Comments by "Clint Holmes" (@clintholmes2061) on "DNC Passes Rule Requiring Presidential Candidates Run As Democrats" video.

  1. Yup. It does more to destroy their credibility than it does to stop Sanders. Correction... they didn't have credibility to destroy. It makes them look bad is what I meant to say.
    11
  2. Going to?
    7
  3. You are correct of course and I very much agree with the premise of your original post. I just wanted to take the opportunity to piss on the current system which is designed to not give us choice and representation.
    4
  4. Meanwhile they keep superdelgates. Talk about messed up priorities.
    4
  5. We are closer to a one party system then we are a 2 party system.
    3
  6. You should have already done that a long time ago if you live in an open primary state. That said do what you need to do to vote in the "democratic" primary in closed primary states.
    2
  7. Mr it is about having a plan to takeover the party hostile takeover style which there is. That leads to a lot more wins. And I don't really care about "getting into the general" if it just means another a way to lose. Just being there doesn't mean it is anymore far for progressives that way because it isn't.
    2
  8. Plan B is supporting the Green party (assuming the dems succeed in getting a corporate shill as their nominee). And if you wonder why that is only plan B it is because we live in a nation filled with sheep where a good person like Jill Stein only managed to get 1 percent of the vote against 2 of the most despised people in the country.
    2
  9. I love the green party. I wish they were strong and competitive. I wish we didn't live in broken 2 party system. I wish the game were fair for them. But I'm a realist and reality is what it is. If the "democratic" party is reformed with Sanders leading it then all of a sudden the importance of trying to get the greens up and running is not really so important. The goal is getting a major party that represents the people. If we can get that while simultaneously ending (through change) a corrupt corporate major party all the better. That said even if Sanders succeeds in hostile takeover we should never forget the greens and stop trying to build them and make the game fair for them. They would still be important to continue to make sure the dems are pulled left and don't suck. But we desperately need at least one major party that doesn't blow and hostile takeover is the best way to go about it in my opinion (and Sanders).
    2
  10. JR you care too much about parties when you should be prioritizing getting change in policy.
    2
  11. If there was literally no difference then they wouldn't be bothering to write this NEW rule then would they. I agree about what you say about the need for a progressive overhaul of the rules. That, like any hope for change in the "democratic" party isn't about to happen until at least 2020 when there is a chance for a progressive nominee. Let's hope Sanders can overcome the rigged the game and do it.
    2
  12. Riggable voting machines are only effective when sheep can be convinced of their results. That is why it was so important Hillary be portrayed as inevitable from the start. In 2020 Sanders will be the overwhelming favorite. If they flip that many votes we might have another revolution. That said I very much understand and share your skepticism but have no other choice than to fight.
    2
  13. Or better yet he wins as a dem and reforms the shit out of the dumpster fire known as the "democratic" party.
    2
  14. Regarding, "If you say... does just that?" I am too unclear about your question to be able to answer to it intelligently. Not that it is your fault. I might just be failing in my comprehension. Feel free to rephrase and reask if the rest of this doesn't address your specific question. Regarding, "liberals" I used to consider myself a liberal but don't really anymore because of neoliberals giving the term a bad name. Now I very much prefer the term progressive. That said labels are not really what is important but rather the policy positions we hold. Regarding, "we do not have any other person (other than Bernie)" I think that is why Bernie would call for a "political revolution" and actively encouraged more progressives to run for office. He recognized a need for new blood. I agree that the "bench" after bernie get very thin very quick but there are a handful of true progressives (at least they are in my opinion) that are not completely unknown. Tulsi Gabbard and Nina Turner are the next 2 that I consider to be leaders among the cause. That said I absolutely stress Bernie Sanders in 2020. He was virtually unknown when he started his run in 2016 and faced media blackout. In 2020 those won't be the problem they were. Anyone else would have those problems and I see no reason to handicap us in 2020 the same way we were in 2016. Regarding, "would like to see a big change" I think all the sane agree on this. The question that some of us disagree on is how is the best way to get the change we need now. I very much disagree that him running independent is the way to go and I'm convinced that hostile takeover of the "democratic" party is the best hope we have for that change. Not only do I think it is the easiest (not to be mistaken with easy, it's not) way, but it produces the best results. It kills 2 birds with one stone. Not only would it give the people a major party that would