Trump accuses Comey of perjury following Comey testimony.

[The Romulan Republic]

The Democrats have their problems, but they're far preferable by any rational and objective criteria to a party who's leader is waging war on the free press, seeks to ban people on the basis of religion, and is attempting to obstruct an investigation into his alleged collusion with a foreign enemy to undermine our democracy. A party which is also, as we speak, working behind closed doors to strip health care from tens of millions of Americans, dooming tens of thousands of people to a slow and miserable death for the crime of being poor.

There's just... no comparison. Much like chemotherapy sucks, but its probably better than dying of cancer.

Even if you hate the Democrats, I'm reminded of an endorsement (I believe it was from a traditionally conservative paper) of Hillary Clinton during the last election, to the effect that "She'll be wrong, but she'll be wrong within normal parameters".

Truer words were never spoken. And I say that as a Bernie supporter who held out until June.

[Draco Dracul]

They sabotaged the effort by underhandedly respecting the voters, those fiends.

The kind of respect you have to resign over if it gets leaked.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ls-sanders

The DNC showed about as much respect to its voters as the back of a pimp's hand respects its hos.

America, you can do better.

A widely unpopular chair was pressured to resign after mass of emails where the sum total of the damning evidence was treating Clinton as the winner at a point where Sanders would have to win 60+% of all remaining votes or woo the very Super delegates he previously railed against. The DNC didn't do a goddamn thing to screw over Sanders, he failed to appeal to democratic voters.

[Admiral X]

One of the more hilarious aspects of this last election to me is the complaining about how the electoral college works, and calls to get rid of it, when the DNC makes use of "super-delegates."

Personally I'm going to keep voting for Ron Paul until any of the parties (including the Libertarian Party) puts up someone worth voting for. And I don't care one bit about any rending of hair or gnashing of teeth Democrats or Republicans might do.

[The Romulan Republic]

One of the more hilarious aspects of this last election to me is the complaining about how the electoral college works, and calls to get rid of it, when the DNC makes use of "super-delegates."

I love how its so often hard-line Right-wingers and their sympathizers talking up how the big bad DNC screwed Bernie Sanders these days. Trump did it himself, during the election. And its a blatant effort to drive a wedge between progressives and Centrist liberals so they won't unite against their common enemy- Right-wing neo-fascism.

As if I don't know that the Right, for the most part, would have immediately turned around and started calling Bernie a communist planning to destroy America (probably with more than a bit of anti-Semitism thrown in) if he'd actually gotten the nomination.

I'm also more than tired of people trying to deflect any criticisms of the Right with "but Democrats do bad things too". One injustice never justifies another, and the false equivalency meme serves no purpose but to legitimize the worst politicians by putting them on an even footing with all the others, to undermine public support for democratic institutions, and to encourage voters to turn to either apathy, or extremism. I consider it, frankly, to be perhaps the most dangerous political lie in the world today.

The DNC has more than its share of problems, but that does not make the Electoral College any less of an injustice (it is explicitly designed to make some citizens' votes matter more than others', and it failed at arguably its only real justification, which is to prevent the election of a corrupt or despotic President). Speaking as someone who opposes both super delegates and the EC, and sees no need to choose between one or the other.

I do consider the EC the greater injustice, however, because the Democratic Party is a private organization which can set its own rules, whereas the EC exists for the sole purpose of weighting the scales in the single most important national-level election.

Personally I'm going to keep voting for Ron Paul until any of the parties (including the Libertarian Party) puts up someone worth voting for. And I don't care one bit about any rending of hair or gnashing of teeth Democrats or Republicans might do.

Enjoy the sense of superiority your pointless protest vote gives you while fascism takes over your country. Its the only "benefit" you'll ever get from it.

[Antiboyscout]

Ahhh...
The accusations of Fascism and the demeaning of third parties.
Do me a favor and never change. You are a poster child for the failings of the Left right now

[Admiral X]

I love how its so often hard-line Right-wingers and their sympathizers talking up how the big bad DNC screwed Bernie Sanders these days.

You live in a very binary world, don't you?

I'm also more than tired of people trying to deflect any criticisms of the Right with "but Democrats do bad things too".

It's not that they "do bad things, too," it's that they do the same exact bad things that they complain about the Republicans doing.

The DNC has more than its share of problems, but that does not make the Electoral College any less of an injustice (it is explicitly designed to make some citizens' votes matter more than others', and it failed at arguably its only real justification, which is to prevent the election of a corrupt or despotic President).

Actually its purpose is to keep the more populous states from holding too much sway over the less populous states.

I do consider the EC the greater injustice, however, because the Democratic Party is a private organization which can set its own rules, whereas the EC exists for the sole purpose of weighting the scales in the single most important national-level election.

I find the emphasized portion hilarious in light of how other businesses and organizations have been treated by Democrats and others claiming to be "progressive."

Enjoy the sense of superiority your pointless protest vote gives you while fascism takes over your country. Its the only "benefit" you'll ever get from it.

