If you think you're gonna teach the DNC a lesson, think again
Since this primary season started, people have complained that the DNC hasn’t given Bernie a fair shot at the Democratic nomination. Now that we’ve witnessed it unfold, some are claiming financial damages and a rigged process. And of course there’s the Bernie or Bust movement, which is actually nothing new.
I have news for the Bernie or Bust movement. You will not teach the DNC a lesson by not voting for Hillary because Bernie isn’t on the ticket.
The DNC wants to retain the power is wields. Some of that power comes about from having a Democrat in the White House, and some of that power comes from having a Democratic majority in the Senate.
But most of their power comes from being aligned with big money interests. Everyone hates the political corruption in America, the lobbyists, the SuperPAC money. Everyone, that is, except for the pigs who feed from the trough.
Before the primaries began, Cenk Uygur interviewed Jill Stein who illustrated a startling reality. The Democratic party has a history of “torpedoing” progressive candidates. Jackson, Kucinich, Dean, and others have been pushed aside by the Democratic establishment, and we could expect them to do the same to Bernie.
The Democratic establishment doesn’t always side with the populist candidate. They consistently side with the one who will maintain the status quo. Bernie Sanders definitely promised to upset the status quo.
I’m a hardcore Sanders supporter. I’m not going to tell anyone whether they should vote for Hillary for president, or not. Vote your conscience. But if you think allowing the Republican to win will teach the DNC et al a lesson, you’re dead wrong. They have opted for the Republican over the progressive before, and they will do it again.
Could Howard Dean have become president in 2004? I’ll bet he’d have fared better than John “treebeard” Kerry. I’m no fan of Jesse Jackson, but compared to Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis?
The DNC would rather lose to the Republican than allow Bernie Sanders to become President.
So if you think you will teach them a lesson by allowing Trump to win, it’s already baked into the recipe. The Democrats like to pretend publicly that they can expect the same results with Hillary as they could with Bernie. That’s bullshit. They are just maintaining this self-delusion so it will spread to the masses, but they know better. Losing the election is a risk they are willing to take.
With only a binary choice, the Democratic establishment thinks our participation will fall into only two areas — support or non-support. Either we’ll vote for Hillary, or we won’t vote for her. The third choice is inconceivable to them: That we’ll vote for someone else.
If you want to teach the DNC a lesson, then vote for Jill Stein, or form a new party. Abstaining from the vote is apathy, it is not power. The only way to fight the power is to exert your own!
[video:https://www.youtube.com/embed/WTqwof5VvbA width:560 height:315]
Comments
A vote for Jill
helps to develop and "grow" the Green Party. She would be included in the debates if she has 15% support.
If Bernie doesn't secure the nomination, I predict a large migration to the Green Party (maybe 15%?).
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Presidential debates aren't mandatory
There no law saying there has to be debates. Don't be surprised if there isn't one this year.
They risk more problems
trying to avoid debates in the general.
I know it's hard for Hillary to not be scripted to the Nth degree, but she has to debate at least once. If she does not, she's taking an even bigger risk, risking the wrath of The Donald and her chickening out.
Of course if he's a total ringer and never wanted to be POTUS? He'll go right along with her chickening out. Which would be so completely out-of-character for him that he'll never get away with not giving her shit--because that, right there, will be the TELL that he was always a ringer. If he's blabbermouth enough, maybe he'll even tell us who put him up to it (coughcoughBILLcoughcough).
Wouldn't it be cool if when October rolls around
Jill Stein is ahead of Hillary in the polls. Suddenly it's Hillary fighting for relevance and acting as the spoiler for Jill. I just wish we could trust our pollsters and media to publicize such polls.
Beware the bullshit factories.
So, yesterday on TPW,
can'tstopthesignal said voting and electing hrc would teach the dnc a lesson because they would see how awful she is. Both arguments are laughable.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
I do find that one
more laughable than getting trump elected to teach them a lesson.
Is that like shooting yourself in the head to get rid of a
headache?
I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks
Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa
Where did I say that?
I must have been high.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I was wondering, you've never supported Clinton!
