"I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-08-2017, 04:01 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(17-08-2017 02:47 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(17-08-2017 02:30 PM)Stefan Mayerschoff Wrote:  ... let's take Sanders as an illustrative example. He was hardly "unfairly sidelined" - he lost the primaries by a wide margin even once you discount the impact of superdelegates. I'm not really sure how that's party leadership making a concerted effort to keep him sidelined. I'm also not sure what that has to with Hillary's quality as a candidate. Do you think she somehow strong armed the DNC into those actions against their will?

This seems a bit unfair. I don't think Hillary Clinton herself was behind this, but the DNC decided early on that she was going to be their candidate, and basically rigged the primaries in her favor. The superdelegates alone were enough to do that. Once she has a shitload of superdelegates, Sanders is so far behind he doesn't have a chance -- so many people who might have voted for him went for Clinton because, well, "she's going to win anyway". There were also other things that they did, some behind the scenes. I don't know that Bernie would have won a fair race, but it wasn't a fair race. They never gave him a chance.

I'm asking because I honestly don't know - how does one "rig a primary" for a particular candidate? Are certain people not allowed to vote, or are their votes discarded without being counted? Did Sanders not appear on some ballots? Was Hillary's name in a bigger font, maybe underlined red at the top of the page?

I know I'm coming across a little truculent here, but I just never got the "poor Bernie, he was treated so unfairly" shtick. He hitched his wagon to the Democratic party, despite being an independent most of his political career. He was an open socialist, which by itself would have been enough to give a major political party pause when considering his electability in the general election. I think there may have been some unequitable distribution of resources between Hillary and Bernie, but that's a smart move by party leadership. You don't waste resources on a losing cause, and there's no way Bernie was electable in a general election. I can't think of single plank that would have caused a registered republican to cross party lines and vote for him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2017, 04:23 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(17-08-2017 04:01 PM)Stefan Mayerschoff Wrote:  
(17-08-2017 02:47 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  This seems a bit unfair. I don't think Hillary Clinton herself was behind this, but the DNC decided early on that she was going to be their candidate, and basically rigged the primaries in her favor. The superdelegates alone were enough to do that. Once she has a shitload of superdelegates, Sanders is so far behind he doesn't have a chance -- so many people who might have voted for him went for Clinton because, well, "she's going to win anyway". There were also other things that they did, some behind the scenes. I don't know that Bernie would have won a fair race, but it wasn't a fair race. They never gave him a chance.

I'm asking because I honestly don't know - how does one "rig a primary" for a particular candidate? Are certain people not allowed to vote, or are their votes discarded without being counted? Did Sanders not appear on some ballots? Was Hillary's name in a bigger font, maybe underlined red at the top of the page?

I know I'm coming across a little truculent here, but I just never got the "poor Bernie, he was treated so unfairly" shtick. He hitched his wagon to the Democratic party, despite being an independent most of his political career. He was an open socialist, which by itself would have been enough to give a major political party pause when considering his electability in the general election. I think there may have been some unequitable distribution of resources between Hillary and Bernie, but that's a smart move by party leadership. You don't waste resources on a losing cause, and there's no way Bernie was electable in a general election. I can't think of single plank that would have caused a registered republican to cross party lines and vote for him.

I honestly don't know all the details, but the superdelegates alone were a huge factor, and I also remember more than a few states where Sanders beat Clinton but only got half the delegates. That's probably just the way those states' rules were written, but it still doesn't seem right that you can win states and essentially lose ground in the race. It kind of reminds me of that electoral college that people keep complaining about.

And don't be so sure that Sander couldn't have won a general election. That's what everyone said about Trump, too. Sanders vs. Trump would have pitted two independent mavericks against each other, neither very closely allied with his party. They would have had to actually campaign, rather than just spouting the party line. I don't know who would have won, but I'll bet more people would have gotten out and voted. I don't think platforms and planks would have been as important. It would have been more about individuals and less about parties than any election I can remember. And that alone would have been refreshing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
17-08-2017, 04:32 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(17-08-2017 04:23 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(17-08-2017 04:01 PM)Stefan Mayerschoff Wrote:  I'm asking because I honestly don't know - how does one "rig a primary" for a particular candidate? Are certain people not allowed to vote, or are their votes discarded without being counted? Did Sanders not appear on some ballots? Was Hillary's name in a bigger font, maybe underlined red at the top of the page?

