Interesting question for the Democrats

[BoilerMadness]

Why is Bernie Sanders going to be allowed to participate in the Democratic debates? He's an avowed Socialist and has NEVER claimed to be a Democrat.

Perhaps that's why Debbie Wasserman Schultz was baffled, when she was asked what was the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist. Apparently, there is none....

 

[qazplm]

No, not really interesting at all.

 

[beardownboiler]

Man, this board has turned into BigE just asking dumb questions of Democrats . . . I never thought I'd actually miss GMM.

 

[BoilerMadness]

I can understand why you two would want to be dismissive about the fact that Democrats and Socialists are becoming interchangeable in the Democratic Party. I am a little surprised, that NO ONE in the Democratic hierarchy or the media is questioning Bernie's right to be there. That silence speaks volumes.

 

[qazplm]

Man, this board has turned into BigE just asking dumb questions of Democrats . . . I never thought I'd actually miss GMM.

GMM was more creatively crazy.

 

[BoilerMadness]

GMM was more creatively crazy.

You keep deflecting and you keep name calling and you keep avoiding the issue. Why are the Democrats allowing an avowed Socialist to participate in their debates? It's a legitimate question, so why do you keep avoiding it?

 

[qazplm]

Lol no it's an idiotic question.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Lol no it's an idiotic question.

WHY??

I guess that you're saying there is absolutely NO difference between Socialists and Democrats, so they're ALL eligible to participate in the debates. Not surprising.... Would Bernie also be eligible to be nominated at the Democratic National Convention?

I know you would feel completely comfortable with it, but how would some of the rest of you feel, if the Democratic Party nominated a Socialist to be their candidate? Do any of you have any qualms about that, or does it not matter to you? I'm just curious what your reactions might be.

 

[qazplm]

That last bit is a slightly less idiotic question and in fact the least crazy thing you've posted on here in months.

He's a democratic socialist first of all which is different than a socialist.

Second of all, the American far left is the European left of center. He doesn't propose getting rid of corporations, he doesn't propose everyone gets the same pay, if you look at how often he votes with the democrats and his main policy proposals most of them are not someone crazy thing.

He wants to raise the minimum wage, he wants protections for the middle class, and he wants the rich to pay more...you know std democratic positions for the last sixty years.

Now do I think he would have a harder time in the GE because folks like you will just scream Socialist and then try to tie every possible negative and most extreme flaws with "socialism?"

To quote someone I'm sure you are a fan of...you betcha.

Do I think he's a little too focused on purity and not focused enough on the reality of government when one party will control at least one house of Congress? Yep.

Do I find his supporters a little insufferable? Some of them yes. Would I prefer him to any of the clown car? Absolutely. Because at the end of the day he's been a public servant all his life...he flies coach and walks to work. Right or wrong he will do what he thinks is best for the country.

The folks in the clown car will think either of themselves first like Trump or party first for many of the others.

I prefer Hillary because she is closer to my positions, more likely to get things done, and I think stronger overall. Neither of them are preferable to me to Obama or other possible candidates but both are acceptable and light years better than the other side.

Of course nothing I just typed is surprising or something your average person couldn't suss out...which is why its still hard to take your "confusion" seriously.

 

[BoilerMadness]

That last bit is a slightly less idiotic question and in fact the least crazy thing you've posted on here in months.

He's a democratic socialist first of all which is different than a socialist.

Second of all, the American far left is the European left of center. He doesn't propose getting rid of corporations, he doesn't propose everyone gets the same pay, if you look at how often he votes with the democrats and his main policy proposals most of them are not someone crazy thing.

He wants to raise the minimum wage, he wants protections for the middle class, and he wants the rich to pay more...you know std democratic positions for the last sixty years.

Now do I think he would have a harder time in the GE because folks like you will just scream Socialist and then try to tie every possible negative and most extreme flaws with "socialism?"

To quote someone I'm sure you are a fan of...you betcha.

Do I think he's a little too focused on purity and not focused enough on the reality of government when one party will control at least one house of Congress? Yep.

Do I find his supporters a little insufferable? Some of them yes. Would I prefer him to any of the clown car? Absolutely. Because at the end of the day he's been a public servant all his life...he flies coach and walks to work. Right or wrong he will do what he thinks is best for the country.