I finally decided RA had probably mistyped, and didn't make anything more of it...
Sorry - I misspoke!
It was theleftiscenter - those handles confound me. Apologies!
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
No problem. LOL
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I don't actually know what TPW is
And I know I've never typed those words, anywhere. At the very least, there's been a severe misunderstanding of some other words I did type--at the worst, there's been some sort of online identity theft. So if you could include a link to the comment, I'd appreciate it.
If you look at my comment history, here and on Twitter, you'll see that supporting a vote for HRC--for any reason whatsoever--would be extraordinarily out of character for me.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Apologies, CStS! See reply to you above! eom
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
Hey, no problem.
Just glad we got it cleared up. I was about to write a very short diary entitled I HAVE NOT, NOR WILL I EVER, SUPPORT HILLARY CLINTON, FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER, and put in the body merely "You would literally have to put a gun to my head, or the head of someone I loved." Which is a sentence fragment, so I'm glad we cleared this whole thing up.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Me too. Thanks CStS! :)
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
I don't care what they learn or don't learn anymore
I am done with them.
Once more for the rows in back that didn't get this message the first time: I don't give a flying fuck what they think, what they want, or what they believe. I am no longer voting for any of their compromised fucking candidates.
Right now, my concern is ensuring that all ballots COUNT. If I cannot be guaranteed my Green Party vote will be properly counted, I have no choice but to vote for the asshole Donald Trump. That woman has to be kept away from the seat of power, whatever it takes.
Ditto. That is where I am being pushed also.
And, yes, they may not have cared in the past which direction we went, but I think they will this time as it gives us more solid ground to organize. My reason for not going Green is a bit different though. Voting Green is passive resistance that says one can live with HRC. A vote for the asshole Trump (to differentiate him from the asshole HRC) is an assertive or even aggressive vote. I have spent way too much of my life being passive.
I , however, also believe that every single Democrat, third party or Independent we can get into other slots will be a huge help to stemming any Republican agenda along with continuing the fight against elitist rule. (It probably won't matter if HRC is elected as any new progressive people will probably get swept up and overwhelmed by the corporate Ds so they virtually have no voice or impact.)
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
I was one of the first to say I would vote for Trump just to
double tap Hillary and lose her two votes, her's and his. I still would do it if I was pissed enough. Having said that, you and I have to admit it is a "negative" vote. Voting for Stein gives us a shot to build something while we try to starve Hillary to death at the polls. Each strategy has it pros and cons. All I ask of Trump protest votes is that we both keep our options open until it is time to vote.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Nothing is written in stone as yet.
I said months ago, IF HRC was the nominee, I would see what the polls said in November (and my own gut feeling as I have little faith in polls) before I made the final decision, but I would vote Trump if necessary. Either way, a vote for HRC or Trump, is a negative vote as neither serves my interests or those of the majority of this country.
I would much rather we look at building a third party rather than joining or trying to join with Green. A fresh start. I think if someone came up with a good party name, it would get off the ground. = )
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
So would I, we desperately need that
but we've got to get the ballot counting under some kind of control first, IMO....
Bullshit
That's defeatist can't do attitude right there. You're the kind of bandwagon progressive that only joined Bernie AFTER it became clear to you that he could win it.
But if you don't think Jill can win, you won't vote for her. That STUPIDITY is why people do stupid things that help TPTB stay in power.
Stop being stupid. Stop being a bandwagoner. Vote for Jill.
ahem...cough cough...now now....
people are still working this out in their heads.
I've been fighting this war since Nixon
And today I'm just tired of people "working it out in there heads" They've had their whole lives to educate themselves about the political reality. As a recent essay said, it's time to shit or get off the pot. Pull your head out, whatever. But you're either a bandwagon progressive or you've actually woken up, learned the truth and faced it.
If you even consider voting for Hillary or Trump instead of helping the Green Party become a legitimate third party, then you really need to buy a clue. At this late date, how can anyone still be that clueless? Honestly? I have trouble buying that.
This is exactly the kind of response
that made me to leave DK...BEFORE the mass exodus...and why I am spending less and less time here lately.
