democrats continue to push center right" nonsense can only be coming from someone who politically awakened during or after the 2008 election. Democrats have swung hard left since the 1990s. That Obama governs from the center-to-slightly-right is usually the implicit or explicit justification for this belief. The problem is that Obama was always center-right. The Democratic Party was also much further right even as recently as 2010. Remember that a public option couldn't pass a Democratic congress. A public option would easily pass if Dems controlled the House and Senate tomorrow.

The Democrats haven't forked right. Their base has gone left, faster than anybody thought, and they've been slow to react.

Dems have been forking right well before Obama came into office. It's been going on since the mid 80s which is shortly after money in politics started to become an epidemic.

Case in point, Bernie Sanders would be a standard Democrat with his views during the 70s. Now he is considered far left.

Also this:

Remember that a public option couldn't pass a Democratic congress. A public option would easily pass if Dems controlled the House and Senate tomorrow

A public option could have passed a Democratic Congress earlier, the leadership simply did not care enough to fight for it, and Obama was obsessed with getting bipartisan support (He's been itching to have one big bipartisan accomplishment that he could add to his legacy).

[Lord MJ]

And regarding the "money is not corrupting" narrative... No. "Clinton is not corrupt, and it's an insult to suggest she is without being able to give an example when asked despite it being literally the most obvious question a politician has ever been asked about an attack they've levied" is the narrative.

No. The mere question of "name one example where money has influenced me!" is evidence of corruption or dishonesty. Because it is asking people to believe the prepostorous and implausible notion that you can receive millions of dollars from special interests and not be influenced. The right question to be asked is "are you able to represent the American people despite the interests of the people that give you your money (and are the ones in your circle, that have the most access to you, and you talk to). Give examples, and demonstrate that this is the norm for you."

Money corrupts, but it corrupts because it gives an outsized advantage to people who match the political predilections of the people rich enough and crazy enough to spend a billion dollars every four years.

It's not just the politicians with pro-donor views having an advantage, its the effect that the money has after the elections. Regardless of what the political predilections of the politician is, the incentive structure leads almost all politicians to align to the interests of their donors. That's a bigger problem than the "outsized advantage" issue.

As far as your baseless accusation that Democrats are thinking they can go right to get the money, kindly back it up or concede it.

Because that's where the donors are most center-right on economic issues. It's really not that complicated. What I said about the hopes that the GOP would go so far to the right that donors would flip is conjecture, but the idea the party is going right because that's where the donor money is is blatantly obvious.

I would also add, that in debates on this, I just need to demonstrate what the incentive structure leads to. Once I demonstrate that, the burden of proof shifts to whomever is arguing that money in politics does not influence the decisions despite the incentive structure.

It's the same as if a judge was overseeing cases involving entities he/she had financial ties to. It's incumbent on that Judge or judges supporters that those ties will have no influence, not the other way around. Some jurisdictions with elected judges ban private campaign contributions to Judicial elections for that exact same reason.

That would be a massive conspiracy that would be impossible to keep quiet. And the actual behavior of governing in the party would be swinging right, rather than the actual leftward swing that has occurred.

What leftward swing? As far as massive conspiracy, most people are oblivious to it. The mainstream media doesn't talk about it. And likely the first time many people even heard of money in politics was when they heard Bernie Sanders talk about it for the first time. Unless you're someone that watches Young Turks, follows Larry Lessig, or follows Wolfpac/MayDay Pac/other groups, the average American citizen simply doesn't know or care about money in politics.

[FireNexus]

Dems have been forking right well before Obama came into office. It's been going on since the mid 80s which is shortly after money in politics started to become an epidemic.

Case in point, Bernie Sanders would be a standard Democrat with his views during the 70s. Now he is considered far left.

You don't know a whole lot, do you? Congressional democrats were further right on average in the 1970s. And Sanders has been saying the exact same shit since then, and he was considered even more radically liberal then. I don't know where you got the idea that he was an ideological fit with the average 1970s Democrat, but if it wasn't right from your ass it was from somebody who got it from theirs.

Pew research handy graph showing the ideological drift of Democrats. They went from a wide spread centered on the center left to a very narrow spread center in the unambiguous left.

A public option could have passed a Democratic Congress earlier, the leadership simply did not care enough to fight for it, and Obama was obsessed with getting bipartisan support (He's been itching to have one big bipartisan accomplishment that he could add to his legacy).

