The Democratic National Convention

shoshannah said:

ctrzaska said:

shoshannah said:

Fed up? Considering a protest vote? Want to stick to your "principles"? 

See: BREXIT.

It's about the OUTCOME. The pragmatics of the outcome.

Brexit is irrelevant-- we aren't electing the president based upon the popular vote.  I'm not voting for either of them, and will sleep comfortably now and in the future knowing that my inaction had absolutely no bearing on the election whatsoever.

Leave supporters registered their discontent. Many were shocked an unhappy with the outcome.

If you live in NJ, you're right. You're inaction won't matter.

Brexit happened BECAUSE there was no third option. Also, because people didn't honestly know that their vote counted nationally. But primarily because the only options were Leave and Stay. 

Big walkout at the DNC.  It's not being covered by the major news media.  I saw the film and there were empty seats everywhere.

nan said:

Big walkout at the DNC.  It's not being covered by the major news media.  I saw the film and there were empty seats everywhere.

You should get better news sources, then. I'm following on NYT and they covered it.

Tony Goldwyn just spoke a short time ago. He married a Maplewood girl,CHS graduate Jane Musky.

GL2 said:

Bernie was a much needed tonic for the DNC. And he was effective in influencing the platform to everyone's satisfaction...but he lit a fire with all the anti-Hillary "she's not qualified" and "she's a WS tool" stuff and now he can't bring the troops back down to earth

"It's on her.  I need to hear from Hillary herself that she will work to achieve the progressive goals of the Democratic Platform.  I haven't heard that from her yet."

Valid point.

PVW said:

nan said:

Big walkout at the DNC.  It's not being covered by the major news media.  I saw the film and there were empty seats everywhere.

You should get better news sources, then. I'm following on NYT and they covered it.

Really where?  I just went to the Time and all I saw was "Sanders Cranky to the End."

GL2 said:

author said:

GL2 said:

Bernie was a much needed tonic for the DNC. And he was effective in influencing the platform to everyone's satisfaction...but he lit a fire with all the anti-Hillary "she's not qualified" and "she's a WS tool" stuff and now he can't bring the troops back down to earth.

Maybe because he was right.  There comes a time when some people reject the lemming like march

I think it has arrived

You're aware of the two candidates for president, no? One an experienced stateswoman and moderate; the other a madman? OK, so those are the two choices. You pick one if you're gonna vote. 

Nope.............as provided by the voting laws I have any number of choices

You listed only the two of the major parties

There are a zillion minor parties

Or I can and will vote for the only name mentioned lately with integrity

And don't give me that crap that I will be electing the nut job

The other one only has better coaching and will kiss a million asses to get what she wants

and bend the rules to the breaking point and claim that no one told her.  For shame

nan said:

PVW said:

nan said:

Big walkout at the DNC.  It's not being covered by the major news media.  I saw the film and there were empty seats everywhere.

You should get better news sources, then. I'm following on NYT and they covered it.

Really where?  I just went to the Time and all I saw was "Sanders Cranky to the End."

They have a live updates section, and the reporters covering it mentioned it.

I actually prefer the fivethirtyeight live coverage, but I'm not sure it counts as "major" news media. They noted it much more prominently than NYT did. Also covered in The Atlantic's version, though again I'm not sure they count as "major" news media.

This Pennsylvania paper has a lot of coverage too.

http://www.pennlive.com/nation-world/2016/07/protests_erupt_after_hillary_c.html#incart_2box

Bill Clinton could sell ice to the Inuit. And I do not mean that in a negative way. 

yes, he is always mesmerizing. He could speak for hours and people would sit and listen fully and completely.

author said:

GL2 said:

author said:

GL2 said:

Bernie was a much needed tonic for the DNC. And he was effective in influencing the platform to everyone's satisfaction...but he lit a fire with all the anti-Hillary "she's not qualified" and "she's a WS tool" stuff and now he can't bring the troops back down to earth.

Maybe because he was right.  There comes a time when some people reject the lemming like march

I think it has arrived

You're aware of the two candidates for president, no? One an experienced stateswoman and moderate; the other a madman? OK, so those are the two choices. You pick one if you're gonna vote. 

