Official 2016 Democratic National Convention Thread

[The_Sheff]

Can some of the third party promoters explain to me what your end game is for this election?

You put the mainstream party candidates under an extreme microscope and list these reasons why they shouldn't be elected then end it with vote third party. Why is there not the same level of scrutiny being paid to the third party candidates? Some of them hold views that if a mainstream candidate supported it would 100% be a non-starter.


Gary Johnson says that we should end government mandated vaccination of children, and as someone who is married to a former pediatric nurse practitioner this would be disastrous for not only our children but the population as a whole. Is whooping cough for our kids something you can support? He also believes the federal government should have no role in education and wants to abolish the department of education. He also wants to have a single consumption tax that applies to everyone, a tax that is highly regressive. The only policy of his i can see as a positive is the end of the war on drugs but since he is also a huge promoter of private prisons he doesn't seem too keen on reducing the amount of inmates in this country much at all. He believes that the free market should be left to curb climate change. Is against all forms of gun control, etc...... The guy is a certified crack pot.

Jill Stein seems like Bernie but even more to the left, to the point where you can just look at her policies and know they have no chance in hell of passing. Her foreign policy platform seems to make the assumption that the US exists in a vacuum and closing 700 military bases worldwide would do nothing to any of our alliances. She is talking about going to 100% renewable energy sources, is she not aware of the science that makes this impossible at this point? Her plan for eliminating student debt is nonsensical at best. And for being a doctor she sure as hell is vague on her positions with vaccines and homeopathy.


What i dont understand about a lot of third parties is why dont they start at the bottom and work their way up. Why is it that you hear nothing about the Green party for 3 years and then all of a sudden they think they have the best candidate for president? Really? You have what like 3 Green party mayors in the entire country, if they cant win small town elections why in the hell do they think they are qualified to run the country?

 

[5n0man]

things have all ways been bad for blacks this aint nothing new. and i knew you didnt have an answer i was just wondering why youre acting like trump is a better option. i have no problems voting repub especially because i dont like hilary or bernie but hes a terrible person supported by terrible people so why should i empower them just to "shake up the system"?

Can you show me exactly where I said trump was the better option?

 

[Adam3000]

Can some of the third party promoters explain to me what your end game is for this election?

You put the mainstream party candidates under an extreme microscope and list these reasons why they shouldn't be elected then end it with vote third party. Why is there not the same level of scrutiny being paid to the third party candidates? Some of them hold views that if a mainstream candidate supported it would 100% be a non-starter.


Gary Johnson says that we should end government mandated vaccination of children, and as someone who is married to a former pediatric nurse practitioner this would be disastrous for not only our children but the population as a whole. Is whooping cough for our kids something you can support? He also believes the federal government should have no role in education and wants to abolish the department of education. He also wants to have a single consumption tax that applies to everyone, a tax that is highly regressive. The only policy of his i can see as a positive is the end of the war on drugs but since he is also a huge promoter of private prisons he doesn't seem too keen on reducing the amount of inmates in this country much at all. He believes that the free market should be left to curb climate change. Is against all forms of gun control, etc...... The guy is a certified crack pot.

Jill Stein seems like Bernie but even more to the left, to the point where you can just look at her policies and know they have no chance in hell of passing. Her foreign policy platform seems to make the assumption that the US exists in a vacuum and closing 700 military bases worldwide would do nothing to any of our alliances. She is talking about going to 100% renewable energy sources, is she not aware of the science that makes this impossible at this point? Her plan for eliminating student debt is nonsensical at best. And for being a doctor she sure as hell is vague on her positions with vaccines and homeopathy.


What i dont understand about a lot of third parties is why dont they start at the bottom and work their way up. Why is it that you hear nothing about the Green party for 3 years and then all of a sudden they think they have the best candidate for president? Really? You have what like 3 Green party mayors in the entire country, if they cant win small town elections why in the hell do they think they are qualified to run the country?