The folks in the clown car will think either of themselves first like Trump or party first for many of the others.

I prefer Hillary because she is closer to my positions, more likely to get things done, and I think stronger overall. Neither of them are preferable to me to Obama or other possible candidates but both are acceptable and light years better than the other side.

Of course nothing I just typed is surprising or something your average person couldn't suss out...which is why its still hard to take your "confusion" seriously.

You've got to be getting dizzy trying to spin this. By your own admission, Bernie is a Democratic SOCIALIST, NOT a Democrat. He runs as an Independent, NOT as a Democrat. (If he's so proud of his beliefs, why doesn't he run as a Democratic Socialist instead of an Independent?) He caucuses with the Democrats, because they share so many Socialist views, but that still doesn't make him a Democrat. The question still remains - Why are the Democrats allowing an Independent to be included in their debates? One would think they would be more interested in nominating a REAL Democrat.

The only rational reason, that comes to mind, is that the Democratic Party made this concession to Bernie to keep him from running as an Independent, for fear that he would "Nader" them in the '16 election.

Now. try to get off your high horse, quit being so condescending and answer the question, which was neither idiotic nor crazy. Saul Alinsky would be proud, that you read his book and like to practice his methods.

 

[qazplm]

You've got to be getting dizzy trying to spin this. By your own admission, Bernie is a Democratic SOCIALIST, NOT a Democrat. He runs as an Independent, NOT as a Democrat. (If he's so proud of his beliefs, why doesn't he run as a Social Democrat instead of and Independent?) He caucuses with the Democrats, because they share so many Socialist views, but that still doesn't make him a Democrat. The question still remains - Why are the Democrats allowing an Independent to be included in their debates? One would think they would be more interested in nominating a REAL Democrat.

The only rational reason, that comes to mind, is that the Democratic Party made this concession to Bernie to keep him from running as an Independent, for fear that he would "Nader" them in the '16 election.

Now. try to get off your high horse, quit being so condescending and answer the question, which was neither idiotic or crazy. Saul Alinsky would be proud, that you read his book and like to practice his methods.

This is why it's pointless talking to someone like you, and why you get mocked/ignored by most folks on this board, even those on the right.

 

[BoilerMadness]

This is why it's pointless talking to someone like you, and why you get mocked/ignored by most folks on this board, even those on the right.

No matter how much you want to dodge and deflect the question, it's still legitimate. If you want to avoid the word Socialist, which is understandable, why are the Democrats allowing an Independent to compete in their debates and vie for the nomination of their Party?

Hillary is self-destructing and will not get the coronation, that she and the Party had expected, and Biden hasn't committed to run yet. That makes Bernie the GUY, unless the Dems dust off AlGore or Kerry, who have both got negatives, that almost rival Hillary's. I find it an interesting dilemma, that the Dems have painted themselves into this corner.

 

[qazplm]

No matter how much you want to dodge and deflect the question, it's still legitimate. If you want to avoid the word Socialist, which is understandable, why are the Democrats allowing an Independent to compete in their debates and vie for the nomination of their Party?

Hillary is self-destructing and will not get the coronation, that she and the Party had expected, and Biden hasn't committed to run yet. That makes Bernie the GUY, unless the Dems dust off AlGore or Kerry, who have both got negatives, that almost rival Hillary's. I find it an interesting dilemma, that the Dems have painted themselves into this corner.

Yawn. Get better material, this is getting boring.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Yawn. Get better material, this is getting boring.

The force is strong with this little deflector....

 

[qazplm]

The force is strong with this little deflector....

Lame and boring.

 

[Stol91]

No, not really interesting at all.

so, while not BigE, I actually had this same question, but more from a simple procedural perspective. While I don't post here enough perhaps for you to know my belief / background, in all honesty, my question is a genuine one. Do parties have control or rules around who can run on their platforms? I knew Bernie was elected as an independent and also knew he was more democratic of the two parties, but how does that work? I know they asked Trump to 'kiss the ring' or whatever, but do the two parties just make their own rules as to who can run under their banner?

