Disaster DNC adopts rule requiring candidates to run and register as Democrat - Totally not aimed at Bernie

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) adopted a new rule on Friday aimed at keeping outsider candidates like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) from trying to clinch the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020.

The new rule, adopted by the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee, requires all Democratic presidential candidates to be a member of the Democratic Party, Yahoo News reported.

A presidential candidate running for the Democratic nomination must be a member of the party, accept the Democratic nomination and "run and serve" as a member.

Sanders, who has maintained his status as an independent, fought a tough primary race for the Democratic nomination against eventual presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in 2016.

A source familiar with the discussions told Yahoo News, however, that the rule wasn't targeted at Sanders.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers and DNC member, posted a photo on Twitter Friday of the rules change at the meeting in Providence, R.I.

"At the time a presidential candidate announces their candidacy publicly, they must publicly affirm that they are a Democrat," the rule says.

In March, the DNC voted to acknowledge a need to reduce the influence of so-called superdelegates in presidential primaries - the unelected delegates who may support any candidate for the party's nomination, regardless of their state's victor.

Yahoo News reported that the committee did finalize a vote on superdelegates and will decide in August.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...ing-candidates-to-run-serve-as-a-democrat?amp

 

[TowinKarz]

So how about them Whigs then?

Know-Nothing about them.......

 

[Vorhtbame]

A lot of people who espouse that view tend to have a naive ideal of socialism; as in, they believe the ideology but don't realize how it doesn't work when applied. Socialism would require every single person, at their core, to be altruistic and fair. And yet every time socialistic countries are run, it ends up (in my view at least) as two groups of wealthy and poor, no middle.

Many of these also tend to believe that if we just have one more gun ban, we will not end up with gun-toting crime lords and terrified villagers, no middle.

 

[AnOminous]

As a foreigner, could someone explain to me how this is a bad thing? It just makes sense to me that if you run for a party, you'd be a full member of the party

Because it's never been that way before and the stated justification for it is a pretext. It's specifically an attempt to rig the primary for Hillary.

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

I think it might have to do with why they think socialism would work in the first place, since I don't think many of his followers equated his positions with socialism (or if they did, went the "this time it'll work!" route). A lot of people who espouse that view tend to have a naive ideal of socialism; as in, they believe the ideology but don't realize how it doesn't work when applied. Socialism would require every single person, at their core, to be altruistic and fair.

Even then it wouldn't work because True Socialism (tm) has no distributed method for establishing value. The human mind is insufficiently complex to consciously manage an economy in that way. Even if everyone gave it their 100% there'd still be mass shortages of basic necessities without a constantly adapting price structure that can react to changes in scarcity and demand without direct oversight.

 

[TowinKarz]

Also, people are selfish. By nature. Socialism denies this, completely, and with a near-religious fervor will not even entertain the notion that self-interest is a valid motivator of behavior, believing altruism is the "natural" way of things instead and personal desire is an introduced concept, introduced by capitalists, no less..... even though there isn't a single living THING in nature that doesn't compete, literally to death, within it's own species for the best of everything, from food to mates.

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

Even though there isn't a single living THING in nature that doesn't compete, literally to death, within it's own species for the best of everything, from food to mates.

I think a lot of socialists have a fundamental misconception about what capitalism is. To use this nature example, ant colonies and bee hives make decisions through individual competition. That's not how it's usually portrayed, but it's true. A worker bee comes back excited about a food source and starts recruiting more workers. But it's competing for these other foragers with other foragers that just arrived. The one most excited about its food, the one with the most hype and marketing, ends up getting the most foragers. This is collective decision making. But it's done by little individual cellular automata that are programmed to behave selfishly. Carpenter ants do the same for selecting nesting sites, fire ants do it to decide what kind of castes to produce, etc. A bunch of stupid things acting out a very narrow series of self-interested decisions all combine on a macro scale to make smart, group based decisions as an emergent properties. From bacterial biofilms to human civilization, you can see this.

Capitalism is collectivism. "Collectivist" socialism is actually just autocracy, with very few decision makers.

 

[TowinKarz]

Ironically, Capitalism means that even if you "lose" you still get enough to survive because there are enough "winners" on the whole across society.

Maybe your share isn't "THE BEST", but you still get one.

For example, you won't get a Ferrari, but even a poor person in a capitalist nation can obtain a car. Not the fastest, not the shiniest, not one everyone envies, but still they can get a car and access to all the benefits that having a car grants. It's just not guaranteed to be the luxury model, but even your beater cars these days have AC and power windows.....

But because not everyone gets a Mercedes, communists want the system destroyed. If they can't have the best, they're too, (more irony) SELFISH to share Buicks.

 

[Red Hood]

What were these people smoking?


...cigarettes?