I was with Sanders from the beginning (after thinking about O'Malley for a bit).
I did not say Green could not win even though history and Sanders (maybe) loss pretty much shows that won't happen this election season. I am all for a third party, but right now my focus is on not allowing HRC and Bill back in power.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
Well shit or get off the pot then
You're either a bandwagonner or you're a believer in the progressive cause. You can't rationalize voting HRC or Trump and be for the progressive cause. You can't not vote and be for the progressive cause. There's no other third party progressive choice out there except Green.
Soooooooo....you can not vote Green because you're a band wagon progressive that only votes for winning candidates or you can make up your mind to get out of the trap the powers that be have created, ignore their lesser of two evils fallacy and vote third party.
Maybe don't chase off allies
Just because their views don't perfectly align with your worldview.
i don't believe a word Clinton says this cycle and I don't believe a word Trump says either.
I think there will be little daylight between the two prospective administrations.
If my goal was to stop Clinton, it seems perfectly logical to vote Trump.
I'm on the fence between Stein and Trump.
The hell you can't
They've got five months to prove to me that my ballot actually gets counted.
I have no guarantees they are counted correctly now. Nobody does. That's the point. Look at how many people wanted to vote PROGRESSIVELY--for Bernie Sanders--and it didn't matter because these assholes have the counting process stacked to favor THEM.
To me, that has to be solved before we can do anything else, or we are just spinning our wheels. We have to fight for a ballot that works.
Except for the fact
that all ballot counting is suspect, is there another reason you think your Green vote might not be counted, but one for Trump will? Honest question. Just not clear to me what your thoughts are on this. Thank you.
Of course! Knowing that nothing is 'absolute'
when it comes to these ballots, my reasoning is that if there are going to be any votes "not counted", they would be Green or Libertarian or any other party other than "Republican" or "Democrat".
I mean, if Hillary has it all locked up, even to where they're flipping R votes for her? We can't stop that. But I feel like voting for the R is the only way to stop her, because the cheater brigades have every incentive to discount third party votes.
Don't get me wrong, I would much, MUCH rather Go Green. But if I can't be guaranteed that it will count, all that remains is one of the duopoly. I find Mrs. Clinton to be far more dangerous than Mr. Trump.
Just a guess, but I think
with all the election cheating on both sides that will be going on in November, the machines will blow up.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
Don't think there will be much fraud on the Republican side.
The Republican establishment is perfectly comfortable with Her Royal Highness; they know she will protect their interests.
"When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained." - Mark Twain
Exactly
their primaries were amazingly in-sync between the final counts and the exit polling, last time I looked. They wouldn't mind a Trump POTUS either, they can wear him as a puppet, just like they did with George the Dumber...
If anything is suspicious Trump and his supporters will go
ballistic. They will not put up with having their votes changed by electronic vote tabulators. We whine about our votes being stolen. They bring guns. Could be very interesting if the election is close.
Wait, what? Who are they gonna shoot?
This stuff has been suspicious for over fifteen years now. If they haven't started shooting by now over it, I doubt that's going to be their answer.
Their candidates have not been losing
Trump supporters would not go ballistic about Kerry being ripped off in Ohio or Gore in Florida. However, if they think Trump is being ripped off, that is a different story.
And I ask again,
who are they gonna shoot?
They're not going to literally go ballistic because their votes are being ripped off, even if they actually figure it out. They're gonna do what we're doing about it, which as of now, is discussing it. Even if they really did start shooting, I can't control the gun situation in this country, and neither can you. So short of staying home behind barricaded doors for the next year, I see no reason to let the fact that somebody might start shooting determine my course of action. That could happen tomorrow at the damned supermarket.
They coild shoot the machines
That would be no loss to anyone.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
That would be the right thing to be shooting at
if there's such a thing, but I don't think that's what the OC meant
But there's another fact
TPTB dont' actually count the ballots themselves. Outside of evoting, which isn't as prevalent nationwide as people think, most of their dirty tricks come in the form of voter suppression. They have the little people actually hand count ballots.
