DNC Has Asinine New Anti-Bernie Rule

Post Reply New Topic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfgaJifTCyI

If this new rule remains in place, Trump will get 4 more years.

The American masses don't want the elitist brand of liberalism anymore. The economy is still in a rut, and people want something that will benefit the average person.

A winning political party needs a certain amount of populism on its side. That's a hard truth, connected to the nature of democracy itself. The Democrat elites (unlike Sanders) clearly have nothing to offer the average American. It's as though the Democrat elites are deliberately letting Trump win, as they won't be significantly harmed by his economic mismanagement or his environmental carelessness.

Jesse Ventura was right when he said that American politics is like professional wrestling. It's like a melodramatic soap opera with little to no substance behind it.

Sanders seems to be one of the few American politicians who correctly recognizes that human lives are on the line. Most American politicians see American politics as a giant game of Mario Party in which voters are coins used to purchase presidential terms. They see Sanders as a spoilsport. It's hard for mainstream politicians to enjoy their game, when Sanders is constantly reminding them "You know you just killed an innocent human being right?"

More Attacks on Sanders by "Liberals"
VVV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adrmo_UbpKk

That guy on CNN really reminds me of Glenn Beck.

Follow the money. Fear of Trump is a great fundraiser for the Dems

Mr. Sanders is as much of a Democrat as Mr. Trump is a republican.

I hate how Democrats try to be more conservative in order to compete with actual conservatives.

I hate how Republicans try to be more liberal to compete with actual Liberals.

Worse yet are those who take a centrist and moderate path in an effort to reach consensus and actually get something done.

What's to become of the political landscape once everyone starts compromising and agreeing with each other?

Just because there are two sides doesn’t mean the best approach lies in the middle. You think the Hindenburg administration compromising with the Nazis in 32 was good, or Chamberlan for that matter? How about Pompey compromising with Caesar? Or Sparta with Athens pre-Pelopponnesian war? All ended in disaster...

They do this so that they can get more corporate sponsorships.

In politics, getting a corporate sponsorship is generally easier than actually giving people human needs.

Politics will continue to be this way until the general public become more aware of this strategy

A+

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Balance_fallacy

I've read some old political documents from the American slave era. A lot of people back then said "Yeah, slavery is horrible, but we should also be worried about the abolitionists because a lot of them are violent."

In other words, "centrism" is not always a good position. The limit of what is socially acceptable changes as time marches on. As a result, the exact definition of "centrism" is in near-constant flux.

I've noticed that most politicians who call themselves "centrists" are just shameless corporate brown-nosers who defend the establishment. The average "centrist" politician is a warmongering corporatist who only speaks out against racism and sexism because those things might upset a few celebrities. They only pay lip service to feminism and black power using vague terms like "empowerment" and "self-esteem". After all, making policy changes that actually benefit disadvantaged groups might be bad for business.

Rationality > "Centrism"

No conservative these days would want to be caught dead trying to do that.

You cite a few historical abuses to condemn Centrism as a whole.

What do you have against compromise? What do you have against cooperation? Why must there be a "My way or the highway" resolution to every conflict?

There are Republicans that are not in love with Mr. Trump, and who are seeking consensus with like-minded Democrats -- a backlash against his narcissism and self-serving politics. Small though it is, this faction is also growing.

I'm willing to bet that Trump will get four more years, regardless.

First, I just wanted to say I typed that on mobile under heavy medication, so I wasn't able to fully articulate my point, hence the three hasty examples. That said there are many, many more: The north compromising on slavery with the south post-Revolution (merely putting off the inevitable and by doing so making it much more brutal than it would have been, thanks Henry Clay), the Democrats compromising with the Republicans on the Iraq War resolution which paved the way for a decade long war with nothing to gain, and the Tory supporters in New York during the Revolution who wanted to negotiate with the British (thus there would be no U.S. and possibly no modern liberal democracy, since it became popular in the western world because of the American Revolution).

I'm not a fan of the bible, but it illustrates this point best: God represents the universe, the good in mankind, the just and righteous; Satan represents the evil of man, the downfall of society, and the wicked. They have been in conflict side the advent of mankind: should God compromise with Satan to create peace?

Again, just because there's two sides does not mean the middle is always correct-- it all depends on what the aims of the two sides are. That's not saying there's not room for compromise, but only with those that are trustworthy enough to follow through, and those that have other common goals in mind (i.e. allies).

Not every conflict should be like this.

A conflict should only be like this if one side if one side is objectively correct and the other is not.

Typical "elitist" response to a push back against the status quo. The Democratic Party is anything but democratic.