An interesting Fox News story follows. I am sure that it is being reported by other, more-palatable-to-Democratic-loyalists media, but a couple of things stand out here.
DNC votes to require Dem 2020 primary candidates be registered party members
The Democratic National Committee voted Friday to change its rules and bar anyone from running for the party’s 2020 presidential nomination without being a Democrat at the time of announcing one’s candidacy.
In 2016, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) ran an unexpectedly competitive primary campaign against Hillary Clinton despite being an independent, and the DNC’s rules and bylaws committee appears to have this in mind with the new rule, Yahoo News reports. Sanders’ supporters are interpreting the move as a sign of spite.
“We just came off a devastating presidential loss in 2016. It would seem to me the actual impetus would be to expand the Democratic party. I just for the life of me don’t see any motivation for this beyond personal spite,” said Mark Longabaugh, who was a senior adviser to Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign.
—snip—
The rule may not affect Sanders himself if he does decide to run in 2020, however. He has typically chosen to run for the Democratic Party’s nomination in Vermont Senate races to fend off Democratic opponents and then has declined the Democratic nomination, running in the general election as an independent. The Vermont Democratic Party has supported this strategy and ruled he enjoys the “rights and privileges” of a party member.
If this DNC move does nothing whatsoever to eliminate Bernie Sanders from possible contention in 2020…which would be true even if his Vermont status didn’t hold up because all he would need to do is register as a Democrat…the word “spite” doesn’t quite cover it. “Stupid spite” might come close, as would “Chopping off your nose to spite your face.”
The only possible non-“stupid” interpretation of this move…and it would only not be stupid if one did not consider neocentrism itself to be stupid (lambs following the globalist corporate Judas Goat to the slaughterhouse)…would be if it was meant as a sign to possible anti-Sanders voters (read “disenchanted Trump voters,” mostly) that they would be safe within the welcoming arms of the ever-less-leftiness-like DemocRatic Party.
Nice.
Orwell…2020 instead of 1984.
Left is right.
Right is left.
Feel safe in the vast, welcoming center.
Be proud, loyal DNC-ers.
You are pioneers in the brave new world of stick figure politics.
If there are only two dimensions, it is so much easier to belong!!! You can just slide right in. No depth to worry about…it’s easy. Why…even deplorablist Trump voters can do it!!! Unlike that crazy Sanders fella…you know, that socialist who wants to Communize the country? We’re for you !!!
Dumb as a stick.
Dumb as a stick-figure!!!
Wake the fuck up.
You been had.
The abbreviation “DNC?”
It stands for “Does Not Count.”
Does not count well, anyway, on the plentiful evidence of its ongoing failures to:
1-Win more years in the presidency over the past 70 years or so than have the RatPublicans (And I am even including the truly deplorable, totally reprehensible LBJ in that count, who I am completely convinced ascended to the presidency by complicity in the murder of JFK. (Or at the very least, the coverup of that murder .)
2-Gain control of the the House and/or the Senate more than have the RatPublicans over the past 30+ years.
and
3-Produce an even temporarily centrist Supreme Court.
Nice.
DNC!!!
DNC!!!
DNC!!!
Nice.
WTFU.
AG
P.S. I am going to add the following statement to many of my posts…articles and comments…for the benefit of new readers here. It applies to this post as well.
*** A group of people here have tried everything in their power to discourage criticism of the Democratic Party as it stands today. They automatically downrate such posts and have endlessly attacked several posters as liars, pro-Trump trolls and/or spreaders of Russian propaganda. When effectively rebutted, they simply ignore the rebuttal and repeat the same attacks. This tactic is intended to exhaust the patience of the attacked posters and discourage others from reading or posting similar material. It has worked on a few posters, who have simply given up. It has not worked on me. I initially answered their attacks with reason. After realizing that this was a total waste of my time, I simply stopped replying to them. My comments and articles on this site are my replies. Read what I have to say; consider what they have to say and how it is said, and then make up your own minds. Thank you-AG***
Also too, I would be remiss in showing up here, then leaving without the necessary occasional reminder:
STILL waiting, liar:
link
link
I’d use the actual rating system – but what’s the point?
. . .rehabilitated yourself?” –arlo, Alice’s Restaurant
In oui’s case, the clear and obvious answer is “no”.
His brief pretense at refraining from ratings abuse was short-lived indeed.
I could’ve predicted this (but refrained from doing so just in the off-chance that his avowed self-reform might be sincere).