So volunteer or get hired on to count the ballots. To be a poll worker. To make sure EVERY VOTE COUNTS.
What could they possibly do if the day of the election, in hundreds of voting centers that used evoting machines, the poll workers showed up with enough hand ballots for everyone and the fuse box at the building "just happened" to get fried so the evoting machines wouldn't work?
Thank god YOU poll workers had the foresight to bring paper ballots!
We aren't out of this fight. We're just beginning.
While all ballot counting is suspect
not all ballot counting is fraudulent.
Just look at how LA and SF have flipped for Bernie. We can and WILL do our damndest to stop as much fraud as possible in November. This election is already different. Now everyone knows the elections are rigged and we've seen how they do it. So we can fight back.
So don't be hopeless, this fight is far from over. In fact, it's just beginning.
Let me know when they actually GIVE IT TO HIM
you're really missing the point to some of this. Not everyone knows. Everyone SHOULD know, but there's a fuckton of denial around, clearly.
I'm fighting back, starting with my ballot. It will count, or it will get cast in the usual corrupt duopoly and it will be against that damnable woman whose hero is Margaret Thatcher if she has any at all.
US vote tabulation cannot be verified from the inside.
All nations, when in doubt, make use of the UN election observation system.
If a people suspect elections are rigged, they have entered the first stage of civil war. That's why the UN is called upon. It prevents national instability. A good President would make that call right now.
____________________
The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
We've entered the second stage of civil war
We KNOW the elections are rigged. We don't count on help from the UN. We realize we have to take extraordinary measures to secure our elections.
If we instigated a MASSIVE influx in poll workers. Undermined their voter suppression tactics. Committed civil disobedience upon their DRE machines. Made sure EVERYONE got to vote.
We can beat them out of sheer will, organization and numbers.
Hate to be didactic
…but it cannot be done from the inside, and you prove that case.
You already believe that the vote is rigged, which disqualifies you by global standards. The world would ignore your findings as biased.
That's why the UN is essential to this process. They don't believe anything at all going into it. Election oversight is what they specialize in. They use leading experts from the world over, in every technology, to verify the outcomes.
What happens is that, when an expert cannot verify the outcome from what he has observed (gross ballot manipulation, or more likely chain of evidence flaws), then that is a huge problem. The observer walks away. There are no confrontations. The UN observers leave the US. They announce their findings from outside the US.
The world then knows that the US is a rogue state, unless the election process is corrected and the election is repeated. When those results are verified by the UN, then Americans will know they have a process for fair elections and will know what that looks like.
The world will know that the US is not a failed state.
____________________
The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
What are you smoking?
Who gives a rats FUCK what the rest of the world knows or doesn't know? What I'm talking about is WINNING.
UNFIX their fix. Is it that hard for you to comprehend. I"m not saying join the system, I'm saying INFILTRATE the system and sabotage their fraudulent activity.
You just proved why we need to do this. Hoping on the UN to "shame" TPTB into doing the right thing isn't going to get a damned thing done. We've got to do it ourselves.
Scott...
there are two good examples in this thread alone of your many insulting aggressive comments that I've been seeing lately. Either cut the crap or I going to bounce you out of here.
The "what are you smoking" title
was over the top. My apologies to Plato. Uncalled for.
You're not the first to wonder what I am smoking.
I view things geopolitically. It's as simple as that. So my comments weigh in global reactions because that is the big driver of big change. [My sig should have a warning: "The planet in my mirror is bigger than it appears."]
Do you know what the US and its followers do to a nation that they believe has rigged (undemocratic) elections? They work together to bring that nation down economically (collective punishment) through sanctions and withdrawn trade. Travel visas dry up. Eventually they bomb it if becomes a nuisance to the world, especially if it has natural resources to seize.
Those are the rules. That's the leverage that comes from a declaration from the UN. The US would freak at being marginalized by the world and crippled economically. They'd fix it fast.
But you are more right than wrong. I proposed it knowing full well that Your Overlords and your brainwashed fellow citizens would never allow the UN to observe a US election. You are sensitive to psyops. Good.