 

[qazplm]

so, while not BigE, I actually had this same question, but more from a simple procedural perspective. While I don't post here enough perhaps for you to know my belief / background, in all honesty, my question is a genuine one. Do parties have control or rules around who can run on their platforms? I knew Bernie was elected as an independent and also knew he was more democratic of the two parties, but how does that work? I know they asked Trump to 'kiss the ring' or whatever, but do the two parties just make their own rules as to who can run under their banner?

yes...the parties control who runs under their banner for the most part. I mean Jeb Bush couldn't just say I'm going to run as a Democrat, or Hillary saying I'm going to run as a Republican. The parties wouldn't let them. There are also to some extent state by state rules (for e.g. a couple of the Republican primaries were/are going to require a pledge to support the eventual nominee to be placed on the ballot in that state).

And no, you didn't have the same question. You had a reasonable question, asked reasonably. It wasn't filled with "socialist" and "libruls" and some variation of ducking/dodging/afraid bs.

 

[BoilerMadness]

yes...the parties control who runs under their banner for the most part. I mean Jeb Bush couldn't just say I'm going to run as a Democrat, or Hillary saying I'm going to run as a Republican. The parties wouldn't let them. There are also to some extent state by state rules (for e.g. a couple of the Republican primaries were/are going to require a pledge to support the eventual nominee to be placed on the ballot in that state).

And no, you didn't have the same question. You had a reasonable question, asked reasonably. It wasn't filled with "socialist" and "libruls" and some variation of ducking/dodging/afraid bs.

Give me a break. He asked the same question I did, and you DID duck and dodge by avoiding answering, when I asked it. You agreed that Bernie was a Democratic SOCIALIST, but "LIBRULS" was strictly manufactured by your own imagination. That statement would earn you at least three Pinocchios.

 

[qazplm]

Give me a break. He asked the same question I did, and you DID duck and dodge by avoiding answering, when I asked it. You agreed that Bernie was a Democratic SOCIALIST, but "LIBRULS" was strictly manufactured by your own imagination. That statement would earn you at least three Pinocchios.

no he didn't, and boring.

 

[32zone]

Why is Bernie Sanders going to be allowed to participate in the Democratic debates?

I knew Bernie was elected as an independent and also knew he was more democratic of the two parties, but how does that work? I know they asked Trump to 'kiss the ring' or whatever, but do the two parties just make their own rules as to who can run under their banner?

Seems like the same question to me.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Seems like the same question to me.

You've got to be careful. Qaz gets confused by facts....vbg

 

[BoilerMadness]

no he didn't, and boring.

so, while not BigE, I actually had this same question, (Direct quote by Stol91)

You're losing credibility at an exponential rate qaz. It appears your little personal agenda is getting in the way of your reading comprehension.

 

[qazplm]

Seems like the same question to me.

"He's an avowed Socialist and has NEVER claimed to be a Democrat.

Perhaps that's why Debbie Wasserman Schultz was baffled, when she was asked what was the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist. Apparently, there is none...."

So you are saying that's the question you intended to ask? If so, then it's as silly a question as BigE23's. If you can't tell the difference between your question and his, and why I would respond to yours and not his, then I gave you way too much credit.

 

[BoilerMadness]

"He's an avowed Socialist and has NEVER claimed to be a Democrat.

Perhaps that's why Debbie Wasserman Schultz was baffled, when she was asked what was the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist. Apparently, there is none...."

So you are saying that's the question you intended to ask? If so, then it's as silly a question as BigE23's. If you can't tell the difference between your question and his, and why I would respond to yours and not his, then I gave you way too much credit.

Once again, you artfully avoid the ACTUAL question, that I asked, "Why is Bernie Sanders going to be allowed to participate in the Democratic debates?"

Where has he ever claimed to be a Democrat? Nowhere that I can find. If he were a Democrat, why is he running as an Independent? Where's your intellectual curiosity, qaz?

Debbie Wasserman Shultz was asked "What's the difference between a Socialist and a Democrat?" by Chris Mathews. She was stunned by the question and waffled for a while, and ultimately said, that that wasn't important. What mattered was the difference between a Democrat and Republican. About 4 days later, she was asked the same question again by another reporter and STILL didn't have an answer. She once again resorted to the Democrat/Republican comparison. If the Head of the Democratic National Committee doesn't know the difference between a Socialist and a Democrat, one has to surmise, that there isn't one. My how the party has drifted to the Left and many of you appear unaware.

