760
Michigan governor says not voting for Biden over Gaza war ‘supports second Trump term’
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2024
760 points (94.4% liked)
politics
19242 readers
2434 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's not really true. Primaries weren't rigged in the Rupublican primaries in 2016. They voted Trump in despite what the RNC wanted. It was the Dem's primary that was rigged (and turned a bunch of people off of voting in the main election, and it seems those people still haven't learned anything).
How were the Dem primaries rigged. I still see lots of people claim this to this day. But no one has ever presented evidence. I voted for Sanders in 2016 and 2020 primaries. But legitimately more people voted for Clinton in 2016. She also won more delegates. She won fair and square. Now do I think there needs to be a better process? Absolutely. But in the system democrats have used for the last 30 to 40 years Sanders lost fairly despite a strong showing.
The superdelegates, which in 2016 made up about 15% of the delegates, were not elected and are not beholden to any voters, they just chose whichever candidate they wanted, and 604 out of 651 went for Clinton immediately, which meant Bernie started off at an immediate disadvantage.
There's this idea that if it's technically possible to succeed, that the system is not rigged (see racism, sexism, etc). But that's ridiculous. If someone starts off at a major advantage over their competition, the system is rigged for them. If, in the general election, one candidate started off with 75 electoral votes because some unelected people just decided they liked that candidate, I imagine we would call that system rigged in favor of that candidate (even if it is technically possible for their opponent to win). Not only that, but starting off at such a deficit for what would already have been considered a close race is likely to make those who might have voted for Bernie just not bother showing up.
So yes, I'd say the primary was rigged against Bernie. And the Democrats seem to agree, because they got rid of superdelegates for the initial vote, because everyone was pissed.
The DNC used that system FOR DECADES. They didn't implement it in 2015 to snub Sanders. And as shitty as it was. It was better than what they had before. This, this is why no one rightfully takes you seriously. Or shows any respect. Hyperbolic, disingenuous BS.
They changed it fairly recently before 2016.
At this point it is clear you are arguing out of bad faith and not ignorance.
Nice projection. What was this change and how did it impact things. If you are so certain about this. There's a reason you aren't saying. And it's not not because I'm the one arguing in bad babe. Not at all. It's because if you actually point out the change it wouldn't really support the claims being made. Better to have the innuendo unsupported.
Their primary system was rigged for decades. It was used to support establishment candidates and make it harder for social democrats and leftys to win because the democratic party is owned by corporate America and has been for decades
That's not rigged. Rigged requires an intent to deceive. They were always open and up front about how the system worked. Sanders knew about it even if you still refuse to understand. And Sanders never claimed it was rigged.
Was it not as democratic as it could have been. Absolutely. Was it worlds more democratic than when only the party chose before. Absolutely. Was it rigged. No.
That's untrue. Rigged means intentionally structured to achieve a certain outcome. Regardless, the concept of a "free and democratic" has obvious connotations and intended implications regarding the level playing field associated with that process. The DNC did not have a level playing field which is why so many believe that it is rigged, and why so many will continue to believe that until monumental structural reforms are achieved, as well as admissions of wrongdoing for prior behavior. Comments like this won't change anyone's mind, and will just reinforce the idea that Democrats refuse to self-reform or listen to popular backlash
You're apparently forgetting the head of the DNC that got fired for giving debate questions to Clinton.
You're also apparently forgetting the DNC argument in court that because they are a private organization that they didn't have to abide by their own rules requiring fairness.
None of those are even touching the super delegate issues that others commented on.
So, The DNC gave Clinton the questions. And then they fired the head as a patsy? Or the head gave Clinton the questions and the DNC who didn't rig things fired her over it.
Depends what you mean by "rigged".
The parties, the candidates, the PACs, and the media are all theoretically (and in many cases, legally bound to be) separate entities, acting independently. But in reality, a lot of them share the same interests, and so some things happen that aren't exactly collusion or breaking any rules, but do give an advantage to one candidate, which many voters consider unfair.
In the case of the 2016 DNC primary, I think the critical objection is not the existence of superdelegates, but how they were presented in the media.
Clinton hovered between 54%-59% of the pledged delegates, but the media coverage would consistently include superdelegates in the count, showing Clinton ahead by 600 or so delegates, giving her "70% of the total count, and making her the presumptive nominee! The Sanders campaign doesn't have any chance of coming back from this!" ...before most of the country had even voted.
This kind of thing happens all the time, with lots of stuff, and it's not technically "rigging".
But seeing an official-looking number on TV -- that you know, provably, doesn't reflect the reality of the ongoing election... That feels, to many people, like it's "rigged".
I mean rigged when I say rigged. But yes I agree with a lot of your other points. The system absolutely should be more democratic and clearer. And our media should absolutely be constantly rebuked for the shit show it is.
I have no love for the system or democrats. But I really think all this talk about it being "rigged" nearly a decade on. Realistically is keeping us from improving the situation or finding better solutions. Instead grinding some perceived axe. While people, we all would likely be United against are United themselves getting things that we hate done. Clinton and Wasserman Schultz definitely earned plenty of that ire though.
Everyone says they didnt want him, but an idiot demagogue is a useful fool.
Altrrnate theory: They didnt know who would beat Hillary, so they played as many candidates as possible until they figured it out.
That's some nice history rewriting but the RNC actually openly loathed Trump until he won the primary - that's when they became bootlickers.
Ah yeah, politicians never lie
No, but you can believe their actions.
The Republican party was explicitly anti Trump in the 2016 primary.
Now, it is the party of Trump.
Things happen in sequential order, and are not always the same as they are now.
Were you too young to remember 2016?
Please explain to me, in detail, how the '16 Dem primaries were rigged. Bernie was literally on every single ballot, right alongside Hillary.
I responded in detail to the comment before yours (you and I posted within a minute of each other), but in a word, superdelegates.