You possibly can fix it. Incrementally and under the radar, without the world watching. It's as simple as stuffing an octopus in a shoebox.
____________________
The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
i have
never understood the whole "what are you smoking" slur. Seems to me that anything that enables a person to perceive something in some way other than that of the vacant-eyed cud-chewing through-a-glass-darkly crowd, that should be venerated, rather than derided.
Anyway, this is a world that cries out for Medicine. It says so in the bible. Also, the constitution.
What would it take to get the UN to step in?
I don't know if some don't want as much as they don't believe the UN will. There is a petition somewhere asking the UN to come monitor our primary. There are two lawsuits in the works. The RICO lawsuit that proves voter surpression and election fraud, and the lawsuit that sue the DNC for colluding with Hillary and perpetrating fraud on donors. What else does the UN need?
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I supported dk as my protest vote.
We have more in common than our differences. Now, where have we heard that before.
Look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see, and wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious. Stephen Hawking
The UN cannot step in and gain access
…without the agreement of the nation's rulers. However, I believe in the US, the Executive has the power to make a request (Obama). It is widely known that Americans are armed and dangerous and would probably shoot to kill any UN officials at their local polling places. So, each polling place would require the National Guard, which the President must order. Remember, Americans wanted to shoot and kill census takers after Obama was elected.
With a large enough mandate via petition from the American people, the UN might offer to observe the 2016 election with protections in place. If the US refused that offer, that would be a starting place. The entire world would pay attention to that.
One of the best ways to get the UN's attention is for the people to stop voting altogether. That is the proof that US elections are rigged and the people regard voting as pointless —> not voting carries no risk. Low voting counts signal a failed democracy/failed state. At that point, the UN would make the offer to observe the election process.
The US response would reveal all and alter the future.
____________________
The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
You know that isn't going to happen.
Obama is almost as bad as the Clintons. They are never going to "give" power away. It will have to be taken.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Which begs the question
…I had when I arrived here.
Why would anyone bother to stay or fight against the perverse abuses permitted under the nation's obsolete constitution? It's a waste of a human lifetime, when one could emigrate to a decent modern nation and live an extraordinary life.
____________________
The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
You have got to have something
underpinning it all to start with, or it becomes a free-for-all.
You're making a giant leap from "counting ballots" to "abolishing the Constitution", and that makes zero sense. You get the elections under control, within the framework you have established. Then and only then can governance--real democratic governance in a "free" republic--proceed with changes such as the kind you envision.
I was speaking about emigrating.
I mentioned the constitution rhetorically as a reason that fighting is pointless. I didn't connect the US Constitution to electoral issues, since it barely mentions them. It's far too primitive to do so.
I am unfamiliar with the concept of "abolishing the constitution." That's not part of any national process. When nations update their constitutions (and they all do) the current constitution remains in force. Only when and if a new constitution is ratified by a very high majority of citizens, would the current constitution be replaced.
Citizen consensus (at profound margins) is the only mechanism for changing or adopting constitutions that would be recognized by world courts as legal.
That will never happen in the United States in its current geographic configuration. Nor can the current constitution be amended any longer. It's fully entrenched. One can either love it or leave it. Hence my comment.
____________________
The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
That is a good question....
One many of us have been asking ourselves for years. I stay because of family. However, I am creating an underground railroad for my family. I am in the process of getting dual Italian citizenship jure sanguinis for me, my only child, and her three sons. When done, my great grandchildren will automatically be Italian citizens. I find it exciting and, surprisingly, rousing some feelings of homeland. I will definitely take a trip when I have my new passport.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I would dearly love to emigrate
but I've been looking into it for the last decade, and there's really not a lot of places in this world to "run from" some kind of threat by the USA.
Not to mention it does exactly nothing for the people who must remain.
you would have
to find a nation willing to accept a person legendary across the tubes as the second coming of Wile E. Coyote.
Hapless: clueless: wrong.
Good luck.
; )
What does this even mean? n/t
If emigrating was possible, I'm sure many would
But it requires money which many people don't have. And getting approval from the new country.
It's not like you can just fly to Norway and move in.