represent the people but it would kill a major party that is corrupt and terrible. Regarding, "Then there would be 3 major parties." Don't get me wrong I love the idea of doing away with a 2 party system and having a system that gives people more choices. There is enough difference of opinion that there really should be at least 4 major parties (I'm thinking of libertarian ideology specifically but there are more). But I see no reason to think that is at all possible anytime soon. The system is specifically designed NOT to allow more than 2 parties. The electoral college is but one example of this. Getting the most electoral college doesn't mean you win. You need a majority of EC votes to guarantee victory. The way the current system is designed what would be more likely should a 3rd party rise up is that simultaneously a major party would need to die (aka be reduced to 3rd party status). That "3rd party" then becomes a major party the way Republicans took major party status from the wigs in the time of Lincoln. But keep in mind that was a long time ago, in part because of how difficult it is but also in part because the 2 major parties have done a great job since then insulating themselves and preventing such a thing from happening again. The only way I see there being more than 2 major parties anytime soon is if there would be a major overhaul of the system from top to bottom that would include reforms such as ranked choice voting. Sadly this isn't going to be happening anytime soon and it isn't hard to understand why. The 2 major parties like the system just the way it is. I considered myself a dem for a long time. That is suppose to be my party. I feel like that is where I should belong. But I currently feel they are at least as much of an obstacle to getting the things I want as much as republicans are. And I think lots of people feel the same way and then conclude the best course of action is just to turn their backs on the dems and just look elsewhere. I get why they might think that. They feel betrayed. They were. It's just that I am convinced the smart thing to do is kicking out the corporate dems and getting our party back. That said if it doesn't work I will absolutely be looking elsewhere to vote. If the establishment succeeds in getting a corporate shill as the nominee I will vote elsewhere... like I did in 2016 when I voted for Jill Stein in a swing state.
    2
  15. It will not ultimately stop Sanders but you are correct that the party, in general, sucks.
    2
  16. There is no reason to think a new progressive party would be any more successful than the currently existing progressive party the green party because of the way the system is set up.
    1
  17. Winning as a dem, reforming the shit out the party, and purging corporate dems the same way progressives were purged would be much more of a fuck you to the corporate dems.
    1
  18. No, it's Bernie Sanders. The guy who has told you time and again that he has no interest in your plan. You might want to listen to him, accept reality, come up with a new plan, and consider he might be better at this then you.
    1
  19. The new rule is retarded but lets not pretend it is a game changer. This is Sanders last chance to run for president (assuming he doesn't get to run for reelection). It's not like they will put him in DNC jail if he runs for his senate seat as an independent after this. And a party label is not important at all compared to the person wearing the label. He will do what he needs to to run as a dem. Hopefully we never have to find out what he would do if he loses as a dem.
    1
  20. Clearly the corporate dems are going to do anything and everything they can to stop him but I just don't think they have enough dirty tricks in their playbook to stop him. I say often that even thou the party sucks they are not about to die anytime soon. But that position would quickly change if, for example, the party used superdelegates to overturn the will of the voters. I also say it isn't reasonable to think Sanders can win as a 3rd party candidate. That position would also need to be reevaluated if they did such a thing. I honestly don't know what Sanders plan is if they succeed in fucking him over. Hopefully we never have to find out.
    1
  21. Still peddling the bullshit that Nader cost Gore the election in 2000 huh? And doing so while trying to justify making sure there are more Naders? Your comments are always asinine but good luck continuing to polish the turd known as the "democratic" party in the future. We know you will.
    1
  22. One more thing while I'm at it. Abraham Lincoln was a 3rd party president.
    1
  23. He shouldn't and won't because he cares more about the people of this country and trying to get progressive change then he cares about fucking over the "democratic" party.
    1
  24. I understand why people want to punish the party. They rightfully feel betrayed and want them to die so badly they blind themselves to the fact that that simply isn't going to happen. We need to not be blinded by anger and act smart. Hostile takeover of the party is rightfully plan A and if that fails 3rd party is plan B. We all want government and parties that don't suck. I'm convinced Sanders has the best plan to get it.
    1
  25. I love ranked choice voting. If the dems actually cared about "spoilers" they would support it. Obviously they don't thou. They only care about the talking point of "spoilers."
