The Democratic National Chairperson election 2017

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Democratic National Chairperson election 2017

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

Brainiac Five posted:

Characterizing a Jewish person as a phony infiltrator attempting to hijack politics from real Americans is sketchy. So is using terms like "donor class", and singling out Jewish people as exemplars of this "donor class" that apparently is distinct from the bourgeoisie. There are perfectly innocent explanations, I am sure, but y'all can't control your fool mouths for long enough to throw some bloodthirstiness at auto execs alongside "unmanly" industries like finance and entertainment.

Saban is a piece of poo poo and not worth your time defending. Every single garbage Islamophobic smear of Ellison in the media originates from him and his lackeys.

# ? Feb 10, 2017 19:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 9, 2024 23:20

Fiction: Apr 28, 2011

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Im still not sure how backing Clinton is disqualifing, but backing a dude who couldn't win a primary isn't.

Well one of these people lost an election she had absolutely no business losing by any stretch and the other was supported by the literal future of the Democratic party, so it certainly speaks to lacking understanding of the way the wind is blowing. I mean even Schumer figured it out after the election.

# ? Feb 10, 2017 19:44

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Im still not sure how backing Clinton is disqualifing, but backing a dude who couldn't win a primary isn't.

We still aren't admitting that the entire party lining up behind her in 2014 was a bad idea?

# ? Feb 10, 2017 19:45

Chelb: Oct 24, 2010; I'm gonna show SA-kun my shitposting!

Fiction posted:

I'm basing it on his record of lacking said personal autonomy, so I don't think it's unfair to him to insinuate.

If Perez's record boils down to "Supporting the TPP as Obama did while he was secretary", and "granting a waiver to Credit Suisse Asset Management services due to there not being enough evidence of QPAM's involved in criminal activities"

- then all I'm seeing is a weird false equivalency between what a person does (and is expected to do) when they're appointed by the most powerful person in the United States and what they do when they're elected to an important but low-key political position mainly concerned with organization and fundraising.

# ? Feb 10, 2017 19:49

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Fiction posted:

Huh? I'm just saying prominent conservative Democrats who support Israel love to trot out accusations of anti-Semitism when it comes to critics of Israel despite the fact that the Jewish population in America is increasingly at odds with that viewpoint.

So you defend yourself from charges of being a conspiracy theorist by insisting you believe politicians should simply transmit the will of the volk. Uh huh.

Fiction posted:

"Involving yourself in politics" is not the same as "using your ill-gotten riches to unduly influence politics in your favor," which is where 99% of political activity actually stems from in America. It's not unique to Haim Saban but he got himself involved very publicly in away that many people have had enough of.

Weird how this disproportionately focuses on entertainment and banking, and not, say, the auto industry asking for Japan to be denounced as a currency manipulator and forced into opening up their markets, as Rep. Sander Levin made a statement about just this week.

# ? Feb 10, 2017 19:49

Megaman's Jockstrap: Jul 16, 2000; What a horrible thread to have a post.

mcmagic posted:

We still aren't admitting that the entire party lining up behind her in 2014 was a bad idea?

No. You see, Clinton being a complete and utter zero who didn't bother to campaign because she trusted the intern's Quake server to plot out her campaign strats is perfectly understandable and excusable, while Sanders barely losing a primary when the entire party establishment was against him and his podunk campaign was announced in a park to 20 bored staffers is the height of failure.

# ? Feb 10, 2017 19:51

Fiction: Apr 28, 2011

Brainiac Five posted:

So you defend yourself from charges of being a conspiracy theorist by insisting you believe politicians should simply transmit the will of the volk. Uh huh.

Weird how this disproportionately focuses on entertainment and banking, and not, say, the auto industry asking for Japan to be denounced as a currency manipulator and forced into opening up their markets, as Rep. Sander Levin made a statement about just this week.

OK first of all how the gently caress are American Jews "the volk." What the gently caress is wrong with you.

Second, "but trump" is the worst goddamn defense I've ever seen for anything involving the DNC.

# ? Feb 10, 2017 19:53

Cease to Hope: Dec 12, 2011

Brainiac Five posted:

Weird how this disproportionately focuses on entertainment and banking, and not, say, the auto industry asking for Japan to be denounced as a currency manipulator and forced into opening up their markets, as Rep. Sander Levin made a statement about just this week.

Haim Saban directly intervened in this election, while auto industry executives did not.

