PROOF of Democrat collusion to push out Progressive candidates

Shogun

Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
25,565
Reputation
5,997
Daps
63,220
Reppin
Knicks
What's a trend? There have been presidents from both parties in almost equal number. And after that the breakdown is very different depending on the region we are talking about.
And really fukk a party, let's get into policy.
A trend goes beyond just American politics, and can be seen as repeatable over time. Namely, from the 1800's when Communists saw Social Democrats as collaborators and generally allowed Conservatism to dominate the first half of the century, and then allowed conservative Emperors to adopt some socialist policies in their effort to advance nationalist empires(see: Bismark and the German Empire, Napoleon III, Victoria). Or Germany in the 1930's when there were more Communists and Social Democrats than Fascists, but their inability to come together allowed the Nazi's to take over with 33% of the vote.

Or the fact that, in America, there are far more consecutive conservative administrations than progressive ones. I might be wrong, but I think the only time the progressive party held the White House through two consecutive presidents are those times when the first died in office (FDR, Kennedy).

And, it's about policy. Like I said, it's deeper than American partisanship.
The fact is, progressives and conservatives are still rooted in classical liberalism, where socialism is antithetical to both interpretations of liberalism.
 

AnonymityX1000

Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
32,073
Reputation
3,431
Daps
73,187
Reppin
New York
A trend goes beyond just American politics, and can be seen as repeatable over time. Namely, from the 1800's when Communists saw Social Democrats as collaborators and generally allowed Conservatism to dominate the first half of the century, and then allowed conservative Emperors to adopt some socialist policies in their effort to advance nationalist empires(see: Bismark and the German Empire, Napoleon III, Victoria). Or Germany in the 1930's when there were more Communists and Social Democrats than Fascists, but their inability to come together allowed the Nazi's to take over with 33% of the vote.

Or the fact that, in America, there are far more consecutive conservative administrations than progressive ones. I might be wrong, but I think the only time the progressive party held the White House through two consecutive presidents are those times when the first died in office (FDR, Kennedy).

And, it's about policy. Like I said, it's deeper than American partisanship.
The fact is, progressives and conservatives are still rooted in classical liberalism, where socialism is antithetical to both interpretations of liberalism.
Progressives are about stopping the vicious cycle of "socialism being antithetical to both interpretations of liberalism." And it takes thinking past one or two election cycles.
 

AnonymityX1000

Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
32,073
Reputation
3,431
Daps
73,187
Reppin
New York

Pressure

#PanthersPosse
Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
47,219
Reputation
7,216
Daps
150,142
Reppin
CookoutGang
Not really, Progressives are winning despite the rigging. You know how Trump beat Hillary despite her out spending dude and having the press biased in her favor. :usure:
What is fraudulent about openly supporting a candidate?

What does Hillary's ability to fundraise have to do with election rigging?

You seem to be arguing against your own narrative.
 

Berniewood Hogan

IT'S BERNIE SANDERS WITH A STEEL CHAIR!
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
17,983
Reputation
6,845
Daps
88,335
Reppin
nWg
:camby:This is ancient history now.

The only thing that's still relevant today is that Bernie Would Have Won.:umad:
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
326,054
Reputation
-34,126
Daps
633,033
Reppin
The Deep State
Just so I'm clear, are you and this guy saying that we should let politicians and insiders pick the candidates for elections? If that's not what you're saying clear up what you are saying for me.
NO ONE IS PICKING CANDIDATES

Jesus Christ.

The DCCC is funding the guy they think can win!

The DCCC is NOT the DNC

Do you all not understand this?

Thy can fund whoever they want. Their entire job is to get democrats elected. Period.

This is not rigging.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
326,054
Reputation
-34,126
Daps
633,033
Reppin
The Deep State
Yeah when voters not consultants pick who should represent a party in the general election.
Consultants didn't pick who should represent the party.

Tell me when votes are tossed and candidates removed from the ballot. THAT is vote rigging.

EVerything else is whining about how the DCCC spends its money
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
326,054
Reputation
-34,126
Daps
633,033
Reppin
The Deep State
I'm fully aware of primaries but if qualified candidates are being sabotaged and asked to drop out before the race how are the people really making a choice.

I also don't get the logic of stacking the deck for a candidate because you think they have a better chance of winning in the general election. You're essentially saying this person doesn't connect with our base enough to win a primary, but they'll definitely come out to support him in the general along with the people who don't like our party.

That seems delusional.
Wheres' the sabotage?
 
Top