A Clarification on Taking Down the Link

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | Announcements | A Clarification on Taking Down the Link

Which Candidate Should We Endorse?

We have to determine our choice for the nomination and support that decision thru the nominating process of possible. If we dilute the delegate counts we will lose the nomination so this is pretty important.

You must be logged in to participate.
  • #1 Tulsi Gabbard10.00%3 votes
  • #2 Bernie Sanders80.00%24 votes
  • #3 Other10.00%3 votes
Viewing 12 reply threads
  • Author
    • #240498
      So Far From Heaven
      • Total Posts: 9,462

      There are two reasons why Ms Gabbard’s link was removed.

      Not long ago, a poll was taken as to which candidate should be ‘left standing’ as it were. The reason this poll was taken was to focus our support to the single most desired progressive candidate of the site. Why? Because it’s crunch time. In fact, it is really really crunch time now. 60 days now till the rubber meets the road.

      The DNC has made it imperative that we (this is an inclusive we of all progressives) consolidate under one candidate or we will fail to gain the nomination by shifting the vote to a second round ballot at the convention where the ‘super delegates’ rule the outcome. And you KNOW it won’t be for a progressive candidate. Their only hope to deny us is to dilute the delegate counts for the progressive candidates and thus deny a progressive from achieving the nomination on the first ballot. Do not make the mistake of thinking the delegates of another candidate will vote Bernie. The evidence has proven that to be false from four years ago. Unless Bernie (or the progressive candidate of choice) has a clear majority of the committed delegates on the first ballot, they will lose the nomination. Period. There is no way the progressive candidate of choice can garner enough super delegate votes after the first ballot to overcome the super delegates committed to continuing the DNC third way in the second or later ballots. So it’s beat them on the first ballot or go home.

      That, however, is exactly what is going to occur as things stand. Way too many candidates are heading into the first round of primaries, one of which is going to be Super Tuesday or whatever the hell it’s called, and if those delegates are appropriated among a number of candidates, then they have the first major setback to Bernie gaining the nomination. It isn’t guaranteed, but it’s almost guaranteed. Even if he garners the majority of those delegates. That’s because the Democratic primaries allocate delegates by percentage. And one of the biggest hurdles of the game is the Southern Firewall. If it were winner take all like the Republicans, then all bets are off the table and we could in essence nominate something as hideous as Trump did with less than 40 percent of the overall vote.

      The second reason I pulled her link was because the Impeachment is one of the very few pieces of legislation where a no vote is unacceptable. This is one of the only legislative acts that require pure unvarnished rules of logic to apply to a SINGLE article of legislation. Each article of Impeachment must be voted on separately. There are no ‘extenuating’ parts to the article and the articles are purely stand alone issues to be voted on. Her non-vote negates the severity and necessity of the Articles. It is a waffle, regardless of her reasons why:

      I would expect a representative to apply pure cold hard logic to each of the articles in turn and vote either yes or no, but it would have to be one of the two. This is one time in their careers where they cannot sit on the fence. Just like the votes on the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act. There are zero nuanced positions that are not political nuances and thus outside the parameters of the rule of law.

      Impeachment was never intended to be political. It is a resolution to actions taken by the person that either harm the nation directly or go beyond the scope of the position. That is why they made the standards ‘vague’. The standard is whether or not the actions taken by the person (such as the President) are things that can only be done as a President for one of the criteria or if the crime is sufficient to require the removal of the person from office. (Yes, Orange Face, you CAN and MUST be Impeached for walking down the street and shooting someone.) There is zero politics there, but there is large amounts of discretion given to the individual representatives considering the action of Impeachment.

      Impeachment is nothing but a juror deciding if three things have been met. The first criteria is the process itself. Has the legislative body used due consideration to go forward and is the process they are using fair and non-political in nature and meets the rules lined out in the Constitution? Has the person in question committed the act being investigated? And does that action merit removal from office if convicted?

      That’s it. It’s that simple. That’s a major reason why you can’t dodge the bullet on this one.

      If the juror thinks the process of the impeachment is faulty, then the entire process is false and you must vote no.

      If the juror thinks that the person being impeached is innocent of the crimes, then they must vote no.