# ? Feb 10, 2017 19:54

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Fiction posted:

OK first of all how the gently caress are American Jews "the volk." What the gently caress is wrong with you.

Second, "but trump" is the worst goddamn defense I've ever seen for anything involving the DNC.

You're the one insisting that these statements are illegitimate because Jewish people in America are less supportive of Zionism now, which implies that the ideal state of politicians is as a passive, soulless entity without thoughts or beliefs of their own, merely reciting what the people believe.

Sander Levin is a Democratic Representative from Michigan. Please don't open your mouth without knowing what you're talking about ever again.

Cease to Hope posted:

Haim Saban directly intervened in this election, while auto industry executives did not.

You don't actually know that. You assume that we would hear about it, rather than it happening via private conversations and backdoor meetings. At least Saban made his accusations public.

# ? Feb 10, 2017 20:02

Megaman's Jockstrap: Jul 16, 2000; What a horrible thread to have a post.

How dare you not manufacture imaginary meetings to support my argument, sir! How dare you!

# ? Feb 10, 2017 20:05

ISeeCuckedPeople: Feb 7, 2017; by Smythe

Death to Israel

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Feb 10, 2017 20:06

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

How dare you not manufacture imaginary meetings to support my argument, sir! How dare you!

The automotive industry of course has no influence on politics, unlike the rootless cosmopolitans of the entertainment industry.

# ? Feb 10, 2017 20:08

Cease to Hope: Dec 12, 2011

Brainiac Five posted:

You don't actually know that. You assume that we would hear about it, rather than it happening via private conversations and backdoor meetings. At least Saban made his accusations public.

On the contrary, people in this thread are assuming it's happening. You were the one who came storming in, insisting that using Saban as an example of large-dollar donors exerting their influence was anti-Semitic.

# ? Feb 10, 2017 20:10

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

It's honestly shocking me how you all are falling all over yourselves to insist Haim Saban is the greatest manipulator in American politics and other industries are basically innocent. Are you doing this out of knee-jerk reaction? I really, really hope so.

# ? Feb 10, 2017 20:10

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Cease to Hope posted:

On the contrary, people in this thread are assuming it's happening. You were the one who came storming in, insisting that using Saban as an example of large-dollar donors exerting their influence was anti-Semitic.

You just said that it wasn't happening. That only Saban had interfered. Lie more convincingly.

After that lie I guess you must be lying about what I said, not simply mistaken. How pitiful!

# ? Feb 10, 2017 20:12

Fiction: Apr 28, 2011

Brainiac Five posted:

It's honestly shocking me how you all are falling all over yourselves to insist Haim Saban is the greatest manipulator in American politics and other industries are basically innocent. Are you doing this out of knee-jerk reaction? I really, really hope so.

Why haven't you been punished for blatantly arguing in bad faith and putting as many words in others' mouths as humanly possible?

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Feb 10, 2017 20:14

Fiction: Apr 28, 2011

Maybe I mentioned Saban because he directly, publicly intervened in this race and is thus a good example to point to? That would be a non-insane interpretation of my post.

# ? Feb 10, 2017 20:17

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Fiction posted:

Maybe I mentioned Saban because he directly, publicly intervened in this race and is thus a good example to point to? That would be a non-insane interpretation of my post.

This doesn't address most of the criticisms I have made, bucko. Your insistence on your own purity and innocence is a major fault you and many others apparently feel the need to show off as much as possible.

# ? Feb 10, 2017 20:18

Cease to Hope: Dec 12, 2011

Brainiac Five posted:

You just said that it wasn't happening. That only Saban had interfered. Lie more convincingly.

I just said only Saban intervened directly. Nobody can name specific donors who intervened indirectly for obvious reasons.

# ? Feb 10, 2017 20:18

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Cease to Hope posted:

I just said only Saban intervened directly. Nobody can name specific donors who intervened indirectly for obvious reasons.

Now we're getting into pedantry, where you try to defend the implicit claim that Saban is more egregious than the auto industry by insisting connotations don't exist. Does this sound convincing to you?

# ? Feb 10, 2017 20:20

RaySmuckles: Oct 14, 2009; Grimey Drawer

oh cool, the intercept has an article about literally everything we're talking about that does a great job of covering it.

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/09/tom-perez-apologizes-for-telling-the-truth-showing-why-democrats-flaws-urgently-need-attention/

The Intercept posted:

THE MORE ALARMED one is by the Trump administration, the more one should focus on how to fix the systemic, fundamental sickness of the Democratic Party. That Hillary Clinton won the meaningless popular vote on her way to losing to Donald Trump, and that the singular charisma of Barack Obama kept him popular, have enabled many to ignore just how broken and failed the Democrats are as a national political force.

