The next president of the United States

[xyz]

Bernie lost to our weakest candidate to ever run for the democrats. So why the hell do any of you think he will win against good strong candidates. I think that you on the radical right just don't understand where the majority of people are in this country. Many voted against Clinton following Putins orders. But with all the swift boating against her she would have won if she had campaigned late in the areas that caused her to lose. The only way I would vote for Bernie is if the other choice was the Donald. Trump has proven that we can not trust him with foreign leaders and he cannot for the life of him ever tell the truth. In his last two hour speech he told 103 lies and yet you on the right still follow him a proven liar. But the worst about trump is all a foreign leader or despot has to do is compliment him and he will believe anything they say even though the intelligence cummintiy has evidence what they said is a lie. And you want him another 4 years. That folks is just sick. I don't want a man that believes these world class killers over our own intelligence cummintiy.

You have some good points.

I don't think Bernie would be that terrible, but he might neglect foreign affairs and the military, which seems to be a bad idea at the present time.

 

[the other mike]

Bernie lost to our weakest candidate to ever run for the democrats..

You still don't get that he was cheated by the DNC and Clinton campaign ? That this is what the whole Russiagate charade is really about ? The "DIRT" on Hillary is that they rigged the primaries ! ( among other things)

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Chaos is the goal.

And the reason for that is the larger goal:weakening NATO

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Which at the moment heavily favor Trump.

Ha ha. Linkie? This oughta be fun.

Where have you been?
Independents favored Trumps SOTU to the tune of 82%

Lying fuck.

LOL....

Bring in the Fake Dave,he's bound to know how to use the Google.

Dave's right, you're a lying fuck. Here's the same YouGov saying 42% of Independents approve, 47% disapprove, and 13% not sure what to make of this shit.

Page 2, if you can count that far.

And sorry, that's an actual link to the actual poll. It seems we're fresh out of user-generated Googly Image memes.

How about a link that actually works....like this one.
Most viewers approved of Trump's second State of the Union address

 

[the other mike]

Chaos is the goal.

And the reason for that is the larger goal:weakening NATO

The comedy team of Abbot and Abbot in a Hillary circle jerk.

 

[Pogo]

I've still got no answer on what it means to "join" a party. To register in their name, that's it? What's the point?

Absolutely true, the party is going to nominate who it wants to nominate, and the "primaries" are bread and circus to make it look like a real thing. But that's all it is --- a cartel. You get two subcartels, one red, one blue, and they control everything. Go outside the cartel, you go nowhere. Think of the two together as a Mob. It may feel nice and idealistic to fantasize about breaking the system from the outside but it's not gonna happen in the real world as long as Duopoly rules. Therefore you run red or you run blue, and those are your only choices. Regardless of anybody's ideals.

Well one is to say "in this election I will be opposing your parties candidates"

And if you want to run blue then run blue. Don't run to beat the guy running blue, then decide that is the group you want to join for your political gain as you choose. That's it.

Or in Sanders case run as a Dem, then decline the nomination to ensure they can't field a candidate to oppose you in the election.

I just am fine if the party you run against to keep out of an election doesn't want you using their party when it suits you.

I'm afraid that IS the only function of a political party. It's the horse you ride to get to the office.
That's what I'm trying to tell you.

It doesn't mean anything ideologically --- it means "what will work in this time and place". That's why mayors like Frank Rizzo and Ray Nagin ran as Democrats .... they knew if you're going to run a city that's the only way you get elected. That's simply practical, nothing to do with ideologies. That's why Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms and Richard Shelby and Trent Lott et al jumped from Democrat to Republican. Same people with the same ideologies, jumping to a different horse because the odds had changed.

I keep bringing up the example of the sheriff in my town. In different years he runs as a Democrat or as a Republican, depending on whichever way he thinks the winds are blowing. Same guy doing the same job in the same way.

This is step one to overthrowing the Duopoly --- to be honest about what it IS. What it is NOT is anything "ideological". It's a racket, with the goal of attaining Power. I think the more we exalt them with this cockamamie idea that "Democrat" or "Republican" somehow mean something "pure", the longer the Duopoly stays entrenched.

And what I'm saying is if you're going to ride the horse to defeat the other primary candidates from that party then reject the nomination, and run as an independent without Democrat party opposition, I wouldn't be surprised if they don't really support you.

