The State of the Democratic Party II

[Myrensis]

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/391459-dnc-panel-adopts-rule-requiring-candidates-to-run-serve-as-a-democrat

Do they want Trump to win Again?

No, they'd just prefer that Democrats win on the Democratic ticket, rather than opportunists who want to take advantage of all the EVIL CORRUPT party machinery...while still using it as a punching bag to tout their progressive purity.

[Conserative Morality]

That goes to far, but it's entirely fair to point out that Sanders was blatantly attempting a hostile takeover of an organization that he has publicly viewed with disdain for years -- because it was the most viable vehicle available. That's not exactly a greenlight for the party to say, "Hey, lets nominate this guy!"

Also an organization he has cooperated with on political concerns for years. But really, that attitude just reinforces the skepticism many in my generation have against party apparatuses to begin with. When loyalty to the party and self-perpetuation of the apparatus becomes more important than the welfare of the nation, what good is the apparatus to patriots or idealists? Not to say this is a new problem by any means.

The way he campaigned last time around should disqualify him from serious consideration anyway.

What, by acting like a candidate in a primary election of a major party? Shock and horror. May I remind you that O'Malley was not short of cheap, damaging shots towards Clinton and Sanders?

What should disqualify him for serious consideration at this point is his age.

[Conserative Morality]

No, they'd just prefer that Democrats win on the Democratic ticket, rather than opportunists who want to take advantage of all the EVIL CORRUPT party machinery...while still using it as a punching bag to tout their progressive purity.

I see we are determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And here I thought we had a chance in 2020.

[Bienenhalde]

To be fair, even if he has been an independent for most of his political career, Sanders's left-wing populist message is pretty consistent with the Democratic Party's traditional ideology. See Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal for example. However, I would be highly reluctant to support him because I find him to be to left-wing on social issues, and I can see this as being a problem for many other Americans as well.

[Arlenton]

Progressives should run third party.

Pls

[Conserative Morality]

To be fair, even if he has been an independent for most of his political career, Sanders's left-wing populist message is pretty consistent with the Democratic Party's traditional ideology. See Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal for example. However, I would be highly reluctant to support him because I find him to be to left-wing on social issues, and I can see this as being a problem for many other Americans as well.

Not really. Most Americans receptive to New Deal style politics are left-wing on social issues. Most Americans period are left-wing on social issues anymore.

[MERIZoC]

That goes to far, but it's entirely fair to point out that Sanders was blatantly attempting a hostile takeover of an organization that he has publicly viewed with disdain for years -- because it was the most viable vehicle available. That's not exactly a greenlight for the party to say, "Hey, lets nominate this guy!"

Also an organization he has cooperated with on political concerns for years. But really, that attitude just reinforces the skepticism many in my generation have against party apparatuses to begin with. When loyalty to the party and self-perpetuation of the apparatus becomes more important than the welfare of the nation, what good is the apparatus to patriots or idealists? Not to say this is a new problem by any means.

The way he campaigned last time around should disqualify him from serious consideration anyway.

What, by acting like a candidate in a primary election of a major party? Shock and horror. May I remind you that O'Malley was not short of cheap, damaging shots towards Clinton and Sanders?

What should disqualify him for serious consideration at this point is his age.

He's in quite good health at present, certainly compared to Clinton and Trump. We'll see in....oh god a year

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

Also an organization he has cooperated with on political concerns for years. But really, that attitude just reinforces the skepticism many in my generation have against party apparatuses to begin with. When loyalty to the party and self-perpetuation of the apparatus becomes more important than the welfare of the nation, what good is the apparatus to patriots or idealists? Not to say this is a new problem by any means.

What, by acting like a candidate in a primary election of a major party? Shock and horror. May I remind you that O'Malley was not short of cheap, damaging shots towards Clinton and Sanders?

What should disqualify him for serious consideration at this point is his age.

He's in quite good health at present, certainly compared to Clinton and Trump. We'll see in....oh god a year

I’m concern about the possibility of a President developing Dementia...

[Conserative Morality]

He's in quite good health at present, certainly compared to Clinton and Trump. We'll see in....oh god a year

He's at the age where once health problems come, they come fast and hard. The longer you stay healthy, the sharper the drop. Bernie's in good health for an old guy, but I doubt he's keeping up a superman regimen to keep him physically and mentally flawless until he dies at 116. I don't know, maybe his genes are amazing, but I wouldn't want to risk it, and it's certainly a very strong political vulnerability in the election. Plus the concerns of diving into gerontocracy a la the SovUnion in the 70s.

[Ngelmish]

That goes to far, but it's entirely fair to point out that Sanders was blatantly attempting a hostile takeover of an organization that he has publicly viewed with disdain for years -- because it was the most viable vehicle available. That's not exactly a greenlight for the party to say, "Hey, lets nominate this guy!"

Also an organization he has cooperated with on political concerns for years. But really, that attitude just reinforces the skepticism many in my generation have against party apparatuses to begin with. When loyalty to the party and self-perpetuation of the apparatus becomes more important than the welfare of the nation, what good is the apparatus to patriots or idealists? Not to say this is a new problem by any means.

The way he campaigned last time around should disqualify him from serious consideration anyway.

What, by acting like a candidate in a primary election of a major party? Shock and horror. May I remind you that O'Malley was not short of cheap, damaging shots towards Clinton and Sanders?

What should disqualify him for serious consideration at this point is his age.

Cooperated with in a mostly self-serving manner. His whole shtick since the 90's is to vote with the party in specific circumstances that he approves of as an improvement while loudly condemning the same organization in the same breath to burnish his credentials as a pure ideologue, and not a professional politician. And I'd argue that there are three, not two, trends at play there: The welfare of the nation, loyalty to an apparatus, and cultivation of single, distinct political brand. Now Bernie Sanders would likely claim that cultivating his brand and the welfare of the nation largely track along the same lines. The party would claim that the welfare of the nation and its apparatus track along the same lines. One can argue these, or other combinations, but it's not possible to honestly argue that Bernie Sanders didn't, and doesn't, promote himself at the expense of the organization that he claims he should lead.

O'Malley (and I won't be baited into deploying his record for you) dropped out after seeing that it was mathematically impossible, without a miracle, for him to win. Sanders stayed in the race well past that point, either refused or only after a grudging pause slapped supporters on the wrist for bad behavior, and insinuated for months that he alone was pure, because, funnily enough, you don't have to raise the kind of money in Vermont to be competitive that you do in most other states in the country. That whole, "I alone am not corrupt" (and yes, he was using that before the other candidates dropped out) is dishonest, both in delivery and conception, corrosive.

I agree, I'd rather not nominate another septuagenarian.

[Krokoz]

He is indeed a prick, and I say this as someone that isn't even into weed. It's just not a big problem that the federal government needs to butt into.

I have a live and let live philosophy. If someone wants to toke up in moderation, and it doesn't cause them much harm, then by all means, they can go head. Sessions has even been wanting to crack down on cbd, which isn't even psychoactive, it's not a drug, just an anti anxiety oil that reduces anxiety. That's how extreme he can be.

Who knows if CBD oil is useful for health? I got on an interesting article https://healthable.org/how-much-cbd-oil-benefits-for-health-without-thc-pros-cons-expert-comments/ about the benefits of oil. What do your thoughts about this issue?