Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Anti-Trump Ad from 50 Years Ago

Raisor
Posts: 4,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 4:26:42 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/9/2016 4:09:50 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/9/2016 4:02:07 PM, Raisor wrote:
Courtesy of whistlestop:

http://www.slate.com...



http://en.wikipedia.org...

That podcast I linked has a lot of great stories on campaign fights and convention battles. The 2016 battles on the left and right are just another in a long line of heated party fights. People act like discussions over party rules are a modern anomaly, like the GOP "establishment" is trying to box Trump out unfairly, as if it isn't totally normal SOP. Similarly the left rages that somehow Sanders is being ripped off by the superdelegates, when superdelegates were created precisely to give more control of the nominating process to the party leadership and in response to some of the convention battles of the 70's.

The point I'm trying to make is that these claims that primary candidates are being cheated or treated unfairly is ridiculous. We can critique the way parties set up the rules for nominations on substantive grounds, but the appeals to fairness are red herrings.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 4:32:45 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/9/2016 4:26:42 PM, Raisor wrote:

That podcast I linked has a lot of great stories on campaign fights and convention battles. The 2016 battles on the left and right are just another in a long line of heated party fights. People act like discussions over party rules are a modern anomaly, like the GOP "establishment" is trying to box Trump out unfairly, as if it isn't totally normal SOP. Similarly the left rages that somehow Sanders is being ripped off by the superdelegates, when superdelegates were created precisely to give more control of the nominating process to the party leadership and in response to some of the convention battles of the 70's.

The point I'm trying to make is that these claims that primary candidates are being cheated or treated unfairly is ridiculous. We can critique the way parties set up the rules for nominations on substantive grounds, but the appeals to fairness are red herrings.

Exactly. This happened 100 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 4:38:52 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/9/2016 4:26:42 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/9/2016 4:09:50 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/9/2016 4:02:07 PM, Raisor wrote:
Courtesy of whistlestop:

http://www.slate.com...



http://en.wikipedia.org...

That podcast I linked has a lot of great stories on campaign fights and convention battles. The 2016 battles on the left and right are just another in a long line of heated party fights. People act like discussions over party rules are a modern anomaly, like the GOP "establishment" is trying to box Trump out unfairly, as if it isn't totally normal SOP. Similarly the left rages that somehow Sanders is being ripped off by the superdelegates, when superdelegates were created precisely to give more control of the nominating process to the party leadership and in response to some of the convention battles of the 70's.

The point I'm trying to make is that these claims that primary candidates are being cheated or treated unfairly is ridiculous. We can critique the way parties set up the rules for nominations on substantive grounds, but the appeals to fairness are red herrings.

Yea, I agree. I have addressed this with SDs on the Democratic side several times. It is the crying of the under informed.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 5:37:23 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/9/2016 4:02:07 PM, Raisor wrote:
Courtesy of whistlestop:

http://www.slate.com...

https://www.youtube.com...

http://www.monomakhos.com...
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 7:44:53 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/9/2016 4:09:50 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/9/2016 4:02:07 PM, Raisor wrote:
Courtesy of whistlestop:

http://www.slate.com...



http://en.wikipedia.org...

Only 12 states had primaries in 1912. Primaries as a national thing are fairly recent.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 7:47:11 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/9/2016 4:26:42 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/9/2016 4:09:50 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/9/2016 4:02:07 PM, Raisor wrote:
Courtesy of whistlestop:

http://www.slate.com...



http://en.wikipedia.org...

That podcast I linked has a lot of great stories on campaign fights and convention battles. The 2016 battles on the left and right are just another in a long line of heated party fights. People act like discussions over party rules are a modern anomaly, like the GOP "establishment" is trying to box Drumpf out unfairly, as if it isn't totally normal SOP. Similarly the left rages that somehow Sanders is being ripped off by the superdelegates, when superdelegates were created precisely to give more control of the nominating process to the party leadership and in response to some of the convention battles of the 70's.

The point I'm trying to make is that these claims that primary candidates are being cheated or treated unfairly is ridiculous. We can critique the way parties set up the rules for nominations on substantive grounds, but the appeals to fairness are red herrings.