How exactly is anyone going to run as an independent without Democratic (correct spelling) Party opposition? This is a Duopoly -- if you run for office you're going to be opposed by Democrats or Republicans, whichever one is not the one nominating you, and if neither one nominates you you're gonna be opposed by BOTH.

Bernie Sanders, the erstwhile subject here, defeated an entrenched Democrat to win his first office, and along the way continued to defeat both Democrats and Republicans. In at least one instance the Ds and Rs in the state ran a joint candidate that they both endorsed, and Sanders still won.

But that of course is the state level, a far cry from a POTUS run. Nobody but nobody gets elected POTUS without going through the Duopoly. Does not happen. Is it a racket? Is it collusion? Absolutely it is, no question. The Duopoly even controls the debates, jointly --- and that too serves to keep out any "third party" threat to the Duopoly. But it's the only shot you have coming from outside the Duopoly --- to ride one of its horses.

So again, the reality is your three choices for POTUS-running are: seek the Democratic nomination, seek the Republican nomination, or run as a "statement", a candidate who gets shut out of the process before it even starts, where your one and ONLY chance to effect a win is to siphon off enough D and R votes so that nobody comes out with the 270 needed to win, which then throws the entire decision to the House of Reps, where literally anything can happen ---- and that, in effect, undermines what's left of the entire election process. That hasn't happened since John Quincy Adams in 1824, before there were Democrats or Republicans (in other words it has never happened under the Duopoly).

So no, running "Independent" in this broken system is simply not at all realistic. It's a way-too-expensive way to make what amounts to nothing more than a philosophical point. To try to shunt some candidate off with "no, you can't ride our horse" is the same thing as extricating that candidate out of the race entirely. It's a power trip.

Matter of fact the Republicans did that with Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, even though TR had dominated the primary elections. They made him run 3P which was to date the most effective 3P run ever, pushing the Republican to third place --- which enabled Woodrow Wilson to sneak into office with less than 42% of the popular vote. But ultimately the Duopoly still won that election.

Those characters like Strom who jumped party did so because of the shift in political stances of the two parties. When they believed that Democrats were abandoning the southern conservative stance, they tried the dixiecrat thing to get back to their roots, and when the Republicans stepped in, to align more with their ideology they first started campaigning with them and then some even joined them.

That's not an accurate depiction of causative context. Thurmond (who was a distant relative of mine) had always been an archconservative. Matter of fact the South Carolina Democratic Party threw him off the ballot the first time he ran for Senator because he had endorsed Eisenhower in 1952. The "Dixiecrats" ---- there were a total of two, Thurmond and Wright his running mate ---- were Thurmond's foray into running against the Democrats because he and his ilk couldn't stomach the nods to "civil rights" at the convention, so they balked --- but the same element did the same thing in 1860 for the same reason. Thurmond even got Truman (the Democrat)'s name removed from some of the Southern ballots. So this internal schism between the Left and the Right within the bipolar Democratic Party had been going on for close to a century before Thurmond officially bolted. And the main thing holding that bipolar dysfunctional relationship together was the simple Southern-conservative aversion to being associated with the "party of Lincoln".

When Thurmond jumped in '64 .... or when he bolted in '48 or when he got kicked off the ballot in '54 .... he represented the same hyperconservative values he always had and would always have. The main thing that changed was conquering the traditional Southern aversion to the "party of Lincoln". In the big political picture the sea change was in the regional resources of the Democrats, who had been playing both sides of the ideological fence for decades, complacent in the knowledge that their archconservative Southern base would "never" go to the other party.

But cracks in that mixed marriage were already appearing before the Dixiecrat split in '48... in 1936 when FDR, at the height of his influence, got the party rules changed so that nominations required only a simple majority and not a 2/3 vote, which had before then enabled the Southerners to hold the process hostage (particularly in 1924), which meant that Southern contingent lost a hefty chunk of its influence. And before that, cracks were appearing at the turn of the 19th/20th century when the DP led by WJ Bryan took on the Populist movement after dabbling in "fusion parties", thereby taking on the interests of the working class and minorities, another unpopular concept in the South. And before that, the party's 1860 convention was disrupted by the South to the extent it had to be suspended and moved, effectively kicking the party out of the South (again, over the slavery issue).