An endless array of stunning statistics can be marshaled to demonstrate the extent of that collapse. But perhaps the most compelling piece of evidence is that even one of the U.S. media�s most stalwart Democratic loyalists, writing in an outlet that is as much of a reliable party organ as the DNC itself, has acknowledged the severity of the destruction. �The Obama years have created a Democratic Party that�s essentially a smoking pile of rubble,� wrote Vox�s Matthew Yglesias after the 2016 debacle, adding that �the story of the 21st-century Democratic Party looks to be overwhelmingly the story of failure.�

A failed, collapsed party cannot form an effective resistance. Trump did not become president and the Republicans do not dominate virtually all levels of government because there is some sort of massive surge in enthusiasm for right-wing extremism. Quite the contrary: This all happened because the Democrats are perceived � with good reason � to be out of touch, artificial, talking points-spouting automatons who serve Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the agenda of endless war, led by millionaires and funded by oligarchs to do the least amount possible for ordinary, powerless citizens while still keeping their votes.

What drove Bernie Sanders�s remarkably potent challenge to Hillary Clinton was the extreme animosity of huge numbers of Democrats � led by its youngest voters � to the values, practices, and corporatist loyalties of the party�s establishment. Unlike the 2008 Democratic primary war � which was far more vicious and nasty but devoid of any real ideological conflict � the 2016 primary was grounded in important and substantive disputes about what the Democratic Party should be, what principles should guide it, and, most important of all, whose interests it should serve.

That�s why those disputes have not disappeared with the inauguration of Trump, nor should they. It matters a great deal, perhaps more than anything else, who leads the resistance to Trump and what the nature of that opposition is. Everyone knows the popular clich� that insanity means doing the same thing over and over and expecting different outcomes; it illustrates why Democrats cannot continue as is and expect anything other than ongoing impotence and failure. The party�s steadfast refusal to change course even in symbolic ways � We hereby elevate by acclamation Chuck �Wall Street� Schumer and re-install Nancy �I�m a multimillionaire and we are capitalists� Pelosi � bodes very poorly for its future success.

In sum, demanding that one refrain from critiquing the Democratic Party in order to exclusively denounce Trump over and over is akin to demanding that one single-mindedly denounce cancer without worrying about who the treating doctor is or what type of research is being conducted to cure it. Trump happened because the Democrats failed. And he and similar (or worse) phenomena will continue to happen until they are fixed.

THE OBVIOUS DETERMINATION of Democratic establishment leaders to follow the same failed and dreary course explains why the race for DNC chair has become so heated. In reality, that position is little more than a functionary role � mostly focused on fundraising and building the party apparatus at the state level � but whoever occupies it does serve as a leading public face of the party.

For the last five years, the face of the DNC was the living, breathing embodiment of everything awful about the party: the sleazy, corrupt corporatist, and centrist hawk Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who � as a result of WikiLeaks� publication of DNC emails � had to resign in disgrace after she got caught engaging in sustained cheating in order to ensure that Hillary Clinton would be the party�s nominee.

But her disgrace was short-lived: Upon resigning, she was quickly rewarded for her corruption by being named to a high position with the Clinton campaign, as well as having the D.C. establishment Democrats, led by Joe Biden and Clinton herself, support her in vanquishing a Sanders-supported primary challenger for her seat in Congress. As a result of the support from the party establishment (as well as massive funding from corporate and banking interests), she defeated that challenger, Tim Canova, and the nation rejoiced as she returned for her seventh term in Congress.

Wasserman Schultz was replaced as DNC chair on an interim basis by longtime party operative Donna Brazile, who was quickly engulfed by her own scandal when she got caught secretly passing CNN debate questions to the Clinton campaign, then repeatedly lying about it by denying it and insinuating the emails were forged by the Russians. For that misconduct, CNN fired her, as anchor Jake Tapper denounced her cheating as �horrifying� and CNN said it made the network �completely uncomfortable.�

But Brazile continues to this day to run the DNC. Think about that: Her behavior was so unethical, dishonest, and corrupt that Jeff Zucker-led CNN denounced it and publicly disassociated itself from her. But the DNC seems perfectly comfortable having her continue to lead the party until the next chair is chosen.