Once again, spoken like someone who has no fucking clue what he was talking about. You got those blue dogs on record saying that the DNC could've gotten them to vote for a public option they and their constituents were firmly against by just having more sack? A public option which was in a bill that they all knew put their seats on the line, and that eventually got them all shitcanned even with their fight against the DNC's wishes?

You keep throwing around those no-information proclamations about things you clearly learned about from huffpo blog posts your Bernie Brigade college buddies shared on Facebook, though.

[Lord MJ]

You don't know a whole lot, do you? Congressional democrats were further right on average in the 1970s. And Sanders has been saying the exact same shit since then, and he was considered even more radically liberal then. I don't know where you got the idea that he was an ideological fit with the average 1970s Democrat, but if it wasn't right from your ass it was from somebody who got it from theirs.

Pew research handy graph showing the ideological drift of Democrats. They went from a wide spread centered on the center left to a very narrow spread center in the unambiguous left.

Wrong. That analysis is skewed by the simple notion that back in the 70s the Democrats were still split between liberal northern Dems and more conservative southern dems. Someone with Bernie Sanders current positions would not be considered far left. We would be smack in the middle of the liberal Democrats back then. Now Bernie Sanders is by far the most liberal Senator.

So today we don't have true "conservative" Democrats. Particularly since the Blue Dogs were wiped out in 2010 by the Tea party. But the party as a whole has shifted to the right.

In case you've forgotten, travel further back in time, even during the days when conservative Democrats were still a powerful force (ruling the entire south) the liberal arm of the party was still able to push through the New Deal. Or for that matter Civil Rights legislation. Yes in the past the liberal democrats were more effective even when half of their party were staunch conservatives!

Once again, spoken like someone who has no fucking clue what he was talking about. You got those blue dogs on record saying that the DNC could've gotten them to vote for a public option they and their constituents were firmly against by just having more sack?

A public option which was in a bill that they all knew put their seats on the line, and that eventually got them all shitcanned even with their fight against the DNC's wishes?

Completely irrelevant to whether a public option could have been passed if Obama had pushed for it. The fact is he didn't. He didn't really want the public option. Furthermore I would argue that if they did vote for a public option they would have a much better chance of keeping their seats.

[Lord MJ]

I would also add that that chart scores offers little to indicate how a liberal score of -1 in the 112th congress compares in anyway to a liberal score of -1 in the 93rd congress.

The entire political spectrum has shifted to the right. So therefore the Democrats position relative to the entire spectrum might be more left leaning within that spectrum today than it was 5 years ago or 40 years ago. But since the spectrum itself has shifted right then the party itself has shifted right.

[FireNexus]

I can't do this with you anymore. You make positive claims without providing evidence when challenged. You refuse to even acknowledge the need for evidence in some matters (where it is convenient). You try to dispute "the party was more conservative" by disassembling and rewording "the party was more conservative" so it confirms your biases. Then, instead of actually finding out how -1 then compares to -1 today, you simply ask the question and proceed as if you'd already proven that it's on a totally different spectrum.

You're too stupid to argue with. Have a good night.

[Flagg]

It's also really silly to compare Bernie's behavior on the topic with Hillary's (or Bill's), because the latter has been a prominent Democrat for a very, very long time. So of course the Clintons will have a more established history of supporting/endorsing lower-level Democrats, because they've been integral components of the DNC machine for ... what, thirty years? It's extremely disingenuous to hold Bernie to that standard. It's like if a new poster joins these forums today and you immediately get mad at him for not having contributed as much to the board as Thanas; it's a completely unreasonable comparison.

Yes but that poster wouldn't be running for mod, would they?

Which refutes my point how, exactly? Nothing about your bizarre riposte invalidates what I was saying in any way. Let's continue with the analogy. If a new poster showed up and wanted to run for mod, it would still be unreasonable to ask, "Why haven't you been contributing to the board for the past 10 years"? Because it makes no god-damn sense to do so. It's not my problem if you are too disconnected from reality to see this.

I just think it's hilarious that Sanders supporters nitpick every "wrong" Hillary (and they usually include Bill) Clinton has done, yet they absolutely refuse to admit that Sanders, by joining the Democratic Party just in time to run in their primary for money and media exposure, is essentially a sellout political whore. If Clinton had done something like this there'd be a Republican led Congressional investigation!

What makes you think I'm a Sanders supporter? Where in my post did I nitpick anything "wrong" about Hillary or Bill? Oh, wait, I forgot that you don't actually read anyone else's posts before spewing your irrelevant vitriol all over the place.

