"The goal isn't to win elections, the goal is to transform America"

[gotbeer]

Sanders booed by House Democrats

Quote

"The goal isn't to win elections, the goal is to transform America," Sanders said at one point, according to multiple lawmakers and aides in the room.

Some Democrats booed Sanders for that line, which plays better on the campaign trail than in front of a roomful of elected officials.

 

/sigh.  Such a sad state of affairs in US Politics.  For the Lol's, Bernie should be Trumps VP. 

[Jason]

I think this Ben Shapiro quote applies here

"If you sacrifice your principles for victory, you don't end up with victory and you don't end up with principles"

[fan_since79]

The goal of almost all these politicians is to win elections, then hold onto power and get all the perks that come with it.

No wonder they booed Bernie.

 

[red321]

I think there are a large number of Democrats who feel that Sanders is in it for himself and has spent a lot of time ripping the Democratic party he tried to lead, without actually doing anything to actually build the party. Sanders was never part of the Democratic Party, but needed it to run for president. Now Sanders wants to dictate how members of a party he was never part of should nominate their nominee. He wants people who won't commit to the Democratic party, and aren't willing to invest time in building the party, to have a significant impact on how that party nominates its nominee. He has also been non-committal on supporting the party's nominee, or investing in building and making changes to the party at grass roots.

Many Democrats feel that the best way to move the country forward is to make the Democratic party better and work within the two party system that has dominated the American political landscape since it's inception.

Look at it this way. Libertarians are what, 5% of the electorate? Same goes for extreme liberals, let's say folks who would flock to the Green Party. By themselves they are never going to become the political majority, the reality is about all they can do is throw the election to the other party (see Ralph Nader). So, they can either be political outcasts, or they can decide hey, maybe I can move a major party more in my direction. I don't get everything I want, but I help move the country in a direction I feel is best.

[mtangelsfan]

Maybe those folks don't believe that those 2 parties are going in a direction they like at all.

[red321]

Maybe...and they have every right to continue to be as relevant today as 3rd parties have been throughout American history.

 

[mtangelsfan]

They probably will as long as people are willing to sacrifice their principles

[red321]

yep...pretty clear the only folks with principles are independents...irrelevant...but oh so principled.

[Adam]

If you're not rich or powerful, you're irrelevant regardless of your political affiliation

[mtangelsfan]

17 minutes ago, red321 said:

yep...pretty clear the only folks with principles are independents...irrelevant...but oh so principled.

Nope, just folks that don't particularly like the candidate they plan on voting for.

[Spirit]

If you're a Republican in CA, you're irrelevant.  If you're a Democrat in Mississippi, you're irrelevant. 

 

 

 

[Thomas]

Baseball team loses three games in a row... "time to rebuild! ", "fire everyone!" 

Politics reaches where we are now: "Meh, what can you do?" 

[red321]

4 minutes ago, Thomas said:

Baseball team loses three games in a row... "time to rebuild! ", "fire everyone!" 

Politics reaches where we are now: "Meh, what can you do?" 

What is your suggestion?

[Thomas]

Nominate a Scioscia/Eppler ticket for the POTUS, kill two birds with one stone?

So far I only have the observation. It took an outsider for many of the Democrats to question their party leadership. Of course that is still more than what the Republicans did. Even a year ago you could have pointed to Europe for a working model. Now? Probably not terribly effective.

[notherhalo]

There's always going to be a bottom bitch, and they will always complain about being there.

Go out and get yours.  Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[Jay]

1 hour ago, Thomas said:

Nominate a Scioscia/Eppler ticket for the POTUS, kill two birds with one stone?

So far I only have the observation. It took an outsider for many of the Democrats to question their party leadership. Of course that is still more than what the Republicans did. Even a year ago you could have pointed to Europe for a working model. Now? Probably not terribly effective.

Yeah Democrats questioned their party leadership for about 5 seconds, then snapped right back into line behind the Obama/Clinton establishment.

Republicans are a mess to be sure but they still have the Great Unifier: Hillary.

 

[Spirit]

2 hours ago, Thomas said:

Nominate a Scioscia/Eppler ticket for the POTUS, kill two birds with one stone?

So far I only have the observation. It took an outsider for many of the Democrats to question their party leadership. Of course that is still more than what the Republicans did. Even a year ago you could have pointed to Europe for a working model. Now? Probably not terribly effective.

Wasn't the Republicans questioning the GOP what produced the Tea Party?

 

 

[Tank]

what is it they want to transform america into? maybe that needs to be addressed.

[Lhalo]

14:59 for Bernie. 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

On 7/6/2016 at 5:38 PM, Geoff said:

Wasn't the Republicans questioning the GOP what produced the Tea Party?

 

 

My understanding, from someone who was in at the beginning of the movement, was that the Tea Party was originally a bipartisan group of people who were frustrated with the direction taken by both parties in governing the country. Then the extreme right wing of the GOP, led by Sarah Palin and people of that ilk, basically hijacked the movement for their own purposes and turned it into a hard-line right wing organization. They were becoming less relevant within the GOP, and this was a way to grab the spotlight again.

[Spirit]

14 minutes ago, Vegas Halo Fan said:

My understanding, from someone who was in at the beginning of the movement, was that the Tea Party was originally a bipartisan group of people who were frustrated with the direction taken by both parties in governing the country. Then the extreme right wing of the GOP, led by Sarah Palin and people of that ilk, basically hijacked the movement for their own purposes and turned it into a hard-line right wing organization. They were becoming less relevant within the GOP, and this was a way to grab the spotlight again.

 

So yes.

 

 

 

[arch stanton]

They destroyed the Reform Party so they had to regroup.

[Tank]

i thought the Tea Party started as a group very upset about tax policies. i remember that TEA stood for Taxed Enough Already (at least i think that's what i remember).

[fan_since79]

9 hours ago, Tank said:

i thought the Tea Party started as a group very upset about tax policies. i remember that TEA stood for Taxed Enough Already (at least i think that's what i remember).

You're correct.

 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

My coworker, who was in from the beginning in Clark County, left the group after it was commandeered by those who wanted the spotlight again, and it became less about meaningful reform and more about a specific political agenda.