The dirty little truth about socialists

[JoeB131]

Sure I do super delegates choose the nominee and the actual party members dont have say. Who voted to make Harris a candidate

No, they really don't. Only about 10% of the delegates are super delegates.

All the Delegates voted for Harris, so that's not even an issue. Harris was a unique case of a candidate having to be selected after the primaries had been run.

the thing about Harris was that she had the best claim to the money Biden had already raised.

 

[80zephyr]

big words, prove them!

Court Concedes DNC Had the Right to Rig Primaries Against Sanders

The court affirmed that the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Hillary Clinton.

observer.com

 

[Luckyone]

Court Concedes DNC Had the Right to Rig Primaries Against Sanders

The court affirmed that the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Hillary Clinton.

observer.com

Did you read the entire article? I did, and it was clearly evident that there was a bias against Sanders, but the court clearly stated than even though those allegations are likely to be true, that the court itself could not do anything about it. This means, that it was NOT proven that it actually happened.

As such, it does NOT proven your words. If the courts could not prove it, much less, can you prove it here.

 

[80zephyr]

Did you read the entire article? I did, and it was clearly evident that there was a bias against Sanders, but the court clearly stated than even though those allegations are likely to be true, that the court itself could not do anything about it. This means, that it was NOT proven that it actually happened.

As such, it does NOT proven your words. If the courts could not prove it, much less, can you prove it here.

Come on, we both know that Hillary was gonna be the nominee.

 

[Luckyone]

Come on, we both know that Hillary was gonna be the nominee.

No, because if the party was as Socialistic (as you say it is), NOTHING would have stopped from nominating him!!!!

 

[EMH]

Bush II is a Republican that the entire Republican Party supported to the hilt and cheered on every move

Apparently your "study" of American politics doesn't go back to the "Pre Fox News GOP," which was fiscally conservative and patriotic to America. Bush I kept us OUT of IRAQ, despite huge pressure to "get him and finish the job" meaning Saddam. Bill Clinton campaigned on "finishing the job in Iraq," went before AIPAC and promised a US only invasion of Iraq. That is why Dick Morris and Mikey Mukasey and RUPERT MURDOCH were 100% for BILL CLINTON in 1992. Indeed, pretty much everyone who has ever worked at Fox was. They wanted George HW Bush to do ISRAEL a favor and whack Iraq. The nutcase Bible Thumpers believe Gawd gave Iraq to Israel, Ch1 Book of Joshua - Euphrates River is WHERE.... and that it is AMERICA's "duty" to "comply with Gawd's will" and invade Iraq, Iran etc... to help Israel exterminate all of their neighbors (as they did in Exodus) and take their land.... and then Jesus will float down from the clouds.... so it won't matter that we are $40 trillion in debt...


HW Bush - pre Fox News Republican = good conservative, patriotic American

W Bush = Fox News Republican = big spending big government anti conservative ZIONIST FASCIST = the WORST TRAITOR in US History, moving LBJ to 2nd...

 

[80zephyr]

No, because if the party was as Socialistic (as you say it is), NOTHING would have stopped from nominating him!!!!

The moderate leaders were still in power. Those days are over.

 

[SweetTea]

prove it

What professed Socialist would run on Republican ticket? It doesn’t make sense. Democratic voters will vote for a Socialist, case in point, NYC. Republican voters would not.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

If you ask a democratic socialist, what makes her different? What are they going to do different Then the authoritarian murder regimes of the past that they so admire... And they never really answer either.They can't ...they don't know how..

I used her because it's all women and fags anyway

 

[Luckyone]

The moderate leaders were still in power. Those days are over.

Prove it!.

Schumer and Jeffries are still the leaders of the party (as of today) and neither of them are Socialists.

 

[Luckyone]

What professed Socialist would run on Republican ticket? It doesn’t make sense. Democratic voters will vote for a Socialist, case in point, NYC. Republican voters would not.

One exception (NYC) does not make it a rule. Schumer and Jeffries still are the leaders of the Democrats and neither of them is a Socialist.

and by the way, Trump was declared of being a criminal in NYC and that is probably why Mamdani won. When a Republican goes to the extreme in one State, it is not surprising when the other extreme wins.

 

[80zephyr]

Prove it!.

Schumer and Jeffries are still the leaders of the party (as of today) and neither of them are Socialists.

I already did with the article I linked.

 

[Luckyone]

I already did with the article I linked.

I already disproved your article. If you can't read correctly, that is something I cannot do anything about, other than not respond to your posts

 

[SweetTea]

One exception (NYC) does not make it a rule. Schumer and Jeffries still are the leaders of the Democrats and neither of them is a Socialist.

and by the way, Trump was declared of being a criminal in NYC and that is probably why Mamdani won. When a Republican goes to the extreme in one State, it is not surprising when the other extreme wins.

Every Socialist runs on the Democratic ticket. Bernie Sanders ring any bells? Many Democrats are Socialists now, they are just afraid to use that term for fear of being labeled too extreme. More and more will come out and admit it and more and more far-left Democrats will vote for them.

 

[Luckyone]

Every Socialist runs on the Democratic ticket. Bernie Sanders ring any bells? Many Democrats are Socialists now, they are just afraid to use that term for fear of being labeled too extreme. More and more will come out and admit it and more and more far-left Democrats will vote for them.

but they are not in control. On the other side of the coin, the extreme right is in control and they actually are DOING harm. The extreme left cannot and has not done harm. They have NO control

 

[SweetTea]

but they are not in control. On the other side of the coin, the extreme right is in control and they actually are DOING harm. The extreme left cannot and has not done harm. They have NO control

The extreme left is running the Democratic Party.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The extreme left is running the Democratic Party.

Extreme left

 

[Luckyone]

The extreme left is running the Democratic Party.

Prove it!!!!!!!

From what I know, it is still Schumer and Jeffries that are basically running the party and neither of them are the extreme left

A new wave of far-left candidates out to oust old-guard Democrats​

Members of the Democratic party often described as the most progressive or "extreme left" include Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, and Ayanna Pressley.

As far as being in control................no

Based on political trends leading up to 2026, the party is best described as having a hybrid influence rather than exclusive control by one faction:

 

[SweetTea]

From what I know, it is still Schumer and Jeffries that are basically running the party and neither of them are the extreme left

Yes those two kooks are extreme. Cortez and the rest of those wackos are just even further left than Schumer and Jeffries. Obama of 2012 would be right of those two. Clinton's policies would be conservative by the current standards. The left has LEFT normal people behind.

 

[Luckyone]

Yes those two kooks are extreme. Cortez and the rest of those wackos are just even further left than Schumer and Jeffries. Obama of 2012 would be right of those two. Clinton's policies would be conservative by the current standards. The left has LEFT normal people behind.

Well, that is simply YOUR opinion and from my knowledge-base of being American for 80 years and being a totally unbiased person, I do not accept your opinion as being fact. In addition, they are not "kooks" or "extreme", Their history in Congress has proven to be the opposite of what you say.

Yes, they believe in the Democratic platform and as such, defend it to the nth degree

'24 DEMOCRAT PARTY PLATFORM

but that doesn't mean "kooks or extreme". It is what that party represents