      If the juror feels that the crimes do not meet the standards of bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors, then they must vote no.

      That only leaves yes votes for those that think the process is fair, that the crime has been defined sufficiently well, and that the crime is sufficient for removal from office, and the person being impeached has committed that crime.

      If any of those criteria are not met, the juror MUST vote no. The case is supposed to be hard to get passed. Each and every one of the reasons and or the process itself must pass the threshold of the individual representative for them to vote yes. That gives them tons of latitude to vote no. But the duty of the office demands that a vote be cast for legislation of this import. This is something that goes way beyond the Iraq resolution.

      So this is one case where the representative should not shirk from that vote, either way.

      All other ‘feelings’ and or ‘issues’ are not within the scope of the legislation being brought forward for a vote. This is not the time or place for playing games. If Ms Gabbard had any reservations of the Articles of Impeachment, or the process under which they were crafted, then she should have voted no. That vote I would have respected, especially from her. If Ms Gabbard had voted no, the reason(s) for that no vote must be pretty strong and I would like to know what they are.

      If the members of JPR should want to have her link re-instated, then we can have another poll taken to determine the issue, but the poll will be a winner take all poll just like the last one was supposed to be.

      For your information, I pushed the reinstatement of Ms Gabbards links to her site the last time after they were taken down from the last polling vote. I actually really like most of her positions, though not every one, and I thought it might have been premature to limit our official endorsements at that time. Time, however, has passed and now we much decide on a single candidate to endorse because dilution of the votes will ensure our loss for any progressive.

      In case you are wondering if I am wondering about why the three dems voted no, I assure you I am not. I con’t consider them to be worthy of my time or effort. It was made abundantly clear that those individuals made POLITICAL votes. In fact, I assume from what I saw of the process and information garnered, anyone not voting yes was making a political statement unless they could point to a valid reason for voting no, and I didn’t see any such reason(s) being proffered.

      Were there tons of votes that were political votes? Sure. I bet lots of dems voted yes because they either thought no was suicide or they never considered anything other than let’s get rid of the creep at any cost. Like I pointed out above, I consider all no votes to be political votes.

      Regardless, we are out of time and decisions must be made by us as to which candidate we support. Division of support leads to the DNC pulling another Hillary on us. (Am I allowed to name her? Damn, I’m not sure.) O-K, they’ll pull another Hill the Shill on us.

      So I am attaching a poll to determine which candidate most members will support, Bernie or Tulsi.

    • #240569
      Ohio Barbarian
      • Total Posts: 21,914

      It’s gotta be Bernie. Tulsi dropped Medicare for All. She lost me then.

      It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

      You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

    • #240573
      • Total Posts: 612
    • #240576
      • Total Posts: 3,025

      Bernie, more because Tulsi does not have a chance.  I am more anti-war than ProM4all.  Having both would have been great.

    • #240594
      NV Wino
      • Total Posts: 8,258

      First of all, JPR’s “endorsement” means diddly squat. Second, if we are a progressive site, we should support progressive candidates. I see no reason to limit our support to one candidate.

      I will vote for Bernie. If he were unable to continue, I would vote for Tulsi. Does Tulsi meet all my ideas of what a progressive candidate should be? No. She is, however, head and shoulders above all the other candidates except for Bernie.

      “As we act, let us not become the evil that we deplore.” Barbara Lee
      “Politicians and pro athletes: The only people who still get paid when they lose.” William Rivers Pitt

    • #240597
      Babel 17
      • Total Posts: 5,402

      My support of this site is based on it’s management being friendly to Gabbard. That’s changed. Jimmy Dore gets why the impeachment was bullshyte, and he did several segments featuring that. Tulsi has explained her reasoning, but many people don’t want to even listen.

      We can agree to disagree.