For the record I did read your obnoxious post and I never said you were. I don't care enough about you or what you think to even be curious about who or what you support. I was responding to jwl and his 100% on point post about the given situation. If some new member came here and started lobbying for a mod position they would be laughed at or outright ignored because they have contributed nothing to the board yet expect the board to put them in a position of power and respect. Just like how Sanders has contributed nothing to the Democratic Party, yet expects them to honor him with their presidential nomination and back him with hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign cash and its members to stump for him.

[Lord MJ]

Yes but that poster wouldn't be running for mod, would they?

Which refutes my point how, exactly? Nothing about your bizarre riposte invalidates what I was saying in any way. Let's continue with the analogy. If a new poster showed up and wanted to run for mod, it would still be unreasonable to ask, "Why haven't you been contributing to the board for the past 10 years"? Because it makes no god-damn sense to do so. It's not my problem if you are too disconnected from reality to see this.

I just think it's hilarious that Sanders supporters nitpick every "wrong" Hillary (and they usually include Bill) Clinton has done, yet they absolutely refuse to admit that Sanders, by joining the Democratic Party just in time to run in their primary for money and media exposure, is essentially a sellout political whore. If Clinton had done something like this there'd be a Republican led Congressional investigation!

What makes you think I'm a Sanders supporter? Where in my post did I nitpick anything "wrong" about Hillary or Bill? Oh, wait, I forgot that you don't actually read anyone else's posts before spewing your irrelevant vitriol all over the place.

For the record I did read your obnoxious post and I never said you were. I don't care enough about you or what you think to even be curious about who or what you support. I was responding to jwl and his 100% on point post about the given situation. If some new member came here and started lobbying for a mod position they would be laughed at or outright ignored because they have contributed nothing to the board yet expect the board to put them in a position of power and respect. Just like how Sanders has contributed nothing to the Democratic Party, yet expects them to honor him with their presidential nomination and back him with hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign cash and its members to stump for him.

Party contributions are not a qualification for POTUS last time I checked. But since our system is set up the way it is, anyone that wants to run for President and have a legit shot has to go through the Democratic or Republican primaries. Under your system only party loyalists can run for President (contributing to corruption.) Add to that one of the whole reasons Bernie even entered the race to begin with is a noticeable corporatist slant to the direction of governance of the country, and the fact that the other politician that this movement was pushing to run for POTUS declined to run.

[Lord MJ]

I can't do this with you anymore. You make positive claims without providing evidence when challenged. You refuse to even acknowledge the need for evidence in some matters (where it is convenient).

Because you are asking the question to prove that politicians are influenced by money. When it really needs to be the other way around. You're putting forth a highly improbable notion that financial contributions do not influence politicians. Something that's contrary to the demonstrated incentive structure, almost every institution in the history of civilization, and basic human nature. "Money has influenced decision making in political bodies throughout the world for the entirety of human history but somehow in the case of modern America politics that's not the case. Prove me wrong, just prove me wrong."

You try to dispute "the party was more conservative" by disassembling and rewording "the party was more conservative" so it confirms your biases. Then, instead of actually finding out how -1 then compares to -1 today, you simply ask the question and proceed as if you'd already proven that it's on a totally different spectrum.

You're too stupid to argue with. Have a good night.

I've yet to see in that whole paragraph any refutation that the political spectrum has gone to the right. You tried to back up your assertion that that is not the case by pointing out a chart that says nothing.

Meanwhile I have pointed out the simple fact that: If Sanders positions would be standard fare for the Democratic liberal wing back then are considered far left now not the mention centrist in virtually every other modern nation in the world, then that is a pretty strong indication that the Democrats tacked to the right.

It's been the case over the last 40 years that top marginal tax rates have declined, the regulatory apparatus has been chipped away, etc. Now many of these are the result of GOP backed policies. But it takes two to tango. You're arguing the parties have went in opposite directions.

I'm saying that the parties are both tacking to the right, which makes that chart you posted meaningless since it is measuring relative liberalism/conservatism of the congress as a whole at any given time. On social issues both parties are shifting to the left (Gay marriage actually being acceptable to the GOP if not for a group of stalwart fundies desperately trying to hang on to the past.)

Lets add in also the Clintons "Triangulation" tactic that essentially shifted the party to the right. It helped them win an election. And I'm not saying it was a bad idea at the time. The issue is that the Democratic party seems to be hooked on Triangulation. To the point that they lost elections (recently 2014) as a result.