 

[vertexwindi]

What were these people smoking?


...cigarettes?

WARNING: Cigarettes have been proven to cause brain cancer in politicians

 

[It's HK-47]

Jesus Christ it's not even close to 2020 and they're already trying to set up a framework for another failed Hillary Clinton run. What is so special about this women that such incredibly powerful institutions are so willing to fall on their own swords for her? It can't be her money or her pussy because there are many Democratic politicians who are just as rich and just as female so what the fuck is it?

It's not just the money, it's also about who she knows and how effortlessly she can network with this "web" of contacts that she's been establishing since her husband's presidency. Mayors, congressmen, lobbyists, corporations, media moguls, Wall Street bankers, foreign nobles, and Hell even her other charities donate to her charity. Yeah, the Clintons have more than one, and they all donate "incestuously."

Just look at the staggering number of people who all throw money at her "charity" whenever it looks like she's about to make a bid for power, and you'll get a glimpse into exactly what she's got going on. It's a monsterous pay-for-play racket, because every single one of them knows that if Hillary's at the helm, all they'll need to do is throw money at her "charity" or pay her or her husband an abnormal amount of money in "speaking fees" and all of the sudden they'll get whatever legislation that they're after.

That network is exactly why you saw the donations to her campaign and her Super PACs reach an eye-watering $1.2 billion, and yet all but $7.8m was spent and gone by the time the election had rolled over, which is tremendously strange considering that she actually campaigned and traveled as little as she did. I mean Hell, at one point she hadn't even held a press conference for over 250 days straight. She wasn't in a damned hurry to move herself around and spend all of that money on her campaign, and yet $1.2 billion dollars just kind of... Went away, somewhere.

 

[AprilRains]

This scares me because I want a viable opposition party in the US. I want the Republicans to have to work, sweat, feel fear. I don't want a one-party state. Yet that seems to be where the DNC is taking us.

Thank God for the ineptitude of the GOP, or we'd be toast.

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

This scares me because I want a viable opposition party in the US. I want the Republicans to have to work, sweat, feel fear. I don't want a one-party state. Yet that seems to be where the DNC is taking us.

Thank God for the ineptitude of the GOP, or we'd be toast.

We've had one party a couple of times before. Both times it very shortly splintered into multiple parties again. For some reason 2 is just the equilibrium state in the US.

 

[Tealeaf]

As a foreigner, could someone explain to me how this is a bad thing? It just makes sense to me that if you run for a party, you'd be a full member of the party

I suspect the requirement is so that the party leadership can simply kick out undesirable candidates from the party. They can also exert softer control over members that they can’t over non members.

It’s currently not a requirement precisely so that party leadership couldn’t throw tantrums and deny their grassroots members the candidates they want.

 

[Slap47]

Goddamn they really lost their mind at this point

Lesson: Bernie divided the party, our candidate was a perfect yas queen.

 

[AnOminous]

I mean Hell, at one point she hadn't even held a press conference for over 250 days straight. She wasn't in a damned hurry to move herself around and spend all of that money on her campaign, and yet $1.2 billion dollars just kind of... Went away, somewhere.

She assumed she didn't even have to campaign against the joke candidate Dornald Druampfler and could just pocket the scam bucks. Then by the time they realized he was creeping up on her and panicked, it was too late. Even when they finally did panic and tried to do stuff, it was so comically inept and broken (sending her to get more votes in California and New York) that it failed abjectly. She was actually operating on the assumption that she had the electoral vote in the bag but it wouldn't look "legitimate" without a popular vote lead too. It's impossible to underestimate the idiocy of this.

And now the DNC is blaming Bernie Sanders for her open corruption and absolute incompetence.

You can bet the corporate sponsors who lost their investment and now won't get the legislation they funded the kickstarter for are not exactly happy with this thieving harpy.

 

[Slap47]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/do...ng-primaries-ends-up-being-wrong.3610/page-12

Reminded me of an old post from the Resetera thread.

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

To be fair isn't the Democratic primary inherently rigged by design, what with all those super delegates?

 

[Tealeaf]

To be fair isn't the Democratic primary inherently rigged by design, what with all those super delegates?

It is, but superdelegates are just leverage and not absolute power. You can be so popular they don’t matter.

 

[Herbert Hoover]

It is, but superdelegates are just leverage and not absolute power. You can be so popular they don’t matter.

True, but you still have a portion of the delegates that aren't being held to what the states or people have decided. Granted, Bernie wouldn't have won even if they weren't there, but they pretty much all voted for Clinton

 

[millais]

To be fair isn't the Democratic primary inherently rigged by design, what with all those super delegates?

Superdelegates were a reaction to the shitshow that was the DNC 1968 in Chicago. They never want the party to reach that level of disunity ever again.