      • #240749
        So Far From Heaven
        • Total Posts: 9,462

        I don’t think the ‘JPR establishment’ has anything against Tulsi. In fact, I not only supported her, I contributed to her campaign. As well as to Bernie’s campaign. I got her campaign logo and link reinstated after the poll showed Bernie a clear winner. I respect Ms Gabbard and I have a lot in common with her politics. But that vote was a huge mistake because the ‘normal’ DNC cannon fodder voter won’t even bother to read about her explanation and will only see the fact that she didn’t vote to impeach because the thirdway candidates are going to pound her over and over on the vote, not the reasons for it. They couldn’t care less the why. They just march lockstep to the voting booth and vote. The main party members say vote (gag) Joe or whatever so they do it. In a way, just like the republicans do. This has killed dozens and dozens of candidates I’ve wanted to vote for over the past 4 or 5 decades. What is one of Bernies strongest strengths fighting Biden? His votes on matters that younger and progressive voters care about most, and the fact that he gives them a vision of a future that they can get energized about. You don’t give those voters something to f=vote FOR, then they ain’t gonna go vote. Ask Hill the Shill what really killed her. If she could ever utter a truthful statement she’d tell us that she couldn’t get anyone excited enough about her to get them to get off the couch ad vote. So what are Bernies votes that matter. No on the war in Iraq. No to the Patriot Act. No to all of the major trade agreements. No to the Clinton three strikes law. Crap, he voted no to a lot of the Clinton mistakes. That is what is going to get him in a position to win the nomination because the younger voter and the progressive voters can compare his rhetoric to his votes and his vision of the future.

        The object that we can never lose sight of is getting a progressive agenda and progressive personnel elected, hopefully including the president. That is the prize. And we can do it, but only if we can garner a majority of first ballot votes in the nomination convention…. The nomination election is the most important election in the US. NOT the general. Nothing else matters but that one statement, we have to have the votes to win the first ballot at the convention. That is the lesson from 2016, nothing else matters. It’s win on the first ballot or lose once again to the thirdway asshats.

        So, how do we go about doing that? I’m not talking about the general here, just the nomination. The DNC has their gunsights on one candidate, Bernie. How do they get rid of him? They get enough delegates spread out over more candidates and then the first ballot is up for grabs. They don’t have to be a ‘fake’ progressive like Warren. They just have to siphon off enough potential voters away from Bernie before the convention to ensure that he can’t get the win on the first ballot. Why? Because released committed delegates can vote any way they want to. No matter what happens after that, the thirdway wins the nomination.

        I have always wanted a Sanders/Gabbard ticket. Or Gabbard/Sanders for that matter. But now that is all but impossible. Not because of us progressives, but because of the 60 to 70 percent of the party and those independents that are left leaning but not real keen on embracing a progressive candidate to begin with. If we don’t get those voters after winning the nomination (I mean having Bernie or some progressive candidate here), we lose the general and Orange Face gets re-elected. It’s just how things are. Then again, if we don’t get a real progressive nominated, we may lose to Orange Face anyway. That is the problem that the thirdway DNC asshats and their minions haven’t come to terms with.

        What’s really crazy here is the fact that Orange Face got the nomination of the RNC EXACTLY the way the DNC is trying to kill off any progressive candidate because the RNC primaries are winner take all (which favors Bernie or a progressive candidate if they can get the young vote out), but the DNC primaries are based on percentages. The more candidates to pull votes from top tier candidates the better. They don’t want a winner in the first ballot if it means their golden child isn’t the winner. They just want to make sure that they control the second ballot after the progressive candidate fails to garner enough votes on the first.

        Why else hasn’t their been a real party effort to reduce the number of candidate to less than 5? That isn’t going to happen till after super tuesday.

        I just want a fair chance to win big. I think that most members of JPR would just love to win big.

        The question is, how?

        • #241164
          Jan Boehmerman
          • Total Posts: 4,573

          “But that vote was a huge mistake because the ‘normal’ DNC cannon fodder voter won’t even bother to read about her explanation and will only see the fact that she didn’t vote to impeach because the thirdway candidates are going to pound her over and over on the vote, not the reasons for it.”

          MY ANSWER THAT?  ………FUG THE “NORMAL” THIRDWAY DNC VOTER!  Those are the same dumb fuckers who were duped into our never-ending “regime change wars”  They’ll NEVER “smarten up”! 

          • #241201
            So Far From Heaven
            • Total Posts: 9,462

            Then you get nothing.

            That’s the voters that elected Hill the Shill.

            We either wake up and acknowledge their numbers and get their votes or it’s game over before it even starts.