The Green Party platform is shyt and the Libertarian platform is a nonsensical joke

These dummies that keep preaching "3rd party" have ZERO clue about how politics work and how we are governed in America

Any VIABLE 3rd party that ever existed in our current structure would inevitably consolidate its power with its closest political rival using compromise, and we would be back to 2 parties

Anybody that votes 3rd party just for the sake of 'disrupting the rigged system' you can guarantee without even meeting them that they are lacking understanding

Some people vote 3rd party for ideological reasons which is fine, but still lacking pragmatism

 

[Trece]

The best thing Trump has done this election cycle is fool idiots like this into believing he's anti-establishment. Oh and a dove.

Keep tap dancing c00n... you might get a pat on the head.

 

[No1]

The Green Party platform is shyt and the Libertarian platform is a nonsensical joke

These dummies that keep preaching "3rd party" have ZERO clue about how politics work and how we are governed in America

Any VIABLE 3rd party that ever existed in our current structure would inevitably consolidate its power with its closest political rival using compromise, and we would be back to 2 parties

Anybody that votes 3rd party just for the sake of 'disrupting the rigged system' you can guarantee without even meeting them that they are lacking understanding

Some people vote 3rd party for ideological reasons which is fine, but still lacking pragmatism

This is a garbage post. This whole "lacking pragmatism" angle is hilarious. Why the fukk do you think those third parties were consolidated into one of the two major parties? Because they made enough noise to where they could not be ignored. The Tea Party did disrupt the system. Moreover, you assume that the past's shadow will always hamper every present movement. You're promoting a defeatist and self-fulfilling prophecy. I love how people like you who or anyone who cosigns you who would get sonned on any substantive topic if you consistently posted in HL show up once every two of four years to drop knowledge, but are clueless on anything actually topic. You demonstrate no knowledge of policy-making. You think the very basic analysis of "the two parties are too big, so you're wasting your vote" is some groundbreaking policy. People know that. They are fed up. Nothing you said is new or brilliant. Even your snark and superiority complex is unoriginal. The only novel thing is your presence in HL and we can do without that. The same goes @The_Sheff. You guys go from arguing against the ability of a progressive to win to then arguing against progressive policies themselves. It's embarrassing.

Of course voting third party can disrupt the system. If you start voting third party in solid red states or solid blue states then the major parties will be forced to take notice and co-opt your platform. A third party does not have to win to have an effect on politics. As I said before, 2010 is the perfect example of that. The Green Party is ineffective because it sucks and it lacks organization structure and financial backing. The majority of it's platform is supported by 80% of Democrats. What the fukk are you talking about? The Tea Party was funded by corrupt rich people, the Green Party does not have a bank. Guys like Soros could make the Greens relevant if they chose. Which brings us back to getting money out of politics and eliminating the first past the post system. It's not an "either or" proposition. Some of us can see how something should be attacked from multiple angles (i.e. Van Jones).

 

[The_Sheff]

This is a garbage post. This whole "lacking pragmatism" angle is hilarious. Why the fukk do you think those third parties were consolidated into one of the two major parties? Because they made enough noise to where they could not be ignored. The Tea Party did disrupt the system. Moreover, you assume that the past's shadow will always hamper every present movement. You're promoting a defeatist and self-fulfilling prophecy. I love how people like you who or anyone who cosigns you who would get sonned on any substantive topic if you consistently posted in HL show up once every two of four years to drop knowledge, but are clueless on anything actually topic. You demonstrate no knowledge of policy-making. You think the very basic analysis of "the two parties are too big, so you're wasting your vote" is some groundbreaking policy. People know that. They are fed up. Nothing you said is new or brilliant. Even your snark and superiority complex is unoriginal. The only novel thing is your presence in HL and we can do without that. The same goes @The_Sheff. You guys go from arguing against the ability of a progressive to win to then arguing against progressive policies themselves. It's embarrassing.