Nope.............as provided by the voting laws I have any number of choices

You listed only the two of the major parties

There are a zillion minor parties

Or I can and will vote for the only name mentioned lately with integrity

And don't give me that crap that I will be electing the nut job

The other one only has better coaching and will kiss a million asses to get what she wants

and bend the rules to the breaking point and claim that no one told her.  For shame

My name is available if you want to throw away a vote.

"Hell no. We won't grow (up)."

GL2 said:

author said:

GL2 said:

author said:

GL2 said:

Bernie was a much needed tonic for the DNC. And he was effective in influencing the platform to everyone's satisfaction...but he lit a fire with all the anti-Hillary "she's not qualified" and "she's a WS tool" stuff and now he can't bring the troops back down to earth.

Maybe because he was right.  There comes a time when some people reject the lemming like march

I think it has arrived

You're aware of the two candidates for president, no? One an experienced stateswoman and moderate; the other a madman? OK, so those are the two choices. You pick one if you're gonna vote. 

Nope.............as provided by the voting laws I have any number of choices

You listed only the two of the major parties

There are a zillion minor parties

Or I can and will vote for the only name mentioned lately with integrity

And don't give me that crap that I will be electing the nut job

The other one only has better coaching and will kiss a million asses to get what she wants

and bend the rules to the breaking point and claim that no one told her.  For shame

My name is available if you want to throw away a vote.

Thanks but me and millions of others have a better idea

Voting for the best candidate is the essence of Democracy

We do not vote in fear

Voting for less than the best is voting for less than the best

author said:
Thanks but me and millions of others have a better idea

Voting for the best candidate is the essence of Democracy

We do not vote in fear

Voting for less than the best is voting for less than the best

Hold out for all or nothing, and you'll get nothing.

PVW said:

author said:
Thanks but me and millions of others have a better idea

Voting for the best candidate is the essence of Democracy

We do not vote in fear

Voting for less than the best is voting for less than the best

Hold out for all or nothing, and you'll get nothing.

Same results voting for the Democrat or the Republican

Why expect Author to stop holding out for Bernie? He still holds out for the old post office.

It takes a special kind of narcissism to view the vastly different likely consequences of Trump or Clinton as "nothing" or in any way equivalent.

GL2 said:

"Hell no. We won't grow (up)."

On this?  So what?  What's your point here?   Are you worried that these folks will prevent Clinton from winning in November?   

author said:
Same results voting for the Democrat or the Republican

Repeat that after the appointment of the first..or second..or possible third Supreme Court Justice

PVW said:

It takes a special kind of narcissism to view the vastly different likely consequences of Trump or Clinton as "nothing" or in any way equivalent.

Based on many years of public service and elected office people believe they have a fairly good view of how she will behave if elected. The problem is we really don't know what Trump will do, and sometimes I think, neither does he.

BCC said:

PVW said:

It takes a special kind of narcissism to view the vastly different likely consequences of Trump or Clinton as "nothing" or in any way equivalent.

Based on many years of public service and elected office people believe they have a fairly good view of how she will behave if elected. The problem is we really don't know what Trump will do, and sometimes I think, neither does he.

He's got a long record for you to look at and see what kind of person he is. His racism and bigotry, his predatory business practices, his conspiracy mongering, his profiteering - these are all part of the public record. If you choose to not see these and say you "really don't know what Trump will do," that's willful blindness on your part. And if you put these forward as equivalent to Clinton's shortcomings, then you and I inhabit very different moral universes.

BCC said:

PVW said:

It takes a special kind of narcissism to view the vastly different likely consequences of Trump or Clinton as "nothing" or in any way equivalent.

Based on many years of public service and elected office people believe they have a fairly good view of how she will behave if elected. The problem is we really don't know what Trump will do, and sometimes I think, neither does he.

Yes, I have a fairly good idea that a Hillary Clinton administration will work to preserve and expand protection of civil rights, the environment, women's health issues, the Affordable Care Act, voting rights, the interests of Dreamers and other sensible immigration reform, workers' rights, etc., for starters.