This had always been an ideologically bipolar struggle within the party, held into place by that emotional aversion to the "party of Lincoln" ("revenooers") --- again, leaning on tradition as befits conservatism --- and the Democratic Party exploited that emotional aversion as long as it could. Ironically it was a politician from Texas who ultimately initiated the official divorce. When LBJ mused "we (the Democratic Party) have lost the South for a generation" he underestimated the time frame but rather than "losing" something they never had philosophically it was more of a resettling into where the South had belonged all along: in a party that preached closer to the hyperconservative values it believed in, which meant it no longer had to infight. So ultimately this was a practical move; it's easier to get your agenda done when you're not fighting within your own organization. Thurmond merely took the step of the Unthinkable and made it thinkable, after which the deluge. George Wallace almost beat him to the punch, offering Barry Goldwater to be his running mate (Goldwater wisely declined; he didn't need any help in the South).

So to cut to the chase (I've never been known for brevity) I don't think it's accurate to say Thurmond et al jumped because of changing party ideologies. Those conflicts had been there and thriving for a century. It was a purely political move, to smooth his conservative path via a smoother road -- especially after the sting of being defeated on the Civil Rights Bill. It was not the first time Thurmond had ventured into the unthinkable; he won his first Senate election as a write-in after the Democrats kicked him off the ballot.

I mainly liked your comment because you said "erstwhile"

Hey c'mon, there's three hundred thousand more words in there.

 

[Pogo]

Ha ha. Linkie? This oughta be fun.

Where have you been?
Independents favored Trumps SOTU to the tune of 82%

Lying fuck.

LOL....

Bring in the Fake Dave,he's bound to know how to use the Google.

Dave's right, you're a lying fuck. Here's the same YouGov saying 42% of Independents approve, 47% disapprove, and 13% not sure what to make of this shit.

Page 2, if you can count that far.

And sorry, that's an actual link to the actual poll. It seems we're fresh out of user-generated Googly Image memes.

How about a link that actually works....like this one.
Most viewers approved of Trump's second State of the Union address

Sorry about that, browser's pulling some shit. Here ya go this should work. Read it an' weep.
That's March 10-11, through yesterday.

Say, do you know you keep inserting the word "viewers" to try to rescue your doomed bullshit claim? It's prolly a defective keyboard, made in Jina.

 

[the other mike]

The Clinton's and Bush's have all but destroyed this country.

 

[the other mike]

Hey c'mon, there's three hundred thousand more words in there.

Can we possibly try to shorten these quotes please ? This thread is 22 pages long when it should be about 7 or 8.

 

[Pogo]

The Independents determine the winner.

Where have you been?
Independents favored Trumps SOTU to the tune of 82%

Lying fuck.

LOL....

Bring in the Fake Dave,he's bound to know how to use the Google.

Dave's right, you're a lying fuck. Here's the same YouGov saying 42% of Independents approve, 47% disapprove, and 13% not sure what to make of this shit.

Page 2, if you can count that far.

And sorry, that's an actual link to the actual poll. It seems we're fresh out of user-generated Googly Image memes.

I'm not sure it would be that high even then, but couldn't it be from early 2017?

You're all wrong except for Independent's original post .
Independents are an undefined category that stretches across the whole political spectrum. The biggest thing we have in common is distrust for the two major parties. Other than that we look like fans at an Eagles concert...from all walks of life.

Beg to differ. If I'm seen at an Eagles performance it's a football game, not a concert.

 

[Rustic]

Will be Bernie Sanders.
Here he is in Iowa last week already gathering momentum for
an election that's still 20 months away.



You can talk about Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Donald Trump all you want, but they don't have what Bernie has....a real enthusiastic following. My biggest hope right now as far as the 2020 election is the he picks Tulsi Gabbard to be VP.

 

[Rustic]

It'll be interesting to watch this. We'll get a pretty good idea of how far Left the party has moved.

The Democrats could still end up keeping the Regressives under control and run a more moderate candidate.

When the truth about the crooked Clinton campaign makes real headlines soon, then you'll see Bernie's momentum shift into high gear.

 

[the other mike]

Bernie lost to our weakest candidate to ever run for the democrats..

You still don't get that he was cheated by the DNC and Clinton campaign ? That this is what the whole Russiagate charade is really about ? The "DIRT" on Hillary is that they rigged the primaries ! ( among other things)

 

[the other mike]

(Same Bernie meme he's posted 28 times)

Can't find any new ones ?
Or maybe you could even express an actual idea of your own for a change ?

 

[Meathead]

(Same Bernie meme he's posted 28 times)

Can't find any new ones ?

