Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

charlyvi

(6,537 posts)
33. We disagree.
Sun Jan 1, 2017, 01:45 PM
Jan 2017

Last edited Mon Jan 2, 2017, 01:20 AM - Edit history (1)

If a candidate wants to run in a Democratic primary, he/she should actually BE a Democrat. Not just pledge to support them. We live in a two party system, yes, but if one chooses not to be a member of either party, then one should not use the access or infrastructure from either to try and get elected. It's dishonest. And the consequences can be disastrous to this nation. Sanders knew what the system was and chose to play it. At least Stein and Johnson were straight up enough to not pretend membership in a party they would never join.

No one said anything about a rule requiring long term membership before an election. Long term membership? You're joking, right? He was an independent one day, a Democrat the next day when he declared he was running, then went back to being an Independent when he lost the primaries. Oh, and he filed his paperwork to run for his senate seat again even before the primaries were over; he filed as an Independent. To say that he ran as a Dem is laughable. Putting a D after your name on a ballot doesn't make you one. So I guess you are saying that anyone of any political belief ought to be able to run in any primary because, well, the system. Then change the system. Sanders is supposed to be good at that. But stop saying it was perfectly okay for him to use the party as he did. I, and millions more like me, will always resent him for it.

Sure. yallerdawg Dec 2016 #1
I myself didn't START with (1). Not ever. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #7
And yet, your OP started with (1). yallerdawg Dec 2016 #8
I only mentioned (1) because I HAD to mention it Ken Burch Dec 2016 #9
Absolutely! williesgirl Dec 2016 #2
Absolutely. Nt lostnfound Dec 2016 #3
Fine by me. OrwellwasRight Dec 2016 #4
Message auto-removed Name removed Jan 2017 #36
Sounds GREAT. kacekwl Dec 2016 #5
No. Exilednight Dec 2016 #6
I agree but... Yurovsky Dec 2016 #13
Sorry. Can't fully agree with the second point. He should of course have been allowed to run. kcr Dec 2016 #10
Agreed. Justice Dec 2016 #12
No. Only Democrats should run in our primaries bravenak Dec 2016 #11
We need to also eliminate caucuses Gothmog Dec 2016 #18
Agreed about caucuses La Lioness Priyanka Jan 2017 #25
Caucuses are very undemocratic Gothmog Jan 2017 #34
I can agree on those two things. hamsterjill Dec 2016 #14
Understood. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #15
Not a chance! The greatest flame warriors on this site live and die Rex Dec 2016 #16
No Gothmog Dec 2016 #17
Where to begin? NastyRiffraff Dec 2016 #19
Great post Gothmog Dec 2016 #20
Yep. charlyvi Dec 2016 #21
Yup La Lioness Priyanka Jan 2017 #26
Your Bernie bias is showing there, Burch. charlyvi Dec 2016 #22
We live in a two party system. BzaDem Jan 2017 #24
We disagree. charlyvi Jan 2017 #33
YES, YES, YES! brush Jan 2017 #31
I disagree with part (though not all) of both points. BzaDem Jan 2017 #23
Sadly I don't think we are ready aikoaiko Jan 2017 #27
Ill be crystal clear: Bernie Sanders has absolutely no business determining the course stonecutter357 Jan 2017 #28
because y'all are doing such a bang up job? n/t HopeAgain Jan 2017 #32
For unity one suggestion: Everyone who disagrees with me shut the fuck up AngryAmish Jan 2017 #29
We lost and BOTH should move on HopeAgain Jan 2017 #30
Nope. Winner of the primary gets the biggest share of credit/blame for the general. Orsino Jan 2017 #35
Bernie doesn't agree. Nt BainsBane Jan 2017 #37
Message auto-removed Name removed Jan 2017 #38
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»A suggestion for the rest...»Reply #33