return2ozmaDemocrats who attack the rich do better in elections. The party should take notice
knightly the SneptaurThey won’t. The party exists to serve the rich.
DragonTypeWyvernYeah, they know, and it scares them.
There’s a reason they sidelined Sanders when he would have easily won in 2016
circuitfarmerThis has been on my mind every time the DNC tries to position themselves as a party for the people. As far as I’m concerned, they showed their hand, and apparently they thought no one would notice.
WeirdGoesProThere is nowhere to run.
Democrats = the party of the rich
Republicans = the party of the rich
MAGA = the grift of the rich
We’re going to be voting for the lesser evil for at least a few more cycles. Doesn’t mean it’s a good idea not to vote though.
tocopherolWe can be so much more creative than that. There are mountains of actions we can take in addition to voting to change things.
Why should we accept that the only people we can vote for are evil? Every US election has been this way for at least 20 years now. One less than the other everytime (depending on perspective) but if the only options are widely seen as evil, we must do something to change this.
We don’t have to accept it—that’s what primaries are for. But there are people out there who lose the primary and then they just don’t vote—that is the time people should choose the lesser of two evils. Simply not voting is just giving up the tiny shred of control you actually have.
Of course, if you feel strongly about a candidate, it is a good idea to make calls, put up signs, or anything else to help them win. But, as we saw with Bernie, even a massive grassroots effort isn’t always enough.
We don’t have to accept it—that’s what primaries are for. But there are people out there who lose the primary and then they just don’t vote—that is the time people should choose the lesser of two evils.
No. They should not. Stop lecturing people who are fighting something better and start lecturing the people voting for absolute trash in the primaries.
Just remember Bernie’s legacy…
Bernie's Legacy – The Time Is Now (Killer Mike Speech)
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
☂️-if some people here are any indication, many people in fact didnt notice.
Do you have polls that agree with that statement?
Almost all of the head to head polls Had Bernie doing better than Hillary
He also won the Wisconsin primary and the Michigan primary in spite of the DNC leadership and propaganda machine being firmly behind Hillary from the beginning.
Hillary lost those states, ultimately costing her the election, and there’s no indication that Bernie would have lost any of the states she won.
I’m pretty sure Bernie won a lot of primaries. He got 72% of the vote in Washington: www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/…/washington
Yup, he did, and he would have won the general.
They singled out those two states because they were ones Hillary lost in the general
ShadywackAs I see it, he won the nomination. More people voted for him, and the super delegates fucked it all up. The party even admitted this back in 1982 that their intention is to prevent “outlier candidates” from securing a nomination. The Democratic Party is very undemocratic until we can toss superdelegates altogether. I say that, but it doesn’t appear to have worked for the Republican Party either, they just shrug and toss out all the votes regardless of who won in their caucuses. Look at Ron Paul in Iowa 2008, obviously won by a large enough percentage to eliminate the margin for error…but fuck it. Iowa’s Republican chair handed it over anyway and when the news was published he just “resigned” and the damage was already done.
That sentiment that it scares them though, has happened before to BOTH parties. 1890 had both parties on the run as we were embroiled in shooting battles against law enforcement due to working conditions and pay.
Why multiple mics from the same station?
swab148So they can broadcast /in stereo/
I need my binaural audio of a political speech so I can hear them lying in dolby 7.1
A few things, more exposure/advertising space, and redundancy, especially in a time where mics were really inconsistent, if one mic goes down, you have another still recording.
Zombie-MantisSame reason they have multiple camera crews these days, I would think 🤔
also, what’s an MBS. I guess I could google it but I’m on mobile and lazy.
Til
en.m.wikipedia.org/…/Mutual_Broadcasting_System
! The Mutual Broadcasting System (commonly referred to simply as Mutual; sometimes referred to as MBS, Mutual Radio or the Mutual Radio Network) was an American commercial radio network in operation from 1934 to 1999. In the golden age of U.S. radio drama, Mutual was best known as the original network home of The Lone Ranger and The Adventures of Superman and as the long-time radio residence of The Shadow. For many years, it was a national broadcaster for Major League Baseball (including the All-Star Game and World Series), the National Football League, and Notre Dame Fighting Irish football. From the mid-1930s and until the retirement of the network in 1999, Mutual ran a highly respected news service accompanied by a variety of popular commentary shows. In the late 1970s, Mutual pioneered the nationwide late night call-in talk radio program, introducing the country to Larry King and later, Jim Bohannon. !<
I agree. If a democrat ran up and garroted Jeff Bezos, or went all Tanya Harding on Elon Musk’s knees, I would vote for them.
Literally, if a politician was imprisoned for firebombing a billionaires house I would be intrigued by their campaign.
Hell yeah. Time to start “punching up.”
Economic grievance has been embedded in Presidential elections for as long as I know. We’ve watched so much slip away, might be good to bring things closer to level.
OhStopYellingAtMeConsume the wealthy.
Stopthatgirl7But they won’t, because once they get into Congress they get just as tied to big money as any other politician. Plus, there all too busy trying to chase after Republican voters, even though they’ll never, ever vote for a Democrat.
underisknah, they’re gonna make fun of Trump for being broke with childish nicknames instead. sink down to his level while making him sound more relatable to all the broke people they want to vote for them. sometimes i think they’re trying to lose.
Their campaign is literally “It’ll be worse under the other guy.”
Losing now is the best way for them to win in four years. It is how it has been for decades. When’s the last time one party held the presidency for two consecutive candidates? It’s a neverending metronome, except the needle moves more to the right each time.