Of course voting third party can disrupt the system. If you start voting third party in solid red states or solid blue states then the major parties will be forced to take notice and co-opt your platform. A third party does not have to win to have an effect on politics. As I said before, 2010 is the perfect example of that. The Green Party is ineffective because it sucks and it lacks organization structure and financial backing. The majority of it's platform is supported by 80% of Democrats. What the fukk are you talking about? The Tea Party was funded by corrupt rich people, the Green Party does not have a bank. Guys like Soros could make the Greens relevant if they chose. Which brings us back to getting money out of politics and eliminating the first past the post system. It's not an "either or" proposition. Some of us can see how something should be attacked from multiple angles (i.e. Van Jones).

Which progressive policies have i argued against? You seem to be confusing arguing against policies with stating why they wont be adopted.

The first past the post system is the reason 3rd parties are irrelevant in national elections and ive stated that multiple times. What id like to hear from you and others i have challenged on the viability of 3rd parties is exactly how do we reach the point where two thirds of Congress or the states vote to get rid of it. All this pie in the sky wishing does nothing, what is the action plan?

What is embarrassing about this board is you have people complaining that the democratic platform or candidate isnt as progressive as they like so they are looking at Gary Johnson as an alternative. How do you go from looking at candidate A under a microscope, find a hairline crack you dont like, so you decide to pick another candidate and do absolutely no research on them whatsoever? Please explain to me how the democrats get the message that their agenda isnt progressive enough by giving votes to Gary Johnson. shyt like that goes unchecked around here too much!

Too many people here throw out blanket "vote 3rd party" statements without naming actual candidates because they know if they did people would find a hell of a lot of reasons to trash that selection.

 

[Trece]

they scare me more than he does by far

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

 

[ill]

This is a garbage post. This whole "lacking pragmatism" angle is hilarious. Why the fukk do you think those third parties were consolidated into one of the two major parties? Because they made enough noise to where they could not be ignored. The Tea Party did disrupt the system. Moreover, you assume that the past's shadow will always hamper every present movement. You're promoting a defeatist and self-fulfilling prophecy. I love how people like you who or anyone who cosigns you who would get sonned on any substantive topic if you consistently posted in HL show up once every two of four years to drop knowledge, but are clueless on anything actually topic. You demonstrate no knowledge of policy-making. You think the very basic analysis of "the two parties are too big, so you're wasting your vote" is some groundbreaking policy. People know that. They are fed up. Nothing you said is new or brilliant. Even your snark and superiority complex is unoriginal. The only novel thing is your presence in HL and we can do without that. The same goes @The_Sheff. You guys go from arguing against the ability of a progressive to win to then arguing against progressive policies themselves. It's embarrassing.

Of course voting third party can disrupt the system. If you start voting third party in solid red states or solid blue states then the major parties will be forced to take notice and co-opt your platform. A third party does not have to win to have an effect on politics. As I said before, 2010 is the perfect example of that. The Green Party is ineffective because it sucks and it lacks organization structure and financial backing. The majority of it's platform is supported by 80% of Democrats. What the fukk are you talking about? The Tea Party was funded by corrupt rich people, the Green Party does not have a bank. Guys like Soros could make the Greens relevant if they chose. Which brings us back to getting money out of politics and eliminating the first past the post system. It's not an "either or" proposition. Some of us can see how something should be attacked from multiple angles (i.e. Van Jones).

 

[Adam3000]

This is a garbage post. This whole "lacking pragmatism" angle is hilarious. Why the fukk do you think those third parties were consolidated into one of the two major parties? Because they made enough noise to where they could not be ignored. The Tea Party did disrupt the system. Moreover, you assume that the past's shadow will always hamper every present movement. You're promoting a defeatist and self-fulfilling prophecy. I love how people like you who or anyone who cosigns you who would get sonned on any substantive topic if you consistently posted in HL show up once every two of four years to drop knowledge, but are clueless on anything actually topic. You demonstrate no knowledge of policy-making. You think the very basic analysis of "the two parties are too big, so you're wasting your vote" is some groundbreaking policy. People know that. They are fed up. Nothing you said is new or brilliant. Even your snark and superiority complex is unoriginal. The only novel thing is your presence in HL and we can do without that. The same goes @The_Sheff. You guys go from arguing against the ability of a progressive to win to then arguing against progressive policies themselves. It's embarrassing.