Angie, Bernie's never going to be president. He's too whoosy.

 

[Pogo]

Bernie lost to our weakest candidate to ever run for the democrats..

You still don't get that he was cheated by the DNC and Clinton campaign ? That this is what the whole Russiagate charade is really about ? The "DIRT" on Hillary is that they rigged the primaries ! ( among other things)

That's an excellent and revealing analysis of what goes on in a political party. Thanks for posting it.

The article he's quoting from is here.

 

[SandSquid]

Well one is to say "in this election I will be opposing your parties candidates"

And if you want to run blue then run blue. Don't run to beat the guy running blue, then decide that is the group you want to join for your political gain as you choose. That's it.

Or in Sanders case run as a Dem, then decline the nomination to ensure they can't field a candidate to oppose you in the election.

I just am fine if the party you run against to keep out of an election doesn't want you using their party when it suits you.

I'm afraid that IS the only function of a political party. It's the horse you ride to get to the office.
That's what I'm trying to tell you.

It doesn't mean anything ideologically --- it means "what will work in this time and place". That's why mayors like Frank Rizzo and Ray Nagin ran as Democrats .... they knew if you're going to run a city that's the only way you get elected. That's simply practical, nothing to do with ideologies. That's why Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms and Richard Shelby and Trent Lott et al jumped from Democrat to Republican. Same people with the same ideologies, jumping to a different horse because the odds had changed.

I keep bringing up the example of the sheriff in my town. In different years he runs as a Democrat or as a Republican, depending on whichever way he thinks the winds are blowing. Same guy doing the same job in the same way.

This is step one to overthrowing the Duopoly --- to be honest about what it IS. What it is NOT is anything "ideological". It's a racket, with the goal of attaining Power. I think the more we exalt them with this cockamamie idea that "Democrat" or "Republican" somehow mean something "pure", the longer the Duopoly stays entrenched.

And what I'm saying is if you're going to ride the horse to defeat the other primary candidates from that party then reject the nomination, and run as an independent without Democrat party opposition, I wouldn't be surprised if they don't really support you.

How exactly is anyone going to run as an independent without Democratic (correct spelling) Party opposition? This is a Duopoly -- if you run for office you're going to be opposed by Democrats or Republicans, whichever one is not the one nominating you, and if neither one nominates you you're gonna be opposed by BOTH.

Bernie Sanders, the erstwhile subject here, defeated an entrenched Democrat to win his first office, and along the way continued to defeat both Democrats and Republicans. In at least one instance the Ds and Rs in the state ran a joint candidate that they both endorsed, and Sanders still won.

But that of course is the state level, a far cry from a POTUS run. Nobody but nobody gets elected POTUS without going through the Duopoly. Does not happen. Is it a racket? Is it collusion? Absolutely it is, no question. The Duopoly even controls the debates, jointly --- and that too serves to keep out any "third party" threat to the Duopoly. But it's the only shot you have coming from outside the Duopoly --- to ride one of its horses.

So again, the reality is your three choices for POTUS-running are: seek the Democratic nomination, seek the Republican nomination, or run as a "statement", a candidate who gets shut out of the process before it even starts, where your one and ONLY chance to effect a win is to siphon off enough D and R votes so that nobody comes out with the 270 needed to win, which then throws the entire decision to the House of Reps, where literally anything can happen ---- and that, in effect, undermines what's left of the entire election process. That hasn't happened since John Quincy Adams in 1824, before there were Democrats or Republicans (in other words it has never happened under the Duopoly).

So no, running "Independent" in this broken system is simply not at all realistic. It's a way-too-expensive way to make what amounts to nothing more than a philosophical point. To try to shunt some candidate off with "no, you can't ride our horse" is the same thing as extricating that candidate out of the race entirely. It's a power trip.

Matter of fact the Republicans did that with Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, even though TR had dominated the primary elections. They made him run 3P which was to date the most effective 3P run ever, pushing the Republican to third place --- which enabled Woodrow Wilson to sneak into office with less than 42% of the popular vote. But ultimately the Duopoly still won that election.

Those characters like Strom who jumped party did so because of the shift in political stances of the two parties. When they believed that Democrats were abandoning the southern conservative stance, they tried the dixiecrat thing to get back to their roots, and when the Republicans stepped in, to align more with their ideology they first started campaigning with them and then some even joined them.