Furthermore given the incentive structure which I mentioned before would push the party to the right, you said that would require a "grand conspiracy." It doesn't. In fact your very argument earlier backs that up that notion :

Money corrupts, but it corrupts because it gives an outsized advantage to people who match the political predilections of the people rich enough and crazy enough to spend a billion dollars every four years.

Which would of course mean the parties policy position would shift to meet that of the donors.

You're argument is essentially money is corrupting the system because it empowers the GOP but it has not effect at all on the Democrats aside from the fact that they have less money than the GOP.

[Lord MJ]

I saw a Young Turks video a month or so back that I have to dig up that said that a GOP senator (Kelly Ayotte I believe) decided to support EPA regulations. The Koch brothers responded by cutting her funding off. They may have since reversed their decision. But it goes to show the incentive structure that exists in Washington.

Legislators are heavily influenced by money because well they need money to get elected. Furthermore the more money that is put into the system the more money a legislator needs to raise to be competitive thus granting the donors even more influence. If donors are the ones that directly have the ear of the legislators then they would also have the most influence when it comes in time to make bills. It is a totally implausible proposition to say that if a legislator (or President) is hearing the viewpoints of the donor class or their agents and they are receiving money from those same agents, that their policy viewpoints are not influenced by that.

If that's the case with Republicans, it certainly is the case with Democrats.

[Channel72]

These guys talk about private interests financing campaigns like it's some kind of secret. Everybody knows Congressmen are just basically raising money all the time, while sort of kind of working on actual legislation from time to time. That's basically the nature of the job, and yeah, it does result in a system where elected officials start thinking in terms of how best to secure financing vs. what is best for the country in terms of actual legislation. But even with public financing, elected officials would still think in terms of how best to secure votes or how best to toe the party line for social capital, vs what is necessarily best for the country.

[maraxus2]

I can't do this with you anymore. You make positive claims without providing evidence when challenged. You refuse to even acknowledge the need for evidence in some matters (where it is convenient). You try to dispute "the party was more conservative" by disassembling and rewording "the party was more conservative" so it confirms your biases. Then, instead of actually finding out how -1 then compares to -1 today, you simply ask the question and proceed as if you'd already proven that it's on a totally different spectrum.

You're too stupid to argue with. Have a good night.

A-fucking-men. Aside from his allergy to evidence (Argument-by-Young-Turks-Clips doesn't count), dude honestly thinks that Clinton would be just as bad of a president as Trump. The man who just named a white supremacist to his California delegate slate.

I look forward to the day when all the purity progressives can hang out in their little clubhouse together. MJ and Lessig and Cenk and all the other leftier-than-thou dickheads who treat the Party like it's some kind of Maoist cell, not a political party. That way we can safely ignore them to an even greater extent than we do now. And by we, of course, I mean "myself plus the vast majority of Democrats."

[Lord MJ]

A-fucking-men. Aside from his allergy to evidence (Argument-by-Young-Turks-Clips doesn't count), dude honestly thinks that Clinton would be just as bad of a president as Trump. The man who just named a white supremacist to his California delegate slate.

Donald Trump is just one man, an entire party in denial (well 2 parties) about the influence of money in politics is a worse threat to this country than any damage Trump could ever accomplish short of going full Hitler. If Trump was say only as bad as Bush, that would be nothing compared to the damage money in politics is doing to this country.

There will always be fuckheads in this country. There will always be demagogues. The issue here is the system itself being corrupt. That is worse than any bad person running for office like Trump.

Furthermore a strong argument could be made if not for the corrupt system we have right now, a Trump like candidate would never have had the appeal that he does. It took a great depression, a corrupt government, draconian terms put on by the WW1 victors for Hitler to come to power for example. Absent all of that, the Nazis would never have even been a factor.

I look forward to the day when all the purity progressives can hang out in their little clubhouse together. MJ and Lessig and Cenk and all the other leftier-than-thou dickheads who treat the Party like it's some kind of Maoist cell, not a political party. That way we can safely ignore them to an even greater extent than we do now. And by we, of course, I mean "myself plus the vast majority of Democrats."

I'm actually a political moderate...

Treating those that want to get money out of the system and get our Democracy accountable to the people again and not big interests is not some radical left position.

What is your issue anyway with getting a system free of monetary influences? It's unfathomable to me that any principle person would object to this.


Finally once again, the evidence required is that somehow all this money is not influencing politicians and the system as a whole not the other way around. But a couple pages ago I posted two articles about the subject, and Cenk and Lessig have talked at length about this issue. You not liking them doesn't make their points any less valid.