            Choose. Win or lose? Taking a stance like that ensures one of them, which?

    • #240626
      Ohio Barbarian
      • Total Posts: 21,914

      AOC  agrees with your argument, and takes it further. Referring to Tulsi’s “Present” vote on impeachment, she said “Whenever there is a vote before us, every Congressperson should either vote Yes or No.”

      It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

      You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

    • #240630
      Babel 17
      • Total Posts: 5,402

      TJDS Live: Special Guest: Rep. Tulsi Gabbard

      Edit: 5:50 PM EST and it still hasn’t started yet. Good news if you’re just seeing this now, as the live broadcasts can’t be rewound, and clips from it only come out after a few days.

    • #240642
      Babel 17
      • Total Posts: 5,402

      Jimmy nails it right out of the gate. Russia! and impeachment because the Democratic establishment is afraid to talk policy.

      They’re afraid that would mean the electorate got to voice approval for the agenda of the Sanders led movement.

    • #240645
      Ohio Barbarian
      • Total Posts: 21,914

      @babel17 All true. And absolutely nothing to do with Tulsi’s refusal to vote either Yes or No on the articles of impeachment. I’m starting to think she pulled a stunt, and if she did it’s going to backfire badly for her. Pity.

      It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

      You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

      • #240659
        Babel 17
        • Total Posts: 5,402


        It goes to the point that the motives involved ignore the Constitution’s intent that impeachment isn’t about having a majority in the House and trying to score points. We’re here today in part because Gabbard leaving the DNC the way she did, over principle, lent enormous credibility to the Sanders campaign’s complaint that the primary process was rigged, along with their cry for redress, and that helped prevent the DNC and its media allies from really fulfilling David Brock’s game plan to eliminate Sanders. The excellent performance of the Sanders campaign led to there being the progressive movement we have today.

        Gabbard is as principled now as she was then, imo.

    • #240648
      • Total Posts: 34

      This is uncomfortably similar to what happened last election cycle at SV. I can’t see anything good coming from making an endorsement.  Just hard feelings and a fractured community.

    • #245152
      David the Gnome
      • Total Posts: 3,280

      I understand the reasoning on both sides of this debate.  So, a few thoughts…

      1. JPR started out for me as a safe haven away from forums where we had to be supportive of a particular candidate.  It was (and is) a place where we can freely criticize, mock, laugh at and otherwise insult our beloved leaders or potential leaders.

      2. A majority of our members – including mods and admin- are in favor of Tulsi’s policies and principles, at the very least.

      3. JPR is not going to unite behind one candidate.  Most of us favor Bernie – but not all of us.  That wont change no matter what links or banners we put up.

      4. Our diversity is a strength – one worth holding on to.  We have had even the occasional Trump voter – used to have a lot more.

      5. Finally… we must be better than the opposition, if we wish to remain as a progressive/radical sanctuary online.

      I respectfully ( I hope you guys know by now that I love ya) disagree with our admins and at least one moderator (gnome ankle punching to follow this post) on this matter.

      Think about it, all.  How many of our elected reps have the nerve to vote against the NDAA, the patriot act, the military budget – and on and on.  Six?  Four?  Fewer than ten, right?  So when someone bucks the one party system, whether we think it is a principled act or a politically motivated one – they have broken the mold.

      We need to break the fucking mold, ladies and gents.  It serves us best to support those who are willing to stand up to the oligarchy, which the military industrial complex is part of.

      My suggestion is to leave the links up.  Put Bernies on top, maybe, because he is the preferred candidate.  Yet even he will be criticized and debated – I would not have it any other way.

      Again… the forums members are not going to unite, entirely, behind one candidate.  Trying to limit our support to one particular candidate will cost us both members and support from those who ought to be our allies and friends in this struggle.

      So, with all respect, I appeal to our administrative team and to the forum as a whole to think twice and even three times in this matter.  Could lead to another split, another forum with a small group of former JPR members who felt they no longer had a place here.

      The “democrat” party does not truly have a big tent – but we can.  In my opinion, we should.


      Just my ten cents…

    • #250823
      • Total Posts: 487

      David, your ten cents to me is worth more than most person’s hundreds.

Viewing 12 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.