Of course voting third party can disrupt the system. If you start voting third party in solid red states or solid blue states then the major parties will be forced to take notice and co-opt your platform. A third party does not have to win to have an effect on politics. As I said before, 2010 is the perfect example of that. The Green Party is ineffective because it sucks and it lacks organization structure and financial backing. The majority of it's platform is supported by 80% of Democrats. What the fukk are you talking about? The Tea Party was funded by corrupt rich people, the Green Party does not have a bank. Guys like Soros could make the Greens relevant if they chose. Which brings us back to getting money out of politics and eliminating the first past the post system. It's not an "either or" proposition. Some of us can see how something should be attacked from multiple angles (i.e. Van Jones).

Answer me this question

Do you support a party whose platform includes federal funding for homeopathic medicine, anti-GMO, and an unclear stance on vaccines?

If the answer is no, then your whole post is pointless because then why would you WANT the Green Party involved in the Democratic party?

If your answer is yes, well then fukk you.

Don't tell me not to post in this forum you narcissistic turd

The only parts of the Green platform worthy of bleeding off into the Democratic party are things which have already started bleeding thanks to DEMOCRATIC contender Bernie Sanders. NOT due to a self obsessed, part time scientitist who is ideological to a fault.

I wouldn't send my sick kids to be treated by Dr. Jill Stein, and some of yall actually want to disgrace a presidential ballot with her name.

 

[FAH1223]

AND...

 

[The Fukin Prophecy]

This is a garbage post. This whole "lacking pragmatism" angle is hilarious. Why the fukk do you think those third parties were consolidated into one of the two major parties? Because they made enough noise to where they could not be ignored. The Tea Party did disrupt the system. Moreover, you assume that the past's shadow will always hamper every present movement. You're promoting a defeatist and self-fulfilling prophecy. I love how people like you who or anyone who cosigns you who would get sonned on any substantive topic if you consistently posted in HL show up once every two of four years to drop knowledge, but are clueless on anything actually topic. You demonstrate no knowledge of policy-making. You think the very basic analysis of "the two parties are too big, so you're wasting your vote" is some groundbreaking policy. People know that. They are fed up. Nothing you said is new or brilliant. Even your snark and superiority complex is unoriginal. The only novel thing is your presence in HL and we can do without that. The same goes @The_Sheff. You guys go from arguing against the ability of a progressive to win to then arguing against progressive policies themselves. It's embarrassing.

Of course voting third party can disrupt the system. If you start voting third party in solid red states or solid blue states then the major parties will be forced to take notice and co-opt your platform. A third party does not have to win to have an effect on politics. As I said before, 2010 is the perfect example of that. The Green Party is ineffective because it sucks and it lacks organization structure and financial backing. The majority of it's platform is supported by 80% of Democrats. What the fukk are you talking about? The Tea Party was funded by corrupt rich people, the Green Party does not have a bank. Guys like Soros could make the Greens relevant if they chose. Which brings us back to getting money out of politics and eliminating the first past the post system. It's not an "either or" proposition. Some of us can see how something should be attacked from multiple angles (i.e. Van Jones).

I was going to respond to that fool but you absolutely nailed it fam...

Unfortunately you can't expect a bend over for the party shill to comprehend any of this...All they know how to do is regurgitate what their favorite party paid for cable news pundit says and think they sound knowledgeable...what they really sound like is misinformed zombies that have zero understanding of how poliics in this country works...

 

[kingofnyc]

(( real talk ))

frank getting his hood on

 

[88m3]

Reich is rather disingenuous in his assessment

 

[DerrtySouthpaw]

says the c00n who posts racist right wing propaganda that smiley fits you