[Lord MJ]

It also while this has still as yet to be determined, there is a reasonable hypothesis to be made that the Democratic party would become more corporatist by simple virtue of the fact that donors expect a return on investment. The GOP has gone so far into crazy town that the GOP is losing its appeal to donors.

The first indication of this was during the Government shutdown. Donors were furious during that debacle.

The second indication of this is Donald Trump. Trump represents a threat to the donors by simple virtue of the fact he doesn't know what he's doing, has no clue about policy, doesn't take orders from donors or the GOP (thus not only do the donors not have control, but it also reinforces the problems of Trump not knowing what he's doing because he doesn't listen), and he says things that would make any investor hang onto their wallets.

Democrats could easily become a better and safer investment. This is something that I've been saying as far back as when the shutdown occurred that donors would start to diversify away from the GOP because they are not a safe investment.

[Lord MJ]

Also regarding evidence. Basic rules of evidence:

As I mentioned at this point the evidence really needs to be that money is not influencing the process. Good luck proving that.

But if I said the system was so bad that the politicians were little more than order takers. Or saying that "once a politician receives a donation, they instantly become a corporate shill and are now and forever more beholden to corporate donors" Then that would require proof that that is the case. Since "the politicians are simply order takers" is a level of specificity far beyond just simply saying that money is corrupting the process, the parties, and the system.

[Flagg]

Which refutes my point how, exactly? Nothing about your bizarre riposte invalidates what I was saying in any way. Let's continue with the analogy. If a new poster showed up and wanted to run for mod, it would still be unreasonable to ask, "Why haven't you been contributing to the board for the past 10 years"? Because it makes no god-damn sense to do so. It's not my problem if you are too disconnected from reality to see this.




What makes you think I'm a Sanders supporter? Where in my post did I nitpick anything "wrong" about Hillary or Bill? Oh, wait, I forgot that you don't actually read anyone else's posts before spewing your irrelevant vitriol all over the place.

For the record I did read your obnoxious post and I never said you were. I don't care enough about you or what you think to even be curious about who or what you support. I was responding to jwl and his 100% on point post about the given situation. If some new member came here and started lobbying for a mod position they would be laughed at or outright ignored because they have contributed nothing to the board yet expect the board to put them in a position of power and respect. Just like how Sanders has contributed nothing to the Democratic Party, yet expects them to honor him with their presidential nomination and back him with hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign cash and its members to stump for him.

Party contributions are not a qualification for POTUS last time I checked. But since our system is set up the way it is, anyone that wants to run for President and have a legit shot has to go through the Democratic or Republican primaries. Under your system only party loyalists can run for President (contributing to corruption.) Add to that one of the whole reasons Bernie even entered the race to begin with is a noticeable corporatist slant to the direction of governance of the country, and the fact that the other politician that this movement was pushing to run for POTUS declined to run.

Parties can nominate whom they want for whatever reasons they want, and members of said party can cast their vote upon the same basis. If sanders had joined the party in 2012 and raised money for Obama he may have gotten my vote, not that it counts in WA. But instead he expects the party he eschewed for decades to fill his coffers and have its members stump for him for a 2016 general when he's not reciprocated. If hell freezes over and he gets the nomination, then I'll vote for him as the better polished turd regardless of him being an unmitigated political whore. That's a hell of a lot more than you can say about some of his supporters who will probably pull a fucking Jonestown when Clinton is nominated if the way they act on Facebook is any indication.

[Lord MJ]

For the record I did read your obnoxious post and I never said you were. I don't care enough about you or what you think to even be curious about who or what you support. I was responding to jwl and his 100% on point post about the given situation. If some new member came here and started lobbying for a mod position they would be laughed at or outright ignored because they have contributed nothing to the board yet expect the board to put them in a position of power and respect. Just like how Sanders has contributed nothing to the Democratic Party, yet expects them to honor him with their presidential nomination and back him with hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign cash and its members to stump for him.

Party contributions are not a qualification for POTUS last time I checked. But since our system is set up the way it is, anyone that wants to run for President and have a legit shot has to go through the Democratic or Republican primaries. Under your system only party loyalists can run for President (contributing to corruption.) Add to that one of the whole reasons Bernie even entered the race to begin with is a noticeable corporatist slant to the direction of governance of the country, and the fact that the other politician that this movement was pushing to run for POTUS declined to run.