I know I'm coming across a little truculent here, but I just never got the "poor Bernie, he was treated so unfairly" shtick. He hitched his wagon to the Democratic party, despite being an independent most of his political career. He was an open socialist, which by itself would have been enough to give a major political party pause when considering his electability in the general election. I think there may have been some unequitable distribution of resources between Hillary and Bernie, but that's a smart move by party leadership. You don't waste resources on a losing cause, and there's no way Bernie was electable in a general election. I can't think of single plank that would have caused a registered republican to cross party lines and vote for him.

I honestly don't know all the details, but the superdelegates alone were a huge factor, and I also remember more than a few states where Sanders beat Clinton but only got half the delegates. That's probably just the way those states' rules were written, but it still doesn't seem right that you can win states and essentially lose ground in the race. It kind of reminds me of that electoral college that people keep complaining about.

And don't be so sure that Sander couldn't have won a general election. That's what everyone said about Trump, too. Sanders vs. Trump would have pitted two independent mavericks against each other, neither very closely allied with his party. They would have had to actually campaign, rather than just spouting the party line. I don't know who would have won, but I'll bet more people would have gotten out and voted. I don't think platforms and planks would have been as important. It would have been more about individuals and less about parties than any election I can remember. And that alone would have been refreshing.

I think you might be mis-remembering how it went down. Not sure if it's still archived, but electoral-vote.com followed the primary voting closely, and I clearly recall quite a few blog posts debunking the "Bernie was cheated" idea. If I have some time I'll try and dig up links for them. I do specifically know there was a couple posts addressing superdelegates, and how Hillary would have won based just on elected delegates (unless your position is that the superdelegates should have assisted Bernie)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2017, 04:41 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(17-08-2017 01:56 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(17-08-2017 01:32 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  A statue honoring Stalin for his work industrializing the USSR necessarily invites discussion about his hand in the murder of millions.


He had more than hand in murder but discussion might be not pleasant given that Stalin is remember positively by about half of Russian population. Not really my concern but fact that Russians, greatest victims of mustached Georgian regime remembers him fondly makes me sad.

I wonder if that has to do with all the statues that were erected?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2017, 04:46 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(17-08-2017 04:32 PM)Stefan Mayerschoff Wrote:  
(17-08-2017 04:23 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I honestly don't know all the details, but the superdelegates alone were a huge factor, and I also remember more than a few states where Sanders beat Clinton but only got half the delegates. That's probably just the way those states' rules were written, but it still doesn't seem right that you can win states and essentially lose ground in the race. It kind of reminds me of that electoral college that people keep complaining about.

And don't be so sure that Sander couldn't have won a general election. That's what everyone said about Trump, too. Sanders vs. Trump would have pitted two independent mavericks against each other, neither very closely allied with his party. They would have had to actually campaign, rather than just spouting the party line. I don't know who would have won, but I'll bet more people would have gotten out and voted. I don't think platforms and planks would have been as important. It would have been more about individuals and less about parties than any election I can remember. And that alone would have been refreshing.

I think you might be mis-remembering how it went down. Not sure if it's still archived, but electoral-vote.com followed the primary voting closely, and I clearly recall quite a few blog posts debunking the "Bernie was cheated" idea. If I have some time I'll try and dig up links for them. I do specifically know there was a couple posts addressing superdelegates, and how Hillary would have won based just on elected delegates (unless your position is that the superdelegates should have assisted Bernie)

The superdelegates changed how people voted, and thereby influenced the elected delegates -- that's what I'm saying. A lot of people gave up and either didn't vote at all in the primaries, or voted for Clinton rather than Sanders, because they figured he no longer had a chance. The superdelegates weren't just some extra delegates. They had an effect beyond that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2017, 04:47 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
If someone, from the hard right, says we should keep these statues, ask them if a two hundred foot tall FSM statue on government property and maintained by THEIR tax dollars would be okay with them? You'll see selectivity in action very quickly.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2017, 06:08 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(16-08-2017 04:31 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  
(16-08-2017 03:22 PM)Dr H Wrote:  who believe that the Confederacy was primarily a big test of the alleged Constitutional guarantee of states' rights

Yes.... states rights to own slaves.
Self-determination was considered, by some, to include that, yes.
Along with a whole lot of other things.

