@gjohnsit @gjohnsit

[comment:body]

@The Aspie Corner
of DOV. She's a very nice person in person! But she still hugs the race card after all these years, allows zero room for any benefit of the doubt.

will be right behind this SOB. Let's face facts: If the left-wing actually starts gaining real power in this country, they won't make any money with their smear machine. Sites like TOP, Breitbart, Media Matters and Infowars all need asshole demagogues like the Cheeto Emperor to keep people stupid and aimlessly angry just like Fox did with Obama...you know, in spite of the fact that he had their backs behind closed doors.

@Timmethy2.0 The first article that I saw on accusing Putin of being behind Charlotsville attack was on TOP. Seems to be there are a set of "agenda setters" who job is to set the current talking points. Drudge very much serves this purpose on the right wing side.

anything about the DNC law suit and the claims by the DNC lawyers that the Party had every right to mislead the voters about it being a fair primary. Probably none.

What is interesting is how a smear on GOS got picked up by more mainstream corporate Dems in much the same way that Breitbart smears get picked up by Fox News.

@Dopeman

This should be the question at every event that Perez is at as you stated.
And this is why I question Bernie's commitment to change the direction of the DP. On the campaign trail he was saying that the minimum wage needs to be raised sooner than later, but now he's for the same incremental increases as Herheinous was. He says that by 2024, it should be $15, but by that time it should be even higher.
He's doing the same thing with MFA, which is nowhere close to universal health care that he was campaigning on.

for a debate between open and closed Democratic primaries when we haven't even established that Democratic primaries should be fair and neutral? In fact, what we have established is that there is no requirement at all that Democratic primaries be fair or neutral.

Of course, neoliberal corporatist asshats at TOP like Armando never have to answer that question. Any suggestion that the 2016 Democratic primary was anything but a paragon of electoral integrity is labeled as conspiracy theory and flagged over there.

I hope Tom Perez gets asked the same question wherever he goes as the 2020 primaries approach: You argued in court that the DNC has no obligation to conduct fair primaries and you won - why would anyone bother to participate in a primary process that you have the adjudicated right to rig as you see fit?

@Dopeman

Kinda almost looks as though voters are being pushed to the only other permissible 'choice' of the Repub wing of the Corporate Party, under the same carnivorous carnival tent, for that corporate/billionaire Constitutional rewrite deleting those pesky guaranteed citizen rights, etc., doesn't it?

for a debate between open and closed Democratic primaries when we haven't even established that Democratic primaries should be fair and neutral? In fact, what we have established is that there is no requirement at all that Democratic primaries be fair or neutral.

Of course, neoliberal corporatist asshats at TOP like Armando never have to answer that question. Any suggestion that the 2016 Democratic primary was anything but a paragon of electoral integrity is labeled as conspiracy theory and flagged over there.

I hope Tom Perez gets asked the same question wherever he goes as the 2020 primaries approach: You argued in court that the DNC has no obligation to conduct fair primaries and you won - why would anyone bother to participate in a primary process that you have the adjudicated right to rig as you see fit?

@Dopeman You argued in court that the DNC has no obligation to conduct fair primaries and you won - why would anyone bother to participate in a primary process that you have the adjudicated right to rig as you see fit?

Yeah--actually, why do they want us to participate? Aren't we just an afterthought?

for a debate between open and closed Democratic primaries when we haven't even established that Democratic primaries should be fair and neutral? In fact, what we have established is that there is no requirement at all that Democratic primaries be fair or neutral.

Of course, neoliberal corporatist asshats at TOP like Armando never have to answer that question. Any suggestion that the 2016 Democratic primary was anything but a paragon of electoral integrity is labeled as conspiracy theory and flagged over there.

I hope Tom Perez gets asked the same question wherever he goes as the 2020 primaries approach: You argued in court that the DNC has no obligation to conduct fair primaries and you won - why would anyone bother to participate in a primary process that you have the adjudicated right to rig as you see fit?

@snoopydawg I know what it means. It means "We have leverage over him. Where should we stick the knife in?"

A Democratic Party that gives every Democrat a voice in the process will make enormous gains from the school board to the Senate this cycle and it will take back the White House in 2020. We already see this incredible energy in a number of highly competitive races across the country.

I guess that Armando wasn't aware of the number of people who had their party affiliation changed and they were kicked off the voting rolls.
Or that the DNC admitted that votes don't really matter since they can just choose who our candidate should be.

This comment is priceless:

Clinton won the Popular Vote by the second highest amount in history, with Bernie's dagger in her back, James Comey attached to her ankle like an anchor, and the Russians hacking the DNC behind the scenes.
Build a time machine, stop Bernie from attacking.

Just threaten to announce the FBI investigation of Jane's fraud at Burlington college as a penalty.

I have no idea what the last sentence is supposed to even mean.
The pie fights are always fun to watch.
Good to see you writing so soon. Enjoy your nap.

@snoopydawg

of this. The Clintons are never going to take their hands off the controls of the DP. It's not enough that they moved it to the right and embraced neoliberalism and became another wing of the Republican Party. They refuse to let it move one inch to the left.

They absolutely hate Bernie because he told the truth about the DP, but Herheinous' supporters will never hear anything bad about Her, Obama or the DP.

@SancheLlewellyn
a story or two, but can't post them here. But, yeah, true.

He could easily pass for a Republican, just without the humility. I mean, his ego even dwarfs that of Markos.

@MrWebster for the nature diaries. Which is what I use say about Nat Geo looking of naked boobies at age 12.

Goes to Hedges who said that the democrats have learned how to talk liberal and progressive, yet in real actual policies do the opposite. Some Bernie critics have accused him of sheep dogging progressives into the graveyard of the democrats. Some truth to that but not by design. TOPS is in fact an organization whose main function is sheep-dogging and political propaganda for corporate democrats.

They constantly publish a subset of articles which are progressive. Anybody not aware of their history would think it was a "progressive site". But where they put their political monies is far from progressive, and not even liberal I would argue.

Their political arm in the last big House election gave a shit load of money to corporate centrist who would not publicly support unions from all I read (I searched but could not find any reference--more implicit anti-union stuff pushing him as a small capitalist). And yet today, on the front page of TOP, there were three prominent front pagers publishing pro-union diaries. Add to this I would say is Clinton's avid support of Walmart--one of the thee most anti-union companies in America. And this support was for Hillary BEFORE the end of the primaries.

So TOPS gave political cover to corporate democrats.

Another role is what I call tribal protection. There was a diary that attacked Cory Booker over his vote and was quickly approved by progressives. But then what I call tribal protection kicked in with a bunch of defenses of Booker. Same happened with K. Harris. Same happened with Hillary--the tribe was protected itself by the re-invention of her as a progressive.

Given them credit. They have mobilized enough moderate republicans to have a decent political war chest from what I can tell.

@SnappleBC

He asked:

Where's the great outcry to end the use of "Neoliberal" "corporatist" "crooked" and "rigged?"

Dude. It's right here on C99. We ALL want to end the use of those words. My guess is you'll find plenty of Independents who agree. You might even find a few Democrats.

But the thing is, we here are a reality based community so we can't really end the use of those words until the reality has changed. It's a classic neolib thing to debate semantics when you can't debate the underlying reality. What possible good could it do if we all stopped talking about your systemic corruption? It'd still exist. It would still be killing hundreds of thousands (if not millions or tens of millions) globally. How does not having the discussion help?