    1
  26. Bernie is smart enough to know that there are things far more important than the letter after his name.
    1
  27. That is a great point and well said.
    1
  28. Remember that although it is an uphill battle parties do change. The "democratic" party was once the happy home of racists back in the day. The key to reform is getting the party nominee. They get to practically unilaterally shape and reform the party. They get to pick the chair who pick the people under them and so on. Corporate dems can be purged the same way progressives were purged. I don't care about statements. I need change and that is the quickest and easiest (not to be mistaken with easy, it is anything but that) way to get it.
    1
  29. Yes I listened to the video JR. I am unclear why you think I didn't. If you think that this is going to push Sanders out I think you are very mistaken. And you are very correct about the notion of a new party MrB. We already have a progressive party called the green party. A new party is superfluous. Oh and progressive is a synonym to populist when it comes to policy JR.
    1
  30. Do not underestimate their intelligence. They are smart. If they look dumb it is only because they are corrupt.
    1
  31. It is still (at the very least) kinda new even if you have a point.
    1
  32. I would like to add that you also confuse me in that you fucks don't want progressives to split the vote and not run as dems. You want to eat your cake and eat it too.
    1
  33. You are using the word fair incorrectly. Just because something is not against the law doesn't mean it is innately fair.
    1
  34. You obviously have no idea what the word means. The NFL for example could let the patriots start with 20 points every game. But that would have nothing to do with whether or not it would be fair. Oh and he DNC breaks its own rules. Stop being an idiot.
    1
  35. Regarding, "Your NFL example isn't accurate." Yes. It absolutely is. Your original statement is "Their party, their rules." The NFL example is exactly the same. The NFL is their league, it's their rules. They CAN do whatever they want but just because they can do whatever they want that has NOTHING to do with whether or not what they are doing is fair or not. Let me try to break down why the things you have said are silly in question form. Would it be fair if the NFL let the pats start with 20 points each game? Well the point is that people obviously understand that it is not fair. But if all the things you have already said were true then you would have to concede that it is "fair" if you actually believe the garbage you say. Ultimately the point I'm trying to make that you don't seem to understand is that the fairness of rules is a completely independent thing from those rules. I'm not saying they shouldn't be able make rules. I'm saying they shouldn't be able to make unfair rules... like they do... like giving the pats 20 points would be. Regarding, "I said do something about it, act according." I really don't give a flying fuck about this part of your statement. It is just a pathetic way to excuse what they are doing and saying that it everyone else's fault somehow they are not "acting accordingly." I guess if the NFL gave the Patriots 20 points the that just means the Steelers need to "act accordingly" and start a new football league. Regarding, "Meaning form another party..." I feel like subconsciously you know what they are doing is not fair... and that is why you think people should be starting another party. Regarding, "What use are DNC rules if their candidate loses?" Like for example if their candidate loses to an orange clown after they did everything they possible could to prop up their establishment shill? Like superdelegates were suppose to make sure "unelectable" candidates don't get the nomination but instead they ensured the unelectable candidate was the nominee? The fact of the matter is that unfair DNC rules is actually helping their candidates lose. The DNC doesn't care about that thou. You are misunderstanding the purpose of their rules. It isn't about wining. It is about maintaining the status quo. Regarding, "The problem is the public not the DNC" You say you aren't an idiot but you demonstrate that you are. Regarding, "And yet it was Trump vs Clinton. Is that a coincidence?" No its not. The party put their thumb on the scale from the start. Sometimes by using the rules unfairly, like when about 500 superdelegates came out to support Hillary before a single peasant was allowed to vote. Like when the election was called on a day NOBODY voted. And sometimes by just blatantly ignoring their own rules. Why do you think DWS was forced to step down? Keep polishing that turd. Keep pretending it is "fair." And I'm going to keep calling you an idiot.
    1
  36. Ok buddy. If you are incapable of addressing the substantive issues I mention because you are too big of a snowflake to handle how I mention them that is your problem. I can't say I'm surprised. You know there was a third option... just fucking ignore my insults and address the issues. I guess you don't understand that was a choice because of (insert insult here).
    1
  37. Which would be more reasonable if they didn't try to tell people they are open to different people (clearly they are not). Which would be more reasonable if it didn't demonstrate they don't prioritize winning. They say don't want "spoilers." They say they want unity. Maybe you just don't care they they are hypocrites and losers?