So much melodrama. I chose not to play the "lesser of two evils" game because no matter what, you are choosing evil, and frankly, that's what makes it a pointless joke of a game. I refuse to play that game. If you want to, knock yourself out. But you don't see me bitching about you not voting the way I wanted you to and thus enabling "fascism" to take over the country, do you?

[Fixer]

We tend to give more leeway in the news/politics forum than elsewhere but this thread is close to crossing the line again. Please keep the tone respectful, and additionally Admiral X please cut back on the laughing smileys.

[The Romulan Republic]

Ahhh...
The accusations of Fascism and the demeaning of third parties.
Do me a favor and never change. You are a poster child for the failings of the Left right now

As far as the accusations of fascism are concerned, if the Right doesn't like the label, it shouldn't fit it so well.

As to third parties...

That's a complicated topic, and rather off-topic, but since we're already off-topic...

I have no inherent objection to alternative parties, though I do think that any system is going to tend to default towards two major factions, because you need at least close to a majority to get anything done in a democracy. Even in parliamentary systems with many parties in the legislature, you'll generally need a coalition with a majority to accomplish much.

That said, if a smaller party actually broke out of the fringe and stood a real chance of accomplishing something productive, I'd gladly back it. It might surprise you, for example, to know that here in Canada, I spent much of the last spring as a volunteer for the British Columbia provincial Green Party. Even in American politics, I have no loyalty to the Democratic Party except insofar as the Democratic Party, flawed as it is, is the most effective means we currently have of advancing democratic and social democrat principles. If a better option that was actually viable presented itself, I'd certainly consider it. But I'm not going to fall into the fallacy of embracing a third party option simply because its not one of the two big parties and "Both parties are exactly the same false equivalency nonsense", nor do I accept the usual excuse of third partiers that "We would totally win if the big parties weren't conspiring to keep us down".

The Greens under Jill Stein and the Libertarians under Gary Johnson were the only two remotely notable alternative parties in the last US election, and guess what- Jill Stein and Gary Johnson were both shitty candidates. Even by the standards of a race that included Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the top spots.

In other words, you don't score points with me simply by being a third party. Give me a third party that actually serves some purpose other than splitting the progressive vote, and I'll consider backing it.

Edits: And again, I'll point to how Trump openly encouraged the Bernie or Bust people. Third parties have become a useful tool for a major party to employ "divide and conquer" against its opposition. If I supported a third party, I would simply be encouraging the Left to squander its efforts on infighting rather than focus them against a common opponent and in support of common causes.

And in the current political climate in the US, the stakes are too high to do that.

This is not to say, of course, that the Democratic Party does not have problems that require reform. But I've got to laugh (because otherwise I might cry) at "progressives" who think they have a better shot of getting the policies and candidates they want by going third party than by working within the Democratic primary process, unbalanced though it is.

Bernie Sanders got over 45% of the primary vote, starting out as a virtual unknown against a heavily favoured, extremely wealthy, globally famous, and exceptionally well-connected opponent who's victory was considered a forgone conclusion by most. Moreover, his support was disproportionately with the younger voters of the party (ie the future of the party, if they don't throw it all away in a childish fit of sour grapes), and subsequent events have vindicated him. The progressives have every chance of taking control of the DNC in the long run, if we're willing to work at it.

But no, let's vote Green or Libertarian instead. Because dividing our efforts between various parties that would need a miracle to break 5% of the vote is definitely more likely to get us what we want than trying to get another five or ten percent of the vote in the next Democratic primary...

And apologies for continuing to add more edits to this post, but again, I can't help but note that it always seems to be Right-wingers telling me, and other liberals and progressives, that we should support third parties.

Huh, I wonder why that is? Forgive me for not taking strategy advice from the opposition. I'm sure they have our best interests at heart... Just like when some of them told us that Trump's "victory" proved we needed to throw the rights of women and minorities under the bus if we wanted to win.

[Antiboyscout]

Speaking of which, are there any new developments on the Comey thing or can we let the thread die?

[Fixer]

As far as the accusations of fascism are concerned, if the Right doesn't like the label, it shouldn't fit it so well.

Can you actually define what you believe fascism to be? Because so far I have only seen the word bandied around as a slur. It's also very hypocritical to call right wingers fascist in one thread, while complaining in another that people should not equate democratic socialism with communist dicatorship.

And apologies for continuing to add more edits to this post, but again, I can't help but note that it always seems to be Right-wingers telling me, and other liberals and progressives, that we should support third parties.

Huh, I wonder why that is? Forgive me for not taking strategy advice from the opposition. I'm sure they have our best interests at heart... Just like when some of them told us that Trump's "victory" proved we needed to throw the rights of women and minorities under the bus if we wanted to win.

It has been my experience that this very attitude that pushes people away. The concept that you must vote for something and anyone that disagreed was right wing or in the enemy camp. That and of course, if you don't vote for Hillary you are also the hatred of all women. People don't like to be bullied or shamed into having to vote the way you want them to, and alone in the voting booth where they're free to make their mark without suffering any prejudice they will vote against such people.

As for the maintaining of the two party system. The late, great Douglas Adams had this to say.

“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"