But no, predictably, he returns to form: inappropriately (obviously!) troll-rating substantive, factually documented confrontation and refutation — in the interest of accountability — of ag’s falsehoods, lies, and related grotesque dishonesty. Again. Picking up right where he (briefly!) left off.
But then, for nearly as long as I’ve been aware of oui’s existence, he’s always been a howling hypocrite with his escalating “retaliatory” troll-ratings abuse — even extending it to my substantive comments involving no ratings and no “trolling” whatsoever.
Clearly, to whatever extent he (pretended he’d) “rehabilitated [him]self” wrt abusing the ratings, it was short-lived indeed, and he’s now reverted to form.
Don Durito’s attempt for clarity was appreciated and welcomed in his diary. The original perp aborted this dialogue while the inkt was not yet dry. Nothing more to say, just be honest where you put the “blame”.
Pointing out the diary you recommended is a lie, and adding the context that it’s written by a habitual liar, is not “aborting the dialogue”.
“Aborting the dialogue” would be troll-rating a true post because it criticises a false post with a message you want to promote.
And of course oui troll rated this comment.
Laughing.
. . . cowardly. And not to be neglected: dishonest.
Oui has no credible, defensible, substantive response to make (because none exists) to thoroughly documented, definitive refutation of ag’s lies/falsehoods/hideous dishonesty, so instead abuses the rating system to troll-rate substantive, accurate comments that bear no remotest resemblance to “trolling” by any reasonable, accepted definition ever.
“Pathetic” indeed.
Here’s a recent revelation about oui’s ideology.
On Sunday, June 10th, 2018, oui gave an “excellent 4” uprating for a one-sentence comment by Arthur where he offered his full support for Cliven Bundy.
It’s worthwhile to keep these sorts of evidences in mind when we get our next condescending lectures from these people about How To Be A Better Progressive.
Admiring a stone cold racist demagogue who wishes to steal resources from public lands is far, far away from good public policies and progressive values.
A group…perhaps better, a cadre…of people on this site have tried everything in their power to discourage criticism of the Democratic Party as it stands today. They automatically downrate such posts and have endlessly attacked several posters as liars, pro-Trump trolls and/or spreaders of Russian propaganda. When effectively rebutted, they simply ignore the rebuttal and repeat the same attacks. This tactic is intended to exhaust the patience of the attacked posters and discourage others from reading or posting similar material. It has worked on a few posters, who have simply given up. It has not worked on me. I initially answered their attacks with attempts at reason. After realizing that this was a total waste of time, I simply stopped replying to them. My comments and articles on this site are my replies. Read what I have to say; consider what they have to say and how it is said, and then make up your own minds. Thank you-AG
link
P.S. Your sig:
A perfect description of your neocentrist cadre’s set of attacks upon free thinkers on this site.
McCarthyism redux.
Thank you so much for your apparently uncontrollable honesty!!!
AG
Tell us more about the wonderful ideology of brave, brave Cliven Bundy.
See the P.S. to my article above
Thank you…
AG.
. . . to many of my replies to your “articles” (LOL!) and comments…for the benefit of new readers here. It applies to the comment this replies to as well:
For the benefit of anyone who wishes to rationally consider the many repeated attacks of the entity above on my positions and personal honesty, I repeat part of what I wrote in the italicized comment above.
Thank you twice…
AG
I encourage everyone to follow it! Any honest, objective person who rationally considers your lies and hideous dishonesty that I linked and my thorough, definitive, factually documented refutation of those lies and grotesque dishonesty that I also linked can reach only one conclusion: that the factual refutation — and hence confronting you with that factual refutation for as long as you keep running away from it — is 100% valid. This is, of course, why I include the links to your lies/dishonesty and to my factual refutation of them! Precisely to enable what you recommend above.
You should try it yourself! (Oh, right, there’s that “rationally” requirement that you can’t honestly meet. OK, never mind then.)
I will see you on the mats.
Any time.
Wrestle on.
AG
. . . always. Like all the times already that I’ve shown up at the mats and you ran away. Like you’re doing right now.
Once again:
To all who care enough about about this ongoing contretemps to spend…oh, say 20 to 30+ minutes actual time…reading my posts (articles, comment and replies) and those of the entity oaguabonita, all I have to say is…once again…the following:
I rest my case with your caring research.
Thank you…
AG
I’m still here, oaguabonita.
No running.
Keep trying, though.
I guess everybody needs a hobby.
ASG
. . . run away doesn’t change the fact that you’re running away (which, by the way, is obvious to everyone reading this with a functional brain and even a thimbleful of honesty).
“Running way” would be abandoning this blog to entities like you. I will not do that.
AG
. . . constantly, continuously.
. . . immature, simple-minded, selfish, and inhumane though it is, and hence reprehensible to me.
But even with all those flaws, if he were to espouse and defend such an ideology here in good faith —
. . . i.e., without blatant substantive lies; with retraction/correction of any honest mistakes not made in bad faith (sadly, can’t recall that ever occurring in ag’s case) when they’re factually refuted with documentation; not continuously lying about the reasons and motivations of commenters who critique/downrate his comments/”articles” (LOL!) and about the substance of those critiques — despite those reasons, motivations and substance having been spelled out in great detail by the critics; etc. . . .
. . . then I’d be the first to oppose banning, or even downrating his dreck (though it would still be dumb, offensive dreck; but it would be tolerable dumb, offensive dreck, mostly harmless because mostly ignored).
No, it’s the constant lying and related grotesque dishonesty that makes him a pustulant boil on this place that’s long overdue for lancing.
I’m accountable for what I do, and nobody else.
You’re accountable for what you do, and nobody else.
ag’s accountable for what he does, and nobody else.
You’re a howling hypocrite and persistent, serial ratings abuser.
None of this is hard.
. . . via your persistent abuse of the ratings system, that any lie/falsehood/hideous dishonesty, no matter how obviously indefensible, must not be challenged — much less refuted definitively — as long as the lie/falsehood/hideous dishonesty is propagated by a fellow-traveler of your faction (which currently looks to be you, ag, and voice — how embarrassing!).
The reason for your choice to abuse the ratings instead of responding substantively to substantive, factually accurate refutation is very fucking obvious. And cowardly.
A group of people here have tried everything in their power to discourage criticism of the Democratic Party as it stands today. They automatically downrate such posts and have endlessly attacked several posters as liars, pro-Trump posters and/or spreaders of Russian propaganda. When effectively rebutted, they simply ignore the rebuttal and repeat the same attacks. This intended to exhaust patience of the attacked posters and discourage others from reading or posting similar material. It has worked on a few posters, who have simply given up. It has not worked on me. I initially answered their attacks with reason. After realizing that this was a total waste of my time I simply stopped replying to them. My comments and articles on this site are my replies. Read what I have to say; consider what they have to say and how it is said, and then make up your own minds.
Thank you…
AG
–Mary McCarthy [tiniest of liberties taken to fit the present context]
Certainly applies to the comment this replies to, which is remarkable for the absence of a single true thing anywhere in it. Quite an “achievement”! How proud you must be!
Such a steady stream of lies defies individual refutation of all of them (or at least my time and patience to do so), so I’ll just point out several of the most obvious and egregious (and, of course, hilarious):
1. Latest in repetitive series of self-serving lies misrepresenting the motivations and reasons of your critics and the factual substance of those critiques (even though they’ve all been spelled out in detail):
Utterly false, as I’ve demonstrated several times, but you just keep writing this and equivalent lies . . . oh, heck, may as well just quote one of those previous refutations:
2.
Wait, excuse me just a sec [snork . . . snicker . . . ] HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA [gasp for breath] HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!1!!11!!!! [recovery breathing]
OK, where was I? Oh, yeah, right, “effectively rebutted” . . . oh, no . . . not again . . . hold on, gimme a sec . . . [snork . . . snicker . . . ] HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!11!!!!!!!!! [gasping for air]
Oh, yeah, please do link to a single instance of you ever “effectively rebutt[ing]” even one of my factual refutations of your falsehoods, lies, and related grotesque dishonesty. Even just one, even just once! Obviously, this request will not be granted because it’s impossible. That has never happened.
3.
Wait, excuse me just a sec [snork . . . snicker . . . ] HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA [gasp for breath] HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!1!!11!!!! [recovery breathing]
OK, where was I? Ah, fuck it, just re-read #2 — all applies equally here.
The most recent whiners win the crown!
marduk
oaguabonita
I have been clear about my position for two years now ever since the repugnant behavior by the twosome marduk and nalbar started.
Any trollratings will be uprated by me without a second thought. Usually these two target a single poster. Quite often I will pre-empt their troll ratings by handing out a “4” with no regard to post content. Therefore in their ugly choice of bad blog behavior my “4s” are NOT an endorsement of the content.
I have never been the initiator In this bad behavior and have tried to stop this by publishing the Pond’s blog ethics. To no avail.
Most recently Don Durito mad a valiant attempt to have the trollratings stop. I gave him my support. As the comments were posted, I got hit once again with a “1” rating by nalbar. This persistent behavior blocks my participation to comment further as I will not be badgered by idiots.
Hijacking a thread as was done on Martin Longman’s front page artikel is certainly another stain on this community. The first ten years here at the Pond such bad behavior would be unacceptable. We do have community guidelines as I have quite often referred to.
Don’t thread on me ….
I have never hidden the fact, been very clear about it and stated as such: troll rate me and I will return in kind at a moment and place of my choosing. So stop whining marduk and nalbar and quite honestly stop troll rating me as I will not be hindered in restricting to post diaries.
By duplicate postings as has been customery by oaguabonita, this behaviour is blog harassment, a form of stalking. When this also becomes hijacking another thread, I will regard it as trollish behavior. Most of this has been puberal behavior … please act like an adult. The community will be better off. Thank you Don Durito for your recent diary.
. . . to go out the window or anywhere else.
A group of people here have tried everything in their power to discourage criticism of the Democratic Party as it stands today. They automatically downrate such posts and have endlessly attacked several posters as liars, pro-Trump posters and/or spreaders of Russian propaganda. When effectively rebutted, they simply ignore the rebuttal and repeat the same attacks. This intended to exhaust patience of the attacked posters and discourage others from reading or posting similar material. It has worked on a few posters, who have simply given up. It has not worked on me. I initially answered their attacks with reason. After realizing that this was a total waste of my time I simply stopped replying to them. My comments and articles on this site are my replies. Read what I have to say; consider what they have to say and how it is said, and then make up your own minds.
Thank you…
AG
. . . endorser of stuttering.
what a pathetic bunch … fortunately just a foursome to litter the blog community :-))
From the BooMan blog guidelines which refers to Pastor Dan’s community norms. These have been used as guide from the earliest beginning of Martin Longman’s Pond. Please take note of the use of the ratings system. Such a shame these have been shredded in the last two years! Read them and for any normal person with some decency they are self-explanatory. All other opinions should be disregarded as utter bullshit and abuse of the system. You will be called out again and again.
Why did you update a comment which literally did nothing other than offer a universal defense and support for Cliven Bundy?
So the whiners are complaining?
Not in archive are 48 posts. Of these there are 23 troll ratings, mostly by nalbar (big whiner) and seconded by marduk. They have been kept in standing by the company of a few.
This has been going on for two years now!
Source: Comics, Milkshakes, And (Failing To Fight) Internet Trolls
The harassment campaign targeting a few as others watch and do nothing.
. . . are. Ridiculously. Hypocritically. *Spuriously. Dishonestly. Incoherently (“Not in archive are 48 posts”, “They have been kept in standing by the company of a few” — hunh?).
*Repeating, since you studiously ignored it previously:
Since you continue (and have for years) to self-servingly, studiously ignore that point and the critical distinction it contains, I’ll expand on it (you’re welcome!):
Compare and contrast:
nalbar and marduk trollrate comments that, in their subjective judgment, qualify as trolling. I believe they’ve each said so on several occasions, and I’m aware of no evidence to the contrary. I don’t always agree with their judgment (you want an example? ok, sure, here ya go). What I would never even imagine considering doing (but you do consistently!) is to conclude that this disagreement means my judgment in that case was “correct”, and marduk’s was “wrong”, therefore marduk’s trollrating was invalid, undeserved, and thus an abuse of the ratings. Ratings are inherently and inevitably subjective. Marduk, if he chose, would have to be the one to defend the validity of that particular rating. But the point is, a trollrating is not automatically, inherently invalid and thus an abuse of the ratings, as this whining of yours above and elsewhere implies. (Except of course — hypocritically — when the victim of invalid, abusive trollrating is on your enemies list, and including when the trollrater abusing the ratings is you.) This is obvious from the fact that booman built the ratings system, including the trollrating options, into the site when he started it.
You, by your own admission, consciously, intentionally and routinely violate your own assessment of what constitutes trolling and trollrating abuse by — admittedly! — rating comments “pre-empt[ively]” or as “retaliation” “with no regard to post content“.
Is this critical distinction (essentially, good faith vs. bad faith) — and your position on the losing end of it — starting to sink in yet? At all?