To the extent that the Democratic Party cannot deliver
the neoliberal goods to the owners of the political economy, the party's power wanes. The Dems can't deliver if they don't have a "-D" in the white house and are the minority in both houses of congress.
I think people should vote for a candidate that reflects their ethics and morals. If none do, then don't vote.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
While not voting for the presidential slot is an option.
Not voting for down ballot could be a serious error. We need progressives in both houses while we build a new party so we can have people behind enemy lines.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
Downballot - Agree totally
and sorry if I gave the impression that if you can't vote for a presidential candidate, you should not vote at all. You need to vote for those candidates you can stomach for whatever office they are seeking.
"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"
I'm looking at a primary ballot right now
that I will be dropping off tomorrow, election day in CO. (If I vote.)
It has my Rep and Senator running unopposed in the primary. So, I suppose it doesn't matter. But, I am having a hard time filling in the circle for them because they committed as Superdelegates for Clinton. Fine if they want to vote for her, but as you all know, the problem is they committed to her before any votes. Colorado went for Bernie. My Rep's district went for Bernie.
I think there may be a threshold they have to reach to be on the general election ballot even if they are unopposed. Not sure really.
Then there are also on the ballot Regent of the University, State Rep, County Commissioners, all running unopposed in the primary.
In that case, for me...
this is what I would do: I would vote as needed, for whomever possible. Mainly becasue I would not want them (the elites, the DNC, whoever else has a buck in the game) to think that I was not interested in elections and therefore give them a mandate to do whatever they wanted because people don't care.
Are the Rep and Senator good on other issues that I care about? If yes, then I would vote for them in spite of their SD intransigence (I would also let them know this), partly because they were tricked--we are all human. If I had faith in the others, I would let them know by casting a vote for them. If I didn't, I would leave that one blank.
Again, this is what I would do.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
They were tricked?
How so?
I've pretty much decided to leave the rep and senator blank, but vote the others. It won't matter anyway since they're unopposed. Maybe practice for the general, ha.
Also, it occurred to me that I want to turn in a ballot in case it might possibly help me to not be dropped from the rolls. I may not vote in the general, but I want it to be my decision, not because I was disenfranchised.
I consider most but not all
who signed on with HRC before any votes were cast or before Sanders was known as having been tricked (or coerced). I am not sure when Webb, Chaffee or O'Malley announced but they were not strong candidates. I also understand (this could just be bad information) that the DNC limited the field of who could run at the very start.
For he general, I would hope everyone who can votes--just not for HRC or any other candidate who will further the demands of corporations or will aggressively seek more war.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
general election ballot
False. If unopposed, they get on the GE ballot, period. It's a privilege only the duopoly parties enjoy in Colorado.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
I don' wanna teach DNC a lesson.
Can't teach an old dog new tricks. Like the nag that can no longer pull the plow, DNC needs to be put to pasture until it dies and ground into dog food.
There is no such thing as TMI. It can always be held in reserve for extortion.
I agree wholeheartedly with 95% of what you said
...and until the nomination has been concluded, I cannot yet see ahead to what my heart and soul and mind will tell me to do.
Yeah, Dems ain't learnin' anything from any of us who can't dump millions into their feeding trough. It was clear to me last summer with the debate schedule that they would FAR PREFER to lose with Hillary than to win with Sanders. I still can't fully get my head around that, but nothing I have seen from them deviates from that path.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
Hill Probably Won't Lose to Trump
Hill's got herself a bonafide "progressive" Trump attack dog campaigning with her: Elizabeth Warren. The presidency is in the bag, barring not unforseen circumstances, but Obama's political will to see justice served. I'm not holding out much hope on that happening.
LOL! Yeah, Ol' Liz really shot herself in the foot
with that one. So no, the Presidency is *not* in the bag, unless everybody just rolls over and decides that for themselves just like you seem to have.
I can't respect that. We're not here to give up.
PBO will be exactly as tough on Hillary
as he was on her Wall Street masters. FBI Director Comey may well recommend charges against Her Highness. But with PBO in the White House? The chance of AG Lynch actually going forward are slim. She has incredible discretion as to whether to seek an indictment.
