Bernie's In

DrewDad, you must know by now that it's:

a) NOT ok to say Sanders isn't a democrat
b) PERFECTLY ok to say that people have been democrats for decades are not really democrats
c) APPARENTLY ok for Lash, who less than a president ago HATED almost all liberal ideas to tell others which party best represents them

And it's OK to tell us that Bernie's the only TRUE liberal, the only TRUE progressive candidate.

I just know in the end Clinton is going to get the blame for this one way or another. It is another case of independent voters not filing their ballots right or in time.

Many CA independent voters left out of presidential primary

Yeah, it is always the case that if Bernie loses, it had to be cheating; and if he wins, it shows the true will of the people.

Some of them (37%) were Clinton voters as well. Apparently though, for democrats, they can request a democrat ballot on election day.



I personally do not see why we can't have federal election laws for all states, it would seem to me to clear up a lot confusion and anything that needs to be fixed, can be fixed for all states. But then again, I am not big on state rights, I think it is overrated.

Here's an interesting article on the economy and voting influence.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00140090#page-1

Yep! No doubt about it! Hillary's crooked affiliates are at it again.

Rev. I think that since the feds. dont recognize the parties as a legal organization they cant pass laws reguarding them which is why the repub's and dem's have different ways of choosing candidates. I think?

They always have been, up to 2012. I, as a long time California voter, don't like the change to open primaries.

Bernie has a monument, Wow

Quote rabel222:

I believe so. In some states the Republican primary and Democratic primary are held different weeks. Basically, the parties are private organizations and can use whatever process they want to select their candidates. This whole primary concept is pretty new, comparatively.

The way it used to be was the party bosses just decided who they wanted. The national conventions came into existence for the party bosses from all the states to get together and deal and haggle until a nominee appeared. Sometimes this took several rounds of balloting. By the way, the delegates that the state primaries and caucuses vote for are only obliged to vote for their candidate on the first ballot. If there is somehow a tie on the first ballot, all bets are off and the state party bosses go back to haggling and dealing among each other.

Alright. High noon tomorrow. You bring your progressive criteria and I'll bring mine. There is a litmus test for progressivism, and Hillary doesn't meet the qualifications. It's not a secret.

She's a Republican.

Sure.. She is obviously a Republican because she didn't support GWBush. Only those who are true progressives would have ever done such a thing.

Oh, undoubtedly. Only a true progressive. One who is uniquely qualified to judge democratic bonafides without a trace of hypocrisy. What a crock.

I knew what progressive/ liberal views were when I was relatively conservative and I still know what they are. I embrace them now, and you people are pretenders.

You have no idea how ridiculous you look here, pointing fingers 360 degrees, trying to claim everyone's phony but you. Yup, you and Bernie. Pure, through and through.

Perhaps you should define the term, "progressive' before you resume throwing verbal rocks at each other.

To me the term means one who generally seeks or prefers government enforced or managed solutions to a wide variety of so called social and economic problems. In short the direct opposite of a Libertarian.

In my observation Progressives usually fail to forsee the adverse side effects of their many somewhat authoritarian programs, but are usually very quick to propose additional"progressive" programs to correct these unanticipated side effects (most of which result from the self-serving and sometimes perverse inclinations of human nature. ) The frequent result is an often continuing downward spiral of program upon program with increasing cost and limitations on freedom of action and creative economic initiatives .... but more and more power to the "progressive" authors of these programs.

It hasn't been a very good past few years for the progressive governments of Bolivia, Brazil and Venezuela, but few today take note of that.

Quote Lash:


I disagree. You could not have known what a progressive/liberal was back when you were a conservative, because the same people you accused of being liberals back then you accuse of not really being liberal now.