Perhaps worse than the serial cheating itself was that it was all in service of coronating a candidate who � as many of us tried to warn at the time � all empirical data showed was the most vulnerable to lose to Donald Trump. So the very same people who bear the blame for Trump�s presidency � by cheating to elevate the candidate most likely to lose to him � continue to dominate the Democratic Party. To describe the situation is to demonstrate the urgency of debating and fixing it, rather than ignoring it in the name of talking only about Trump.

EARLY ON IN the race for DNC chair, Keith Ellison � the first American Muslim ever elected to the U.S. Congress and an early Sanders supporter who resides on the left wing of the party � emerged as a clear favorite. He racked up endorsements not only from progressives like Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Jesse Jackson but also party stalwarts such as Walter Mondale, John Lewis, and even Schumer himself, who seems to recognize that throwing a few symbolic crumbs to the Sanders wing of the party is strategically wise in light of the enduring bitterness many of them harbor toward the DNC�s behavior and the party�s centrist, neoliberal, pro-war policies.

Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn. joins low-wage workers at a rally outside the Capitol in Washington, Monday, April 28, 2014, to urge Congress to raise the minimum wage as lawmakers return to Washington following a two week hiatus. Democrats been pushing to lift the minimum wage but even if any legislation is passed in the Senate, it is certain to be ignored in the Republican-controlled House. (AP Photo) Photo: APBut then panic erupted among the Democratic establishment. It began when Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban � the largest single funder of both the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign � smeared Ellison as �an anti-Semite and anti-Israel individual� and said his election �would be a disaster for the relationship between the Jewish community and the Democratic Party.� In the minds of D.C. mavens, you can�t have someone as chair of the DNC who is disliked by billionaire funders. That is the Democratic Party.

The knives were then out for Ellison, as operatives began dumping controversial college-age comments about Louis Farrakhan and Israel into the media. The New York Times began running articles with headlines such as �Jewish Groups and Unions Grow Uneasy With Keith Ellison� � a strange headline given that Ellison has been endorsed by multiple unions, including the AFL-CIO, the United Steelworkers, UNITE HERE, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, among others. Even unpaid parking tickets from the 1990s made an appearance thanks to Democratic slime artists.

The assault on Ellison�s candidacy was formalized when the Obama White House recruited and promised to back one of its loyalists, Labor Secretary Tom Perez. As he did with his endorsement of Wasserman Schultz, Biden made the establishment�s support for Perez official by publicly endorsing him last week.

Perez is a pleasant liberal and loyal party stalwart: Before the first primary vote was cast, he endorsed Clinton over Sanders and became one of her most outspoken surrogates. Despite claiming to be devoted to American workers, he was a loyal supporter of TPP even after Clinton was forced into insincere opposition.

It�s not hard to see why the Obama and Clinton circles want him to run the party instead of Ellison. He�s acceptable to big donors. He has proven himself loyal to the party establishment�s agenda. He is a reliable party operative. And, most importantly of all, he will change nothing of substance: ensuring that the same policies, rhetoric, and factions that have prevailed continue to do so, all while protecting the power base of the same people who have run the party into the ground.

TWO RECENT INCIDENTS vividly highlight why Tom Perez so perfectly embodies the Democratic Party status quo. The first occurred two weeks ago, when my colleague Zaid Jilani attended an event where Perez was speaking and politely but repeatedly asked him about Israeli human rights abuses � which had been in the news that week because of new demolitions by the IDF of Palestinian homes, and because Perez had been asked about his views on boycotting Israel as a way of stopping its decadeslong occupation.

With the domination of the Democratic Party by Saban and others looming, just watch how this profile in courage who wants to lead the Democratic Party responded to being asked about his opinions on this matter:

An even more illustrative episode occurred late Wednesday. Perez was in Kansas campaigning for votes from county leaders and was asked about the need for the party to retain the support of the Sanders contingent. Perez unexpectedly blurted out a truth that party functionaries to this day steadfastly bury and deny even in the face of the mountain of evidence proving it. This is what Perez said:

(tweet of perez walking away)

An even more illustrative episode occurred late Wednesday. Perez was in Kansas campaigning for votes from county leaders and was asked about the need for the party to retain the support of the Sanders contingent. Perez unexpectedly blurted out a truth that party functionaries to this day steadfastly bury and deny even in the face of the mountain of evidence proving it. This is what Perez said:

We heard loudly and clearly yesterday from Bernie supporters that the process was rigged and it was. And you�ve got to be honest about it. That�s why we need a chair who is transparent.