As Joseph McGill pointed out at one point in his talk, people who join the military join for a variety of reasons: to defend their home against a perceived threat; because they are conscripted; as a means of supporting themselves or their families when they can't find work; as well as for a variety of moral reasons which may be either good or bad. A commemoration of a soldier or a battle doesn't necessarily commemorate everything the government behind his army supported.

Quote:It's important to realize that the majority of statues erected to the Confederate military were erected after 1900, during the Jim Crow and the rise of the KKK.
Most during the Jim Crow era, but true. So?

Most Revolutionary Way monuments were erected around that time,too -- in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, during the Victorian era's patriotic fervor that also gave us the Pledge of Allegiance, the push for an official national anthem, and hundreds of patriotic songs and plays, many of which would be considered offensive to one or another group today. Not coincidentally, this was also the era the first big "red scare", and the pushback by the elite of the gilded age against any attempt at worker organization -- with often fatal consequences.

People build monuments for a reason, and there is almost always an ulterior motivation behind it. The only really equitable solution I see is my original suggestion that we get rid of all of them, and use the resources that would have gone into creating them to try to better the lives of those who need it.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2017, 06:23 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(16-08-2017 04:35 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  The problem of that notion is with existence of statues or idolitry is that it normalizes and gives credence to those with ideas about the stuff that matters.

Um, yeah:

http://dguides.com/portland/attractions/...ia-statue/
https://www.treesofmystery.net/images/sl...abe-05.jpg
https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5250/52617...68f4_b.jpg
https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/...-troll.jpg
http://www.alaska.org/photos/gallery3/va...1396996217

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2017, 06:36 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(16-08-2017 06:02 PM)Brian37 Wrote:  Fuck you.
You too. Big Grin

Quote:I was just watching PBS about this very bullshit argument. Blacks for the most part are not looking for a perfect past. But the difference between the Revolutionary War and the Civil war is that there WERE proponents of abolition at the founding, and knowing that slavery had ended in the NORTH by the time Jefferson and Adams died, and knowing that Franklin and Pain were advocates for ending slavery, this is a bullshit argument.
I refer you to the previously cited article, in which Joseph McGill -- the African American founder of the Slave Dwelling Project -- makes an eloquent plea for not evading our responsibility to the past by indulging in the "quick fix" of tearing down monuments:

“To hold those military officers and folks whose monuments were taken down responsible, to put the weight on their shoulders, that’s wrong. We’ve got to accept that we were a nation of people who condoned enslaving others and not lay the burden at the feet of these Confederate officers.” -- Joseph McGill

Quote:If you want to claim the founders were conflicted on the issue, that is no different than knowing Ronald Reagan really didn't give a shit about gay marriage. This is a bullshit backhanded way of saying "They did it too".
No, it's a matter of acknowledging exposing responsibility and, in some cases, exposing hypocrisy.

Quote:The founders regardless of owning slaves were still looking forward.
Yes, to a 3/5's compromise.
Well, it was a start.


Quote:Hitler built the Autoban still used today is not an argument.
Indeed; I've not mentioned Hitler.

Quote:If you wan't to argue amendments to their monuments sure, I am for that, but that is not the same as glorifying those who sought to destroy the country and keep slavery.

I hold no illusions about Jefferson or Washington nor do most blacks. But it still remains that because of of their ideas at the time supporters of ending slavery used the same principles to do so,and even back then, by the time Jefferson and Adams died slavery had ended in the North as a majority. The South no matter what fought to keep slavery.

The founders as imperfect as you point out were not the same as those Lincoln got murdered by.

If you are going to blame Washington or Jefferson then we should nuke Germany for keeping the highway system Hitler built.

Point being you cannot equate the climate of the Revolutionary War to the Climate of the South at the time of the Civil War. The North was, and you can only argue maybe not fast enough, at the time of the revolution, was starting to lean to the ideas of abolition their allies had already started.

The real point being that there are multiple viewpoints on most issues, and "quick fixes" almost never fix anything.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dr H's post
17-08-2017, 06:38 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(16-08-2017 06:24 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  
Quote:I'm with the prez on this one.

Then fuck you.

An eloquent counter-argument; I am devastated. Tongue

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: