Trump threatens voters with universal healthcare. (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 2 weeks ago by spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world

92 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] gastroglizzy@piefed.social 53 points 2 weeks ago (23 children)

Yeah, and the last time someone ran on that platform, they were elected to the Democratic ticket in the midterms by a blowout, then the Democratic party ignored the will of the voters and nominated their donor-approved candidate, who then went on to lose one of the most important elections in US history to a pedophilic Russian asset, who then dismantled the US government, sold it and every state secret to the highest bidder, ushered in an authoritarian ultra-conservative regime, and then performed a self-coup to seize and consolidate power.

parent

hideshow 23 child comments

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 24 points 2 weeks ago (1 child)

DNC: "Why is everyone looking at me? What?"

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] DickCaramel@piefed.social 24 points 2 weeks ago

parent

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 8 points 2 weeks ago (20 children)

look. I voted bernie in the primary but he did not win the popular vote much less blow it out and the dnc did not ignore the will of the voters. There was a lot of bs but an actual ignoring of the vote totals.

parent

hideshow 20 child comments

[–] Nouvellalia@lemmy.world 27 points 2 weeks ago (18 children)

Wilding v. DNC is the court case where the DNC admitted that they don't have to abide by the primaries because they are a private entity and can nominate whomever they want.

There used to be transcripts of this everywhere.

I'm all for everyone voting for the "lesser of two evils". I think everyone should go vote in the primaries. I also think everyone should pay very close attention to the DNC bureaucracy and minor rule changes and what everyone around them is saying and voting for.

Because seeing everything up close, in a world full of lies and deception, is what most people need to understand the truth. So they can make the hard decisions they will need to make.

parent

hideshow 18 child comments

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 4 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

so thats a nice theoretical but its not what happened in 2016 with bernie.

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] Nouvellalia@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 child)

I mean, you can readin the transcripts where the attorney for the DNC says as much to the judge in open court. I am not theorizing.

Like I said, anyone reading this should vote in the primaries and watch the DNC's bureaucracy closely and understand what is going on, whatever that may be, for themselves.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 2 weeks ago

Oh 100%. Primaries at this point are the elections for me.

parent

[–] TheStaffmaster@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

Bernie had the legs knocked out from under him in 16' and the DNC straight up stabbed him in the back in 20'. "Joementum" was manufactured propaganda AFAIC because Biden was in a distant fourth and one minor win in South Carolina does not a lead make. The DNC is just as afraid of socialists as the GOP, but not because they are diametrically opposed to the platform, but because they are afraid they might have to actually work at governance.

GASP!!

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 point 2 weeks ago (2 children)

yeah Im not debating them being against him. Just that they did not straight up ignore the vote totals or such like that. I think that is a big thing between the republicans and democrats with people saying they are the same. republicans have gotten to where they are straight out violationg laws outright and as a matter of policy including the constitution and even their supreme court make decisions based on chicanery and self interest.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] TheStaffmaster@lemmy.world 1 point 1 week ago* (1 child)

see, but from where i sit Bernie had Iowa, and New Hampshire (of all places), and Nevada (I think? it's been a decade, sorry) I think there was another one, But suddenly Biden tags SC and all of a sudden OH BOY HOWDY HERE's JOE! (hurr durr) CHOO CHOO ALL ABOARD THE BIDEN EXPRESS, NEXT STOP FUCK YOU PROGRESSIVES! Pthhrrrp! JUST because SC happens to have a fairly high delegate count? Like Maybe not be counting ya chicken's eh? But yeah, I know the tail wags the dog, and all they had to do was hint at it and corpo media would spin the Fuck out of it SMDH...

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 1 point 1 week ago

nothing was stopping people voting for bernie. I did. I mean its not illegal for them to use hype. Its us that have to vote in and get the highest possible quality canidates in the primaries.

parent

[–] protist@retrofed.com -1 points 2 weeks ago* (10 children)

The DNC arguing in court that they don't have to abide by primary elections isn't the same thing as the DNC actually not abiding by the primary elections. The DNC absolutely abided by the primary elections in 2016, and there's no evidence to the contrary.

Sure, the superdelegate system was overwhelmingly for Clinton, but Bernie was already behind in the elected delegate total. Either way, in 2018, the DNC changed the rules so superdelegates can't even vote in the first round anymore, so will only get a vote if a convention is contested.

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] Nouvellalia@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (9 children)

You are right, arguing in court that you can cheat all you want is not the same as cheating all you want, and nothing was proven because instead of airing it out in court, the judge said "well yes, you can cheat all you want" and it was over.

For the rest of your statements, I'm not getting into the specifics of rule changes and time changes and all the bullshit that happened in 2016. The minutia of bureaucratic processes and small sub-rule changes would be lost on anyone trying to find truth.

The court case though, that's big and obvious and simple, and it's very telling that your only argument against it is 'arguing in court you can legally cheat, is not the same as cheating', followed by 'nobody proved anything because they could legally cheat and the case was thrown out'.

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] protist@retrofed.com -2 points 2 weeks ago* (8 children)

For the rest of your statements, I’m not getting into the specifics of rule changes and time changes and all the bullshit that happened in 2016. The minutia of bureaucratic processes and small sub-rule changes would be lost on anyone trying to find truth.

Literally my entire argument is that even without the influence of superdelegates Bernie didn't win the primary election. If your argument against that is "I'm not getting into the specifics," that is pretty telling.

I voted for Bernie in 2016 and 2020. I think he would've wiped the floor with Trump. I don't like how the DNC picked sides in 2016 at all and do not support the DNC. That doesn't mean Bernie didn't actually lose the election, because he did.

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] Nouvellalia@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

that is pretty telling

Be a big girl and come up with your own words.

I won't let you lawyer up the place confusing people with the meanings and influence of the seemingly minor procedural points I bring up that had a huge effect. A court case, with a plain statement, is easy to digest.

But literally statements made by the DNC lawyer aren't enough for your lalalala fingers in ears bullshit? How about the words of the chair if the DNC? If the head of the DNC says Hillary and the DNC leadership cheated, will you hear it?

I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process... By September 7, the day I called Bernie, I had found my proof and it broke my heart.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774/

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] protist@retrofed.com -2 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

Jesus dude, go back up to the top of the thread. We're responding to:

the last time someone ran on that platform, they were elected to the Democratic ticket in the midterms by a blowout, then the Democratic party ignored the will of the voters and nominated their donor-approved candidate

And then:

I voted bernie in the primary but he did not win the popular vote much less blow it out and the dnc did not ignore the will of the voters. There was a lot of bs but (no) actual ignoring of the vote totals.

Can you show me where the DNC ignored vote totals? Even the link you shared (which is all info that's already known to all of us) only says the Clinton campaign influenced DNC messaging. Straight from Donna Brazile's mouth:

I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement.

The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.

Again I voted for Bernie twice and am no fan of the DNC. They fucked up royally during and before (and since 😂) this election cycle. They still didn't "ignore the will of the voters" in 2016 or alter the outcome of any of the primary elections. Bernie did not win the 2016 primary election.

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] Nouvellalia@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (5 children)

A candidate who hadn't been nominated yet (Hilary) had "control of the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised" and was given power to "make final decisions on all the other staff" and that's still not enough for you?!

Because you want emails stating "I, Eric of the nominations, doth pledge fealty to thee, Clinton, on this day, one month prior to the nominating day, and for unofficial and cheaty-pants reasons!"

Well, let me tell you, if I put all my friends in staff positions, and am the defacto leader of the organization because I decide all spending, strategy, and fundraising, I won't need emails reminding me that I can do what I want at the organization where every fart gets approved by me before it squeaks and before even that squeak I had decided the dinner plan and the guts it would pass through as well, so I know how it will smell.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] protist@retrofed.com 1 point 2 weeks ago (4 children)

I'm really struggling to understand what you're trying to convince me of. I know all this happened at the DNC. The 2016 Democratic primary happened in each state. Bernie didn't get as many votes from Democratic primary voters as Clinton. The national DNC did not change votes or override votes.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Nouvellalia@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago* (3 children)

That the cheating is plain as day and twice as big? I said they cheated. You said they didn't. I showed you the biggest cheating anyone could ever conceive, so big it involved taking over the every input and output of the DNC, and running it like it was her personal household, and you're saying that's not cheating because there is no record of people taking about directly manipulating vote totals.

If you can walk into "Hillary's vote hut" and use "Hillary's vote pens" to vote on "Hillary's vote paper" where the votes are tallied by "Hillary's employees chosen from her friend pool" and then hear the results on "Hillary's patented news delivery service" and quabble with me about "evidence of cheating" then I can't help you.

Your viewpoint of what "cheating" means is so obscure and narrow that in the beginning of the chain, which you referred me back to, I genuinely thought you didn't know all this because surely anyone who knew all this would understand that a complete and total takeover of the apparatus for voting and campaigning, was evidence enough of cheating.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] protist@retrofed.com 1 point 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I said they cheated. You said they didn’t.

Show me where I said this

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Nouvellalia@lemmy.world 1 point 2 weeks ago (1 child)

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] protist@retrofed.com 1 point 2 weeks ago

Right.

parent

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 6 points 2 weeks ago

I think it's somewhere in between the two, but I followed Bernie's advice and didn't hold a vote in protest, because that would have been disastrous for... oh, yeah, it was.

parent