Parties can nominate whom they want for whatever reasons they want, and members of said party can cast their vote upon the same basis. If sanders had joined the party in 2012 and raised money for Obama he may have gotten my vote, not that it counts in WA. But instead he expects the party he eschewed for decades to fill his coffers and have its members stump for him for a 2016 general when he's not reciprocated. If hell freezes over and he gets the nomination, then I'll vote for him as the better polished turd regardless of him being an unmitigated political whore. That's a hell of a lot more than you can say about some of his supporters who will probably pull a fucking Jonestown when Clinton is nominated if the way they act on Facebook is any indication.

You're still essentially saying that effectively you need to be a party loyalist and help a party raise money to be eligible to be President essentially. So it doesn't matter is actual people vote for him to be President in the primaries, what matters is if he paid his dues to other politicians and the party apparatus.

The party cant have this both ways. They can't create a system where you have to play in their sandbox to run for president while complain and whine when someone that hasn't been a member of the party decides to run for President.

You're essentially saying that any independent that decides to run for President and legitimately wants to win is a political whore. When given the state of our country people that have been outside of the political party apparatus (but still experienced and qualified enough to do the job) is exactly what we need more of in the government.

[Lord MJ]

Lets pretend that their was a decent GOP candidate that had positive views and was saying "We need to change the party to one that represents the people, end the divisive racist dog-whistle politics, and stand for "true" free market rather than corporatism. And that money in politics was counter productive to ending wasteful big government." That is someone that would be worth voting for.

But lets say he was an independent previously but decided to run as a Republican. Under your definition he would be a political whore because he didn't "pay his dues to the party," and stump for GOP politicians.

[Flagg]

Party contributions are not a qualification for POTUS last time I checked. But since our system is set up the way it is, anyone that wants to run for President and have a legit shot has to go through the Democratic or Republican primaries. Under your system only party loyalists can run for President (contributing to corruption.) Add to that one of the whole reasons Bernie even entered the race to begin with is a noticeable corporatist slant to the direction of governance of the country, and the fact that the other politician that this movement was pushing to run for POTUS declined to run.

Parties can nominate whom they want for whatever reasons they want, and members of said party can cast their vote upon the same basis. If sanders had joined the party in 2012 and raised money for Obama he may have gotten my vote, not that it counts in WA. But instead he expects the party he eschewed for decades to fill his coffers and have its members stump for him for a 2016 general when he's not reciprocated. If hell freezes over and he gets the nomination, then I'll vote for him as the better polished turd regardless of him being an unmitigated political whore. That's a hell of a lot more than you can say about some of his supporters who will probably pull a fucking Jonestown when Clinton is nominated if the way they act on Facebook is any indication.

You're still essentially saying that effectively you need to be a party loyalist and help a party raise money to be eligible to be President essentially. So it doesn't matter is actual people vote for him to be President in the primaries, what matters is if he paid his dues to other politicians and the party apparatus.

The party cant have this both ways. They can't create a system where you have to play in their sandbox to run for president while complain and whine when someone that hasn't been a member of the party decides to run for President.

You're essentially saying that any independent that decides to run for President and legitimately wants to win is a political whore. When given the state of our country people that have been outside of the political party apparatus (but still experienced and qualified enough to do the job) is exactly what we need more of in the government.

No, you illiterate twerp, I never said that. What I said is that as a Democrat, I will not vote for, and encourage other Democrats not to vote for, said candidate for the nomination. I never said that if the political whore in question got more votes that they should be blocked. That's an entirely separate argument.

[Lord MJ]

No, you illiterate twerp, I never said that. What I said is that as a Democrat, I will not vote for, and encourage other Democrats not to vote for, said candidate for the nomination. I never said that if the political whore in question got more votes that they should be blocked. That's an entirely separate argument.

I never said that you said that they should be barred from running. I said that you're position is that effectively only party insiders are qualified to run for President because anyone who is not is a "political whore" and that you would not support such candidates as a result.

[Flagg]

No, you illiterate twerp, I never said that. What I said is that as a Democrat, I will not vote for, and encourage other Democrats not to vote for, said candidate for the nomination. I never said that if the political whore in question got more votes that they should be blocked. That's an entirely separate argument.

I never said that you said that they should be barred from running. I said that you're position is that effectively only party insiders are qualified to run for President because anyone who is not is a "political whore" and that you would not support such candidates as a result.

No, I said party members. You can be a member of a political party and not an "insider", dumbass.