    1
  38. I'm having a hard time understand you. Especially when you say the corrupt corporate "democratic" party is "too socialist leaning." They had supermajorities and used it to implement the republicans thinktake idea of obamacare instead of socialist health care.
    1
  39. Any amount of socialism is a bad thing to you? So a country that has a high school education like socialist k-12 education is terrible for the country? We see things very differently. Obamacare is crony capitalism... like pretty much all of the country's capitalism these days. And I'm just fine with regulated capitalism for pretty much everything. It's just that there a couple specific things like health care and war that I'm not willing to let some get filthy rich off of.
    1
  40. I hope that does not include justice dems and Bernie Sanders and is only referring to corporate shills.
    1
  41. There's already plenty of 3rd parties. You need to show me proof that a new party has a chance of succeeding in today's system and they don't. Understand it isn't like the game suddenly gets fair for 3rd parties.
    1
  42. AngryLotus cool strawman argument. Nowhere do I say don't vote 3rd parties. I voted for Jill Stein in 2016 in a swing state. But the fact of the matter is that she got 1 percent of the vote against 2 of the most despised people in the country. It really shouldn't be that hard to understand that voting 3rd party is plan B. If there is anyone who is making false promises it is you to suggest that just voting 3rd party is the answer. Clearly it is not because of reality.
    1
  43. The only wasted votes are votes for people that don't represent you and that you don't want to win. I'd love to think that 3rd parties are the answer. I'd love it if the game was fair for them. It's just that it isn't. That doesn't mean I'm not going to support them if they are the only option I want to win because I will. If the same presidential election were today as in 2016 I will still happily vote for Jill Stein and have no regrets about it. But I have no delusions that that is the answer. Clearly it isn't. We need change and we need it now. We need a major party that actually represents the people unlike we have right now. To achieve this fighting for a progressive nominee of the "democratic" party is rightfully plan A. There is a reason the party is currently such a dumpster fire and will continue to be until at least 2020 and that reason is because Hillary "won" the nomination. That is why Perez is chair. That is why progressives were purged. But corporate dems can be purged the exact same way. The nominee holds crazy power in the party. They are able to shape and reform the party. They are able to unilaterally enact reforms. They get to tell the party what it means to be a democrat going forward. They could ban the party from accepting their legalized bribes and then all of a sudden we would have a major party that is incentivized to represent the people and not their big money donors. And if it succeeds it effectively kills 2 birds with one stone. It would give the people a party that represents them while simultaneously killing the current corrupt version of the "democratic" party. If it doesn't succeed and they get a corporate shill as the nominee then I will happily vote 3rd party along side of you. But that is rightfully plan B.
    1
  44. They don't want or fear death. If you think they are going to magically go away anytime soon you would be wrong.
    1
  45. It's just that I hear people say "the dems are dead" all the time and it frustrates me. That said I believe I agree with your sentiment.
    1
  46. I agree that you should be outraged by the parties actions during the primary but you still need to have enough nuance in your thinking to support progressives like justice democrats and Bernie Sanders even if they run as dems.
    1
  47. What is with the extra spaces?
    1
  48. Queen Karma regarding, "maybe the DNC learned a lesson last time." I think you misunderstand what the establishment dems want. They don't care about winning elections. They care about and their purpose is to maintain the status quo. As for how they are going to treat Bernie in 2020 you can expect more of the same. They are going to do anything and everything they can think of to try and stop him. Ultimately I am hopeful that there will not be enough dirty tricks in their playbook to stop him. As for changing the party that is not going to be happening until at least 2020 because Hillary "won" the nomination in 2016. Getting a progressive nominee in 2020 is the key to being able to force them to change. The nominee holds crazy power. They pick the chair who picks the people under them and so on. Corporate dems can be purged the same way progressives were purged. They are able to unilaterally enact reforms like, for example, banning them from accepting their legalized bribes. They get to tell the party what it means to be a democrat going forward. And none of that is possible if Bernie runs as an independent. And it isn't like running as an independent is even remotely fair either, it is just a different way to fight an uphill battle.
    1
  49. If they actually didn't want "spoilers" they would invite them into the party rather than try to force them out where they... ya know... spoil things. If Sanders decided to run as an indy or green in the general this pledge wouldn't stop him. It would only allow them to smear him about it as he ran.
    1
  50. Don't kid yourself, they know what they are doing. It is just that they care about maintaining the status quo, not winning elections.
    1