At the GOS, they rail about the good ol' boy system in the GOP. But in the Savings & Loan scandal/crisis/theft of the 1980s, over ONE THOUSAND bankers and Wall Street execs were convicted. During a Rethug administration.The ENRON scandal of the early 00s? The Enron thieves were butt buddies with George W. But they went to trial and jail. During a Rethug administration. Obama's record of going after the banksters? Not one convicted...because nobody was even charged! I'll take GHW Bush or even the Shrub's record over PBO's.
Some are saying that Director Comey and others in the Bureau will resign in protest if Lynch/Obama Deep Six a Hillary indictment. Perfect for Hillary! Comey has over 7 years left in his term as FBI Director. Plenty of time to get her for something. The perfect situation for her is if Comey rec's indicting, Lynch refuses, then Comey resigns.
"Just call me Hillbilly Dem(exit)."
-H/T to Wavey Davey
Rather than resign
Shouldn't Comey arrest Obama for obstruction of justice? It's not legal just because the president does it.
Thank you
This is the part I don't get. If Comey is such a stand-up guy, what is he waiting for?
Purely anecdotal
but my moderate Republican neighbors are voting for the Shill. I did give them my two cents and they've seen the Bernie sticker that's been on my car for almost a year now, but they're OK with Shill. I have other Republican friends who wont vote Trump but also will not vote HRC, but I'd bet most of the people in my building who I know are Republican vote HRC. So the tactic is working right as planned, with Trump getting uglier and stupider every day, I have a really hard time seeing the Shill lose, damn it. And I think Obama will protect her to protect himself. That's what these people do.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
A lot can happen in a month
...and we still have nearly that until Philly. Wikileaks could produce something unexpected. After Philly, I'm not convinced Trump really is the Repub pick. We'll have to see. I don't accept at this moment that everything is sewn up.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
You have a point.
Not voting only helps if we also take radical action to change our system of political power--how power actually works in this country. In other words, not voting only helps in the context of revolution.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
A decision has to be reached soon
Should the DNC be abandoned and all energy put into building up the Greens or another 3rd party or should the attempt to transform the DNC continue? It seems a lot of the hesitancy comes from waiting on the FBI and Bernie and seeing what will happen at the DNC convention. Things are really uncertain right now but action by all of us opposed to the 2 party charade, has to be taken soon.
Beware the bullshit factories.
As much as I like the idea of joining with the green party
I don't think it will be the most optimum solution for long term success.
There are many in the greens that would see us as interlopers and we would be dealing with internal conflict just like we currently have with the DNC (albeit to a significantly lesser extent I would imagine.)
The other big negative is the green party has a reputation, and it's not necessarily a good one.
I think for ultimate success we need to help build up the green party as well as forming a new progressive party to work together as a coalition.
We already got two right wing parties, I think two left wing parties would be a strong coalition. It would allow us to each be in a party that focuses on it's own primary interests, reduce struggles for party control and further widen the electoral field and break this bullshit dichotomy that we have currently.
Just my 2 cents.
"I used to vote Republican & Democrat, I also used to shit my pants. Eventually I got smart enough to stop doing both things." -Me
That sounds to me like a really good idea
Support the Greens but work on building a 3rd party. I'm just getting a little impatient myself because I want to start pushing an alternative to Trump and Hillary now but I feel like I need more clarity with what is going to be happening with Bernie and the DNC. #NeverHillary #NeverTrump.
Beware the bullshit factories.
I don't understand how it's not a no-brainer
to make our "next move" an in-your-face confrontation with those who COUNT THE BALLOTS.
We are spinning our wheels if we put all our resources into another party but we can't know if our ballots are being counted at all, let alone correctly.
We need a place for people to hang their hats
that is more sustaining/nourishing/social--and more enduring--than signing your name on a class-action lawsuit.
Two things simultaneously going on here: people trying to come up with a prioritized list of objectives, and suss out ways of achieving them--and people trying to take territory and establish a "home base."
