Should I go on a rant on why you're wrong, again?

Quote from: Alternative Facts on February 26, 2017, 06:27:03 PM

Should I go on a rant on why you're wrong, again?

Please do so, infodumps are always appreciated regardless of subject.

Lovely, let's begin with one of the seldom thought of facts - both the DNC and RNC are semi-ceremonial organization who's power has been conflated in the 21st century, particularly post-Citizens United.

These are not government organization like, say, agencies or cabinets are. There is no Constitutional section that decrees the creation of either, just like how there isn't a section that established primary elections - they were all made out of necessity. The goals of the DNC/RNC are to fundraise, coordinate with states regarding primary elections, and help craft an overall "party message."

In fact, the DNC and RNC are private organizations - they're essentially a club, a fraternity. The whole argument from Sanders regarding independents comes from this notion - neither the DNC/RNC like independents having a say because they are not members of the party. Neither group is obligated to accept outside opinion, though one can question the merits of that.

Now let's get onto Iberian's post...

>Clinton-backed Perez is "elected" chairman of the DNC.

First off, neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton endorsed any candidate in the DNC race - nor did Obama. Others from Obama's White House, including Biden, did endorse Perez.

Second off, Perez is actually quite liberal in comparison to elected Democrats in the House - and even moreso than Senate Democrats. According to 538, Perez scores a - 45 on a ranking from -100 (Most Liberal) to 100 (Most Conservative). House Democrats score a -40, and Ellison scores a -57.

Even despite that, FiveThirtyEight also put out a feature on both Ellison and Perez (along with minor candidates), which help show that all candidates running to lead the DNC had much more common than basic supporters think: A return to the 50 state strategy, focusing on economically hard hit areas, ensuring they run candidates even in red states.

>Wikileaks reveals that Perez worked with the Clintons to sabotage Bernie during the primaries, as evidenced in the Podesta E-mails leak.
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/835594031870664704

Let's start with a background fact - Emails between Perez and Podesta did not begin until the day of Perez endorsing Clinton.

Second off, despite the "Oh my god, sensationalism!" nature that the tweet description entails, none of the emails between Podesta/Perez signal any hit of "sabotaging Bernie." The first handful, entitled "email," are Podesta/Perez exchanging contact information. The email entitled "Hello from Brooklyn" is from Clinton's Labor Outreach Director thanking Perez. The next batch, "Stories we Discussed," was about a campaign stop that Clinton did where she shared some personal stories (From my recollection). Happy New Year email.

The next email, "Observations from the Road" are suggestions and tips from Perez to Podesta - there is one mention of Sanders, where Perez suggested the campaign stress how America can't wait for Sanders idea of a perfect healthcare system.

The final batch, "Congrats" are discussions between New Hampshire and Super Tuesday primaries, where Perez says he looks forward to talking about Clinton's support with Latinos, against Sanders message.

So out of everything, 2 sections entailing Sanders in that batch of emails - both from Perez, who is neither a member of the DNC leadership at the time and is a public supporter of Clinton. So not really seeing where WikiLeaks is coming from with their claims when it was public about who Perez supported.

>Bernouts are pissed, and are leaving the party en masse.

Unless you have a source to prove "Bernie supporters are leaving the party en masse," you aren't exactly qualified to make such a statement.

Sanders and other progressives, including Senator Warren, have congratulated Perez. Ellison has also been named Deputy Chair of the DNC - a move that garnered support from members at the vote.

Ellison supporters also should not be let off the hook for some of their moves, including between votes, the Ellison camp sent out a text message to DNC members claiming that South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who dropped out of the running before a vote was cast, had endorsed him.

"But the information was incorrect, and Buttigieg confronted Ellison backstage. A correction was sent out with an apology."

>Meanwhile, Trump is laughing his ass off and fanning the flames:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/835610917568200705
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/835814988686233601

Yes, because Donald's opinion of a private organization of which he is not a part of is truly important.

I don't see them performing well during the midterms.

...The elections that are over 18 months away?

I don't think there's any other way the Democrats will be able to stop Trump in 2020.

.... The elections that are over 3 years away?

I'm really not sure how the Democrats will be able to come back from this.

Well based on everything I've seen in this post, you have next to no idea about anything you're discussing unless it's the quality of a shitty meme or some sensationalized tweet from an organization with questionable motives.

You're third parties won't become a viable option anytime in the near future thanks to plurality

Johnson only needed to get that 15% bullshit rule to make it in the debates, then everyone would be eating their shoe.

Quote from: Alternative Facts on February 26, 2017, 11:49:58 PM

You're third parties won't become a viable option anytime in the near future thanks to plurality

Would he remember where Aleppo is in the debate?