That's not an accurate depiction of causative context. Thurmond (who was a distant relative of mine) had always been an archconservative. Matter of fact the South Carolina Democratic Party threw him off the ballot the first time he ran for Senator because he had endorsed Eisenhower in 1952. The "Dixiecrats" ---- there were a total of two, Thurmond and Wright his running mate ---- were Thurmond's foray into running against the Democrats because he and his ilk couldn't stomach the nods to "civil rights" at the convention, so they balked --- but the same element did the same thing in 1860 for the same reason. Thurmond even got Truman (the Democrat)'s name removed from some of the Southern ballots. So this internal schism between the Left and the Right within the bipolar Democratic Party had been going on for close to a century before Thurmond officially bolted. And the main thing holding that bipolar dysfunctional relationship together was the simple Southern-conservative aversion to being associated with the "party of Lincoln".

When Thurmond jumped in '64 .... or when he bolted in '48 or when he got kicked off the ballot in '54 .... he represented the same hyperconservative values he always had and would always have. The main thing that changed was conquering the traditional Southern aversion to the "party of Lincoln". In the big political picture the sea change was in the regional resources of the Democrats, who had been playing both sides of the ideological fence for decades, complacent in the knowledge that their archconservative Southern base would "never" go to the other party.

But cracks in that mixed marriage were already appearing before the Dixiecrat split in '48... in 1936 when FDR, at the height of his influence, got the party rules changed so that nominations required only a simple majority and not a 2/3 vote, which had before then enabled the Southerners to hold the process hostage (particularly in 1924), which meant that Southern contingent lost a hefty chunk of its influence. And before that, cracks were appearing at the turn of the 19th/20th century when the DP led by WJ Bryan took on the Populist movement after dabbling in "fusion parties", thereby taking on the interests of the working class and minorities, another unpopular concept in the South. And before that, the party's 1860 convention was disrupted by the South to the extent it had to be suspended and moved, effectively kicking the party out of the South (again, over the slavery issue).

This had always been an ideologically bipolar struggle within the party, held into place by that emotional aversion to the "party of Lincoln" ("revenooers") --- again, leaning on tradition as befits conservatism --- and the Democratic Party exploited that emotional aversion as long as it could. Ironically it was a politician from Texas who ultimately initiated the official divorce. When LBJ mused "we (the Democratic Party) have lost the South for a generation" he underestimated the time frame but rather than "losing" something they never had philosophically it was more of a resettling into where the South had belonged all along: in a party that preached closer to the hyperconservative values it believed in, which meant it no longer had to infight. So ultimately this was a practical move; it's easier to get your agenda done when you're not fighting within your own organization. Thurmond merely took the step of the Unthinkable and made it thinkable, after which the deluge. George Wallace almost beat him to the punch, offering Barry Goldwater to be his running mate (Goldwater wisely declined; he didn't need any help in the South).

So to cut to the chase (I've never been known for brevity) I don't think it's accurate to say Thurmond et al jumped because of changing party ideologies. Those conflicts had been there and thriving for a century. It was a purely political move, to smooth his conservative path via a smoother road -- especially after the sting of being defeated on the Civil Rights Bill. It was not the first time Thurmond had ventured into the unthinkable; he won his first Senate election as a write-in after the Democrats kicked him off the ballot.

I mainly liked your comment because you said "erstwhile"

Hey c'mon, there's three hundred thousand more words in there.

I know and I read it. And I do agree with a lot of it. My statement was less about the issues with the two party system and more just that as they exist I don't think that the RNC or DNC would be all in on a candidate who is just running their caucus to beat their candidates and then not accept the nomination.

I can't think of another major politician who runs with a party to beat their candidates in the primaries to not accept the nomination and leave their party without a candidate to run as an independent. Maybe it has happened... and the only thing keeping it ok now is that he for a majority of his votes sides with them.

 

[the other mike]

Bernie lost to our weakest candidate to ever run for the democrats..

You still don't get that he was cheated by the DNC and Clinton campaign ? That this is what the whole Russiagate charade is really about ? The "DIRT" on Hillary is that they rigged the primaries ! ( among other things)

That's an excellent and revealing analysis of what goes on in a political party. Thanks for posting it.

The article he's quoting from is here.

TYT has always been careful to check their sources, and if they're ever wrong they will retract it and apologize- the way it should be in journalism.

 

[the other mike]

2016 was a joke.

On us all.

 

[the other mike]