May as well also pop the balloon you frequently parade around, i.e., the appeal to your (asserted) greater longevity here with the presumption it somehow confers on you superior wisdom and/or authority. It doesn’t. Duh. Obvious from your persistent, hypocritical, admittedly conscious and deliberate violations of “blog ethics” and abuses of the ratings system.
Then, of course, there remains the fact that, after thread-jacking booman’s top-post with your dishonestly trolling, deceptive link, you tried to pin the blame for your thread-jacking on bazzz and marduk for their perfectly reasonable responses to that dishonestly trolling, deceptive, thread-jacking link. Wow. Just wow.
“.. nalbar and marduk trollrate comments that, in their subjective judgment, qualify as trolling.”
Then read the basic rules of Martin’s blog …
Disagreement is NOT at all acceptable for a troll rating. No one else but these two idiots have troll rated me in these two years. Before that, no one else has EVER troll rated me here at the Pond.
What’s honesty oaguabonita? Defending the indefensible, where progressive Democrats have become masters in on this blog.
Linking a National Review article which exhibits the extraordinary trollish argumentative style which that publication favors is not an effective way to make a point to this community.
A few days ago you uprated a one-sentence comment which was literally nothing but a universal approval of the deeds and ideas of Cliven Bundy. I’ll be damned if we should be made to accept a lecture on How To Be A Progressive Democrat, or a decent community member, from you.
oui, I ask you to examine your own behaviors here and consider whether they fall in line with these portions of this blog’s guidelines, which you claim to value:
What’s This Site All About?
This site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party. However, the Democratic Party is the only institution in this country that is capable of combatting the Bush administration’s agenda, or of offering a realistic alternative to the GOP’s control of both houses of Congress.
Therefore, this site is committed to building the Democratic Party, raising money for the Democratic Party and its candidates, finding and promoting promising candidates for state and local offices, helping to shape the Democratic Party’s agenda, and holding Democratic office holders to account for their votes and their ethics.
The site is also committed to doing some of the investigative work that is so desperately needed with the GOP in control of the oversight committees.
If I don’t consider myself a Democrat, am I welcome at the site?
Yes. You are. Everyone is welcome at the site regardless of political self-identification. I don’t care how you are registered to vote, who you have voted for in the past, or who you plan to vote for in the future.
The only restriction on non-Democrats is that they be respectful of the mission of this site, that they don’t post Bill O’Reilly-like talking points, and that they don’t engage in trollish behavior.
If you are pro-life or anti-gun control, no one should down-rate your posts or make you feel unwelcome at this site, or in the Democratic Party. This site is not for the enforcement of any orthodoxy on its members. Principled disagreement is always allowed. Just don’t act like Sean Hannity and be an idiot.
A thoughtful, reasonable, self-aware person would:
Of course, I’m describing what a reasonable, thoughtful, honest, decent, self-aware person would do.
You?
From the BooMan blog guidelines which refers to Pastor Dan’s community norms.
Besides the clear outline of the ratings system and blog ethics … stop the bullying and harassment. You people are damn intolerant bunch.
.
. . . to begin?
Well, why not with the most trivial, but still interesting:
But of course your appeal to “Pastor Dan” fails on every level anyway:
Very obviously, your attempt to hide behind this guideline by throwing it in critics’ faces is a misapplication of it. (Sticking to #2 above) my criticisms of your gross, repetitive, intentional violations of blog ethics and the guidelines that you invalidly and self-servingly throw in others’ faces are a) NOT from a “newbie”; and b) NOT “without some strong justification”. I’ve consistently provided extremely strong justification for them. Just as I’m doing here.
Summary conclusion from all the above:
You don’t give a flying fuck about “blog ethics” or guidelines except as you can self-servingly cherry-pick from them to deploy as a shield for yourself (or ag, for some bizarre reason I’ve never been able to fathom) against valid criticism; or as a weapon to attack those who validly criticize you.
fin
. . . prudently making himself increasingly scarce, you might want to consider agitating to get yourselves on the endangered species list. (Though I gotta warn ya — and I know about this stuff! — it can take years, decades, even.)
Wherein oui confesses to not being normal or having any decency:
Oh, yes, such a shame, a shame indeed! The depths of the hypocrisy of this coming from you, who have openly admitted that you consciously, deliberately, routinely abuse those ratings guidelines — both for uprating and trollrating — “pre-empt[ively]”, as “retaliation” and “with no regard to post content” . . . well, those depths are just unfathomable (though you do keep trying!).