 

[qazplm]

Once again, you artfully avoid the ACTUAL question, that I asked, "Why is Bernie Sanders going to be allowed to participate in the Democratic debates?"

Where has he ever claimed to be a Democrat? Nowhere that I can find. If he were a Democrat, why is he running as an Independent? Where's your intellectual curiosity, qaz?

Debbie Wasserman Shultz was asked "What's the difference between a Socialist and a Democrat?" by Chris Mathews. She was stunned by the question and waffled for a while, and ultimately said, that that wasn't important. What mattered was the difference between a Democrat and Republican. About 4 days later, she was asked the same question again by another reporter and STILL didn't have an answer. She once again resorted to the Democrat/Republican comparison. If the Head of the Democratic National Committee doesn't know the difference between a Socialist and a Democrat, one has to surmise, that there isn't one. My how the party has drifted to the Left and many of you appear unaware.

God you are boring. Just stop. No one cares. We get it. Dems are all socialists.

 

[BoilerMadness]

God you are boring. Just stop. No one cares. We get it. Dems are all socialists.

It takes you a long time to get to the truth, but you finally got there. Don't you feel better now, that you got that off your chest?........vbg

 

[qazplm]

It takes you a long time to get to the truth, but you finally got there. Don't you feel better now, that you got that off your chest?........vbg

Bored. Try a new shtick. Anything. Something that isn't predictable, tired, and lame. Surprise us.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Bored. Try a new shtick. Anything. Something that isn't predictable, tired, and lame. Surprise us.

You might consider taking your own advice.....vbg

 

[Purdue97]

That last bit is a slightly less idiotic question and in fact the least crazy thing you've posted on here in months.

He's a democratic socialist first of all which is different than a socialist.

Second of all, the American far left is the European left of center. He doesn't propose getting rid of corporations, he doesn't propose everyone gets the same pay, if you look at how often he votes with the democrats and his main policy proposals most of them are not someone crazy thing.

He wants to raise the minimum wage, he wants protections for the middle class, and he wants the rich to pay more...you know std democratic positions for the last sixty years.

Now do I think he would have a harder time in the GE because folks like you will just scream Socialist and then try to tie every possible negative and most extreme flaws with "socialism?"

To quote someone I'm sure you are a fan of...you betcha.

Do I think he's a little too focused on purity and not focused enough on the reality of government when one party will control at least one house of Congress? Yep.

Do I find his supporters a little insufferable? Some of them yes. Would I prefer him to any of the clown car? Absolutely. Because at the end of the day he's been a public servant all his life...he flies coach and walks to work. Right or wrong he will do what he thinks is best for the country.

The folks in the clown car will think either of themselves first like Trump or party first for many of the others.

I prefer Hillary because she is closer to my positions, more likely to get things done, and I think stronger overall. Neither of them are preferable to me to Obama or other possible candidates but both are acceptable and light years better than the other side.

Of course nothing I just typed is surprising or something your average person couldn't suss out...which is why its still hard to take your "confusion" seriously.

Why do you think Hilary is the most likely to get things done? She is more polarizing than Obama.

I would say the candidates or possible candidates to get things done would be Biden, Trump, Bush, Fiorina, and Carson. They are either likable, have shown an ability to get things done, or have been successful in arenas that require people to work together(ie business). Clinton not so much any of them.

 

[qazplm]

Why do you think Hilary is the most likely to get things done? She is more polarizing than Obama.

I would say the candidates or possible candidates to get things done would be Biden, Trump, Bush, Fiorina, and Carson. They are either likable, have shown an ability to get things done, or have been successful in arenas that require people to work together(ie business). Clinton not so much any of them.

No she isn't "more polarizing than Obama." I am sure on day one of her potential administration the Reps will also have a meeting dedicated to opposing her at every term and making her a one-term President like they did in the Winter of 09.

Obama got a lot of stuff done because he knows how to consensus build within his caucus, because there is no bipartisanship anymore so it's all about getting your party on the same page. I think Bernie will be less successful with that then Hillary. I think he's less of a fighter. Less willing to do the dirty work you have to do in politics today. He thinks you win on pure logic/force of ideas. You don't remotely win on that alone in today's age.

 

[Mcluck]

Maybe for the same reason Rand Paul can run as a Republican although he isn't one?

 

[Purdue97]

No she isn't "more polarizing than Obama." I am sure on day one of her potential administration the Reps will also have a meeting dedicated to opposing her at every term and making her a one-term President like they did in the Winter of 09.

Obama got a lot of stuff done because he knows how to consensus build within his caucus, because there is no bipartisanship anymore so it's all about getting your party on the same page. I think Bernie will be less successful with that then Hillary. I think he's less of a fighter. Less willing to do the dirty work you have to do in politics today. He thinks you win on pure logic/force of ideas. You don't remotely win on that alone in today's age.

Well, I would say both parties play politics and plan on how the other party can only be in for one term.

I think we will agree to disagree that Obama got much done. Especially with having all of congress for two years.

Anyway, I remember Reagan telling a story about how him and Tip Oneil had dinner with each other and spouses once a week, and that brought the person into it. Bush Sr was able to form the massive coalition in first Gulf War. Clinton, will give him credit, worked well with Republicans. GWB jr worked across the aisle as well-alot of Dems authorized use of force, bailout etc.

Just did not see that with Obama. I see Hilary being the same. Closed meeting with one party only will rule the day much like it has since 08 if Clinton is elected.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Maybe for the same reason Rand Paul can run as a Republican although he isn't one?

He has been listed as a Republican on the ballots, when he ran for the Senate, unlike Bernie, who is listed as an Independent. Granted Paul leans more Libertarian, but he runs as a Republican.

 

[qazplm]

Well, I would say both parties play politics and plan on how the other party can only be in for one term.

I think we will agree to disagree that Obama got much done. Especially with having all of congress for two years.

Anyway, I remember Reagan telling a story about how him and Tip Oneil had dinner with each other and spouses once a week, and that brought the person into it. Bush Sr was able to form the massive coalition in first Gulf War. Clinton, will give him credit, worked well with Republicans. GWB jr worked across the aisle as well-alot of Dems authorized use of force, bailout etc.

Just did not see that with Obama. I see Hilary being the same. Closed meeting with one party only will rule the day much like it has since 08 if Clinton is elected.

Please point me to the meeting where Democrats got together and said let's make President X a one term President. Should be easy enough right?

Repeal of DOMA
Multiple straight years of job growth
Passage of Obamacare
Getting rid of DADT
I mean really just a whole slew of gay rights stuff
Stimulus Bill
Sequestration (I don't like that one but it's still something he did, he was the one that actually came up with it)
Major increase to overtime pay
Dodd-Frank
Killed OBL

From his first year til now:

UE is cut in half
Stock market has doubled
16 million more people have affordable health care now
We aren't bogged down in Iraq, about to finish getting out of Afghanistan

I could go on but those were just ones I could think of. You may think they are bad accomplishments, but there are plenty of accomplishments.

The idea that GWB worked across the aisle is laughable.

 

[Purdue97]

Please point me to the meeting where Democrats got together and said let's make President X a one term President. Should be easy enough right?

Repeal of DOMA
Multiple straight years of job growth
Passage of Obamacare
Getting rid of DADT
I mean really just a whole slew of gay rights stuff
Stimulus Bill
Sequestration (I don't like that one but it's still something he did, he was the one that actually came up with it)
Major increase to overtime pay
Dodd-Frank
Killed OBL

From his first year til now:

UE is cut in half
Stock market has doubled
16 million more people have affordable health care now
We aren't bogged down in Iraq, about to finish getting out of Afghanistan

I could go on but those were just ones I could think of. You may think they are bad accomplishments, but there are plenty of accomplishments.

The idea that GWB worked across the aisle is laughable.

Laughable? Well, considering I pointed out places where he actually worked with the other side, it is fact.

I understand the lack of a legacy with Obama in concern with building any type of coalition hurts you and is something you take personally.

Oh well-nothing you listed required any coalition building which is what the topic was. Stop your deflection. Was either something implemented by a Secretary, two of the bills were passed with democrats basically locking doors and preventing Republicans from participating, or were society changes that had little if anything to do with Obama and more to do with a court that is alleged super conservative. Or he acted unilaterally.

Not to mention the economic 'achievements' you list are pretty easily debatable, a lot of them are financial engineering which is passing the buck down the road, and been beaten to death here and in the news.

But to get back on topic, I see Hilary doing or being more of the same.