It's ridiculous to consider, "Heck, maybe Trump wouldn't be so bad" in that light.

The walkout was silly. 

By the way, I was covered in the news that I read this morning.  A good sized-article.

I think it was silly because it was a planned over-reaction.  They wanted attention - they probably wanted to copy GOP delegates, who walked out over a procedural vote that had just taken place.  It was silly because it didn't make any point other than to provide ammunition for Donald Trump & co. (you can read their use of it for yourselves, probably easy to find).  It was silly because it came after the person they claimed to be "walking out" for had called for the nomination of Secretary Clinton by acclamation.

paulsurovell said:

Two Bernie supporters were selected by MSNBC for interviews after Bernie's speech.  Both of them said that despite Bernie's plea, they did not know if they were voting for Hillary.  Interestingly, both made the same point:


"It's on her.  I need to hear from Hillary herself that she will work to achieve the progressive goals of the Democratic Platform.  I haven't heard that from her yet."

Valid point.

It's not a valid point.  A President Hillary Clinton can't even begin to implement the platform until she's elected.  It's not clear that anything would satisfy them.

And if preserving and expanding protection of civil rights, the environment, women's health issues, the Affordable Care Act, voting rights, the interests of Dreamers and other sensible immigration reform, workers' rights, etc. (in the face of the consequences of a GOP victory) aren't enough reasons to vote for the Democratic nominee for those folks, then maybe they were delegates at the wrong convention - they should have been at the convention in Cleveland last week.

hoops said:

GL2 said:

"Hell no. We won't grow (up)."

On this?  So what?  What's your point here?   Are you worried that these folks will prevent Clinton from winning in November?   

Yes. I'm concerned that a significant number of the second place winner's camp will stay home or even throw away votes. I'm concerned that all the "revolution" talk of a guy who conveniently joined the party, promised the moon, had one senate supporter, called the frontrunner "unqualified" and a "Wall Schtreet" pawn, cannot now control his "Utopia or bust" crowd. A guy from a lily-white rural second-least-populated state who's made no inroads in his many years in DC having a joyful Woodstock-like ride throughout the year.

Yup, I'm worried, considering the possible consequences of a loss.

But I do think Ben and Jerry have named a flavor for him.

GL2 said:

hoops said:

GL2 said:

"Hell no. We won't grow (up)."

On this?  So what?  What's your point here?   Are you worried that these folks will prevent Clinton from winning in November?   

Yes. I'm concerned that a significant number of the second place winner's camp will stay home or even throw away votes. I'm concerned that all the "revolution" talk of a guy who conveniently joined the party, promised the moon, had one senate supporter, called the frontrunner "unqualified" and a "Wall Schtreet" pawn, cannot now control his "Utopia or bust" crowd. A guy from a lily-white rural second-least-populated state who's made no inroads in his many years in DC having a joyful Woodstock-like ride throughout the year.

Yup, I'm worried, considering the possible consequences of a loss.

I'm worried about the nation actually.  I read this book entitled America Aflame: How the Civil War Created a Nation by David Goldfield.

He describes the uncompromising passions of different factions in the years leading up to the Civil War.  He also describes how the blood of hundreds of thousands had defused those passions by 1865, but that was quite a price to pay.

Some are still fighting the Civil War.

Watching Biden on Morning Joe. Would vote for him above HRC.

PVW said:

BCC said:

PVW said:

It takes a special kind of narcissism to view the vastly different likely consequences of Trump or Clinton as "nothing" or in any way equivalent.

Based on many years of public service and elected office people believe they have a fairly good view of how she will behave if elected. The problem is we really don't know what Trump will do, and sometimes I think, neither does he.

He's got a long record for you to look at and see what kind of person he is. His racism and bigotry, his predatory business practices, his conspiracy mongering, his profiteering - these are all part of the public record. If you choose to not see these and say you "really don't know what Trump will do," that's willful blindness on your part. And if you put these forward as equivalent to Clinton's shortcomings, then you and I inhabit very different moral universes.

Perhaps we don't live in different moral universes and perhaps you are willfully blind to her shortcomings. They have been pointed out on MOL often enough.