Assuming that we’ll have fair elections in 4 years if Trump wins may prove to be one of the worst mistakes this country’s voters have ever made.
When was the last time there was a fair election? Both parties conventions cram the most unpopular candidates down your throats, and always slowly sliding to the right.
Just because something is bad doesn’t mean it can’t get much worse. Look at elections in Russia and China if you need inspiration.
You think it can get worse than an 80 year old Zionist vs an 80 year old fascist?
I literally gave you 2 glaring examples that you blatantly ignored. Since you clearly aren’t arguing in good faith at this point ill proceed to ignore you.
Ignorance is bliss, they say.
Hate to break it to you but Chinese citizens generally live better than we do. They have affordable housing, healthcare and food.
Thats nice. We’re talking about free elections here.
Actually, we were talking about American elections, and you tried to change the subject to China and Russia.
Because you seemed to have trouble wrapping your head around how much worse “unfair elections” could be, and then you still ignored those examples and tried to claim US elections couldn’t possibly get any worse.
Absolutely absurd statement. And you still cant seem to wrap your head around why that is.
I know i said I’d ignore you but you just can’t seem to stop yourself from throwing more of these shitty disingenuous arguments my way.
…?
You currently do not have fair elections. I didn’t say it couldn’t get worse.
Absolutely absurd statement. And you still cant seem to wrap your head around why that is.
I never said it couldn’t get any worse lol.
I know i said I’d ignore you but you just can’t seem to stop yourself from throwing more of these shitty disingenuous arguments my way.
You can ignore me all you want, ignorance is bliss. I’m not arguing lol. America, demonstrably doesn’t have free and fair elections. You are trying to deflect by talking about Russia and China, when your country is literally already in the same boat. Nobody wants Biden or Trump.
Go argue with yourself then:
“You think it can get worse than an 80 year old Zionist vs an 80 year old fascist?”
And leave me out of it.
You can ignore me all you want, ignorance is bliss. I’m not arguing lol. America, demonstrably doesn’t have free and fair elections. You are trying to deflect by talking about Russia and China, when your country is literally already in the same boat. Nobody wants Biden or Trump.
This entire thread started with the insinuation that we could get rid of them in 4 years. I’m saying that if things get worse we won’t even have that choice in the future. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. I provide China and Russia as simple examples to get it through your hear and you then claim I’m changing the subject. You’re the one wallowing in your own ignorance.
Hopefully I’ve cleared all this up for you now and you can let me take a shit in peace.
Are you ignoring me or slandering me, make up your mind.
THE US, RUSSIA AND CHINA: NONE OF THESE HAVE FREE ELECTIONS.
Do you understand what I’m saying now? We don’t need to bring up the other two, while we’re discussing America.
Maybe proof read your angy dump posts before hitting submit.
We have a 2 choices, they have 1. 2 is choices are better than 1, even if both choices are shitty. One shitty candidate still has to compete with the other shitty candidate to win votes. This is better than 1 shitty candidate with full reign and no accountability.
Perhaps you dislike both candidates equally, and have somehow decided that you will always hate both candidates equally, now and in the future. In that context, perhaps you think you are making a concrete point.
But I am not you. I’d prefer Biden over Trump, and I can vote for one over the other. If i couldn’t, that would be worse, for me, and many millions of other voters who don’t share your equal/perpetual disdain for both candidates.
So yes, it can get worse. If not for you, then for others, who are not you. If you still don’t understand the source of disagreement here, God have mercy on you.
Maybe this question will help you further understand;
Which candidate do you vote for if you’re against genocide?
Depends. What magical being comes down from the Heavens to end genocide in this world if I don’t vote?
So you don’t get a choice? Hmmmm what does that remind me of?
Reminds me of having more than one issue to vote about that might impact one’s life.
So you’re pro genocide lol.
Sounds like Biden should stop sending weapons to Israel and vow to veto any attempts to block a rail strike in his next term.
2 term presidents: Obama 2009-2017, G.W. Bush 2001-2009, Clinton 1993-2009. so every president for 3 decades except Bush and Trump.
They said two candidates, not two terms.
They also said 4 years.
MegaUltraChickenWhen’s the last time one party held the presidency for two consecutive candidates?
Obama? Then immediately before that W? Then immediately before that Clinton?
In the last 50 years only Bush Sr and Trump have served single terms.
Two consecutive candidates. As in two different people, who run under the same party. Not two terms.
Anyone from poor decaying rural America has had enough conversations with republicans with oddly class related philosophies to feel this comment hard
Generally speaking, they do want to lose. If they actually ran on their universally popular policies, they’d win majorities large enough to where they wouldn’t have excuses to not enact their legislative mandate, which is at odds with what their corporate donors want.
This is exactly it. The only thing they truly run on is vote for us or it’ll be even worse. They say nice things, but they have no intention of enacting most of them.
As I said in another thread, it’s not that they are just doing childish nicknames, they are making all sorts of statements every day about concrete goals, values, and things they want to fix or make better, it’s just that the only things you notice are things like the childish nicknames because… that’s the sort of thing that grabs people’s attention which is the reason they are trying out that tactic as well!
You yourself probably don’t slog through the boring articles, interviews, press statements, and so on, where they just present plans and ideas rather than headline grabbers. If you did, you wouldn’t paint such a simplistic picture, or wonder if it must be some conspiracy involving thousands of people to purposely lose.
they are making all sorts of statements every day about concrete goals, values, and things they want to fix or make better
We all saw how that worked out with BBB. No plan survives contact with the enemy friendly fire.