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
We've found that
my point is, there can be three things simultaneously going on (or four or ten); we have to be assured our ballots are going to count if they are going to be cast outside the long-fixed duopoly. The DNC class-action suit helps the overall effort along, it is but one prong in that effort.
The way TPTB have been running it, IMO, we have to assume any votes outside GOP or DEM will not be counted properly or correctly.
I agree with your priorities, of course
We must assume that it's currently pointless to vote, since it's been made bleeding obvious that our votes will only count if they don't start to interfere with the policy choices--and candidate choices--that have already been made by the establishment.
In other words, we can have one Kshama Sawant in Seattle, we may eventually get a Zephyr Teachout in NY, but there's no way in hell we're going to reach a critical mass of progressives in office that could accomplish actual policy changes. Once we get close to a number that could actually wield power nationwide, they will shut us down, sort of like Bernie won more than 20 states, and didn't get decisively shut down until it looked like he might actually gain enough delegates to challenge Hill at the convention. They only shut him down when it looked like he was actually gonna get his hands on some power. We must assume they'll do the same with down-ballot. Why wouldn't they? Apparently, it's pretty easy to rig an election.
So of course, I agree with you about electoral politics, and what our priorities have to be there.
But creating a persistent framework that offers people who agree on these issues a place to come together is also quite important. IMO, that's the main threat the Occupy encampments posed to the establishment, and the reason that they were taken down--other than providing practice for our "homeland security" apparatus.
If by "we already found one," you mean caucus99percent, I'm pleased you think so. I'm proud of this site, and especially of the work others did here to make this seedling take root. But IMVSO--digital-only is not gonna cut it in these times. We will need very strong communities, on both levels, digital and IRL, to make a go at any political change.
Even if digital-only *were* sufficient, we would need to massively recruit for caucus99percent and get the word out about it very extensively if it's going to be the harbor for the whole movement. We would also need--preferably before that kind of mass recruitment--to consider what site architecture was necessary to accommodate so many, and figure out how to raise enough money to give Johnny and others actual steady pay for their work. If this site is gonna be the hub for the entire anti-corruption movement, or even a large part of it, the people doing the work of the site would have to get paid.
I think it would be better to let caucus99 grow as part of the movement, while building a political party that would offer a localized, on-the-ground place for people to come together. Having local community-based IRL movements which are networked into a larger fabric was what Occupy should have become, and where it was headed, before military takedowns, a perverted use of the legal system, and infiltration brought the movement down.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
you're making a terrible assumption about my vote
i'm not withholding my vote for Clinton to 'teach a lesson'. it has nothing to do with Sanders not being the nominee. the fact is i have never been FOR Clinton in 2016 NOR 2008. plain and simple. i was favoring O'Malley until Sanders got into the race. i backed Edwards in '08 and even he wasn't my first choice.
just because Clinton is the last one standing doesn't mean she automatically gets my vote. i have other options to exercise come November, one of them being 'none of the above'.
If only "None of The Above" meant anything
In many districts it's considered a "spoiled vote" and discarded.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
i perceive 'none of the above' is an option...
....from our ballot design. i should get this clarified with the voter registrar but there is a blank space in each list of candidates. i've been going on the assumption that if you connect the arrow on that blank space it is a vote for 'none'. see the PDF sample ballot for our county below.
i think the blank space also allows that if you don't want to vote for that office it closes that vote so someone else down the line can't then connect the arrows for a candidate if you were to leave it blank.
http://www.voteinfo.net/voterInformation/root0607/ballots/bt000045.pdf
Edit: I reread your comment and noted your disclaimer about 'many districts' see it as a spoiled vote. It may be an option for me but not other districts. Still, I need to get that confirmed for my county.
There are a number of constituencies the Dems take for granted
Blacks, Hispanics, Labor, Teachers, the LGBT community...
They have no real interest in helping any of these groups, so this needs to be the basis of any new coalition.
When all they have left is lawyers, managers, and bankers, that is when they will finally learn a lesson...
I think the big question is whether the Millennials will stay as idealistic as they are now, or if they will follow the Boomers and become Yuppies...
" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "
Pages