Well, super delegates do rip off candidates, but that is why they put them their. Party leaders wanted to avoid having progressives like McGovern as candidates in the future elections. It is normal, but it is still morally wrong.
Raisor
Posts: 4,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 8:04:32 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/9/2016 7:47:11 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 4/9/2016 4:26:42 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/9/2016 4:09:50 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/9/2016 4:02:07 PM, Raisor wrote:
Courtesy of whistlestop:

http://www.slate.com...



http://en.wikipedia.org...

That podcast I linked has a lot of great stories on campaign fights and convention battles. The 2016 battles on the left and right are just another in a long line of heated party fights. People act like discussions over party rules are a modern anomaly, like the GOP "establishment" is trying to box Drumpf out unfairly, as if it isn't totally normal SOP. Similarly the left rages that somehow Sanders is being ripped off by the superdelegates, when superdelegates were created precisely to give more control of the nominating process to the party leadership and in response to some of the convention battles of the 70's.

The point I'm trying to make is that these claims that primary candidates are being cheated or treated unfairly is ridiculous. We can critique the way parties set up the rules for nominations on substantive grounds, but the appeals to fairness are red herrings.

Well, super delegates do rip off candidates, but that is why they put them their. Party leaders wanted to avoid having progressives like McGovern as candidates in the future elections. It is normal, but it is still morally wrong.

I don't agree that it is morally wrong, but that is a substantive argument I think is reasonable to make.

But the idea that individual candidates are somehow being ripped off isn't reasonable. At the end of the day the candidates are running under the banner of a party- they chose to participate in that party's system and abide by the rules (and the meta-rules that allow the rules to be changed).

Substantively, I don't think the rules were designed to bar progressives, I think they were designed to prevent popular movements from gaining control of the nomination in a way that weakens the party's general election prospects. But even if it were simply designed to bar progressives, I don't see anything wrong with that. If the Democratic party doesn't want to put up a far left candidate and drafts rules to prevent that from happening- that is their prerogative.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 10:38:02 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/9/2016 8:04:32 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/9/2016 7:47:11 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 4/9/2016 4:26:42 PM, Raisor wrote:
At 4/9/2016 4:09:50 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/9/2016 4:02:07 PM, Raisor wrote:
Courtesy of whistlestop:

http://www.slate.com...



http://en.wikipedia.org...

That podcast I linked has a lot of great stories on campaign fights and convention battles. The 2016 battles on the left and right are just another in a long line of heated party fights. People act like discussions over party rules are a modern anomaly, like the GOP "establishment" is trying to box Drumpf out unfairly, as if it isn't totally normal SOP. Similarly the left rages that somehow Sanders is being ripped off by the superdelegates, when superdelegates were created precisely to give more control of the nominating process to the party leadership and in response to some of the convention battles of the 70's.

The point I'm trying to make is that these claims that primary candidates are being cheated or treated unfairly is ridiculous. We can critique the way parties set up the rules for nominations on substantive grounds, but the appeals to fairness are red herrings.

Well, super delegates do rip off candidates, but that is why they put them their. Party leaders wanted to avoid having progressives like McGovern as candidates in the future elections. It is normal, but it is still morally wrong.

I don't agree that it is morally wrong, but that is a substantive argument I think is reasonable to make.

But the idea that individual candidates are somehow being ripped off isn't reasonable. At the end of the day the candidates are running under the banner of a party- they chose to participate in that party's system and abide by the rules (and the meta-rules that allow the rules to be changed).

Substantively, I don't think the rules were designed to bar progressives, I think they were designed to prevent popular movements from gaining control of the nomination in a way that weakens the party's general election prospects. But even if it were simply designed to bar progressives, I don't see anything wrong with that. If the Democratic party doesn't want to put up a far left candidate and drafts rules to prevent that from happening- that is their prerogative.

Well, the thing is progressive candidates rely on building popular movements in order to win, and the party establishment views this as a threat to their power within the party.
The problem isn't that the candidates are being treated unfairly, it is that the system is unfair and undemocratic. This is only further complicated when we add in the issue of money in politics and corporate influence because party establishments tend to serve these interests because they give the party (and its candidates) money. Candidates who are agianst that obviously threaten these monied interests and the agenda they and the politicians they buy are trying to put forth.
The idea that progressive or populist candidates weaken the party in the General I find to be rather absurd because you don't win by making yourself seem more like your opponent, as the Democrats have been doing for years.