Idk who the other dude is, but isn't archi the biggest, most rabid social justice warrior here? Aren't you, archi?
Idk who the other dude is, but isn't archi the biggest, most rabid social justice warrior here? Aren't you, archi?
"Lesser of two evils" reasoning aside, I fail to see how coordinating with SuperPACs (which are always shady, but unfortunately necessary if you plan to win a national election) or talking to people in the DNC while doing the thing literally every celebrity does to make money in their twilight years is somehow "Evil."
Bernie ran real far, real fast with that whole paid speech fearmongering nonsense but it's hardly a realistic ethical concern. What I want is a president who will make meaningful progress on social/economic issues. Sure, that doesn't necessarily mean they have to be a saint themselves as long as they get the job done. But I really expected something juicier than fucking paid speeches to be the go-to "Hillary so evil" talking point.
I mean, I guess it depends if you think willfully breaking the law is evil.
what law did she break?
Yes, lets worry about the donkeys and their fucked up primary system after we make it so there's no competition.
It's actually kind of nebulous. With just what's come out she would have been made to step down and have her security clearance revoked, but she's no longer Secretary of State so that's not really an option. There was no prosecution of other Secretaries who kept this same practice, so there's no precedent. If it were a military issue she could face time in Leavenworth, but she's a civilian. There could be a fine?
Oh speaking of this stuff, wikileaks sent out an 80gb insurance torrent today, so whatever crap Assange has been sitting on related to Hillary is likely to be released soon.
You seem to think that establishment candidates are not liberal and don't agree with the progressive agenda. For some of them that might be true, but the vast majority resist the left as an election strategy because they can't afford to be seen as radicals by their constituents. Case in point is Obama (see being for gay marriage, then against it, then for it as polls changed and his voting demographic changed). Very likely Hillary herself is a lot more progressive than she lets on, but her whole strategy is to appeal to the older moderates.
But if there's no competition there's no reason for Democrats have to veer to the center to stay electable, and they would be able to get more progressive while remaining viable.
Nice sidestep. No one was talking about her potential mishandling of classified documents. You posted a link and bemoaned her collaboration with SuperPACs and the fact that the DNC's 2016 strategy was just "Hillary," and in response to questions about how that was bad/illegal you say "Email."
You mean the superdelegates that didn't gift the election to Hillary, but Bernie wants to gift the election to him? Or the caucus system which allows more passionate voters with more time on their hands, like Bernie bros, to deliver disproportionate amounts of delegates?
I agree. Clearly we should just let the establishment crown the stronger GE candidate and be done with it.
I can't speak for Fiye, but as a Sanders supporter, Caucuses and Superdelegates are fucked up regardless of which candidate it supports. Sanders himself has recently stated it's on his political agenda to get rid of the Superdelegate system, and he wants all states to be open primaries (or at the very least include independents). I also severely doubt anyone is banking on 400+ Superdelegates switching to Sanders.
Obviously none of that will come any time soon, but just because the system has supported Sanders it doesn't make it any less convoluted.
Because super-delegates haven't ever mattered unless its a pundit talking up how it created a lopsided view. By the way, nice jumping to conclusions.
But hey, I'm sure nothing can go wrong when the only political party left standing is one that picks its presumptive nominee before the first ballot is cast.
Except he can't force them to do that. Like, legally can't. No one can. Parties aren't governmental agencies. They're private organizations funded primarily by other private individuals and organizations. Even the state governments (which have significantly more constitutional leeway to fuck around with private organizations than the federal government) don't have the legal authority to require a party to hold open primaries and they sure as fuck don't have the authority to make those kinds of changes to the nomination process.
The DNC will change its rules if and only if the DNC wants to change its rules and, quite frankly, I don't think they should. Superdelegates are a reasonable method for ensuring some semblance of professional oversight in the nomination process. I guarantee you the Republican party would be in significantly better shape right now if they had a similar system in place to keep undesirables like Trump from hijacking the process (which is 100% a real concern in a two-party system where everyone right of Obama gets lumped into one big tent).
Sanders is championing causes he knows he has no chance with to increase his own national profile in the hopes it'll let him shove his way into some position or other before he retires and has to sustain himself on giving paid speeches. It's disingenuous as fuck because even if his supporters don't know how this shit works he sure as hell does. He's a career politician.