That�s quite an admission from the party establishment�s own candidate: �The process was rigged.� And he commendably acknowledged how important it is to admit this � �to be honest about it� � because �we need a chair who is transparent.�

But Perez�s commitment to �transparency� and �being honest� had a very short life-span. After his admission predictably caused controversy � with furious Clinton supporters protesting the truth � Perez demonstrated the same leadership qualities that were so evident when Zaid Jilani asked him about Israeli human rights abuses.

He quickly slinked onto Twitter with a series of tweets to retract what he said, claim that he �misspoke� (does anyone know what that word means?), apologize for it, and proclaim Hillary Clinton the fair and rightful winner:

(tweets of perez backtracking)

To ensure there was no mistaking his loyalty oath, he made that last tweet his pinned tweet, ensuring it would sit at the top of his Twitter page. (He also included a couple of scripted, empty banalities about the importance of transparency, objectivity, and �fighting like hell.�)

So in Tom Perez�s conduct, one sees the mentality and posture that has shaped the Democratic Party: a defense of jobs-killing free trade agreements that big corporate funders love; an inability to speak plainly, without desperately clinging to focus-group, talking-points scripts; a petrified fear of addressing controversial issues even (especially) when they involve severe human rights violations by allies; a religious-like commitment never to offend rich donors; and a limitless willingness to publicly abase oneself in pursuit of power by submitting to an apology ritual for having told the truth.

That is the template that has driven the Democratic Party into a ditch so deep and disastrous that even Vox acknowledges it without euphemisms. That is the template that has alienated voters across the country at all levels of elected office and that enabled the Donald Trump presidency. And it is the template that Democratic Party establishment leaders are more determined than ever to protect and further entrench by ensuring that yet another detached, lifeless functionary who embodies it becomes the next face of the party.

One can spend all of one�s time and energy denouncing Donald Trump. But until the systemic causes that gave rise to him are addressed and resolved, those denunciations will do little other than generate social media benefits and flattering applause from those already devoted to opposing him. Focusing on and attempting to counter the fundamental flaws of the Democratic Party is not a distraction from #TheResistance; it is a central priority, a prerequisite for any kind of success.

i feel this sums up the discussion nicely

edit: hey look, brainic! even this article talks about saban!

# ? Feb 10, 2017 20:23

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Sorry maple grampy was less popular than that uppity ballbuster Hollary Klointon and you've invented a fantasy of betrayal to use as a litmus test.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Feb 10, 2017 20:28

RaySmuckles: Oct 14, 2009; Grimey Drawer

Brainiac Five posted:

Sorry maple grampy was less popular than that uppity ballbuster Hollary Klointon and you've invented a fantasy of betrayal to use as a litmus test.

yeah, i'm sorry too. now Donald Trump is president.

# ? Feb 10, 2017 20:31

Fiction: Apr 28, 2011

Hillary Clinton managed to be a worse candidate than Donald Trump lmao.

# ? Feb 10, 2017 20:31

Evrart Claire: Jan 11, 2008

Fiction posted:

Hillary Clinton managed to be a worse candidate than Donald Trump lmao.

And yet Sanders couldn't beat Hillary.

# ? Feb 10, 2017 20:33

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

I enjoy how the Bernie or Bust people are dumb enough to think that open white supremacy and misogyny makes you a bad candidate in American politics. We definitely should let you all have control of anything more important than a model train set.

# ? Feb 10, 2017 20:34

Fiction: Apr 28, 2011

Brainiac Five posted:

I enjoy how the Bernie or Bust people are dumb enough to think that open white supremacy and misogyny makes you a bad candidate in American politics. We definitely should let you all have control of anything more important than a model train set.

Is there a typo in this post? Also being an open white supremacist is a bad thing which is why she should never have been considered for nomination.

# ? Feb 10, 2017 20:35

Brainiac Five: Mar 28, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

Fiction posted:

Is there a typo in this post? Also being an open white supremacist is a bad thing which is why she should never have been considered for nomination.

So do you vary up your Clinton snuff fantasies, or are they fairly consistent?

# ? Feb 10, 2017 20:39

Chelb: Oct 24, 2010; I'm gonna show SA-kun my shitposting!

I think that Ellison is a downright more charismatic figure than Perez - though I don't think that matters much irt being DNC chair - and I think electing Ellison would send a real cool statement. In a world where Republicans control all three branches of government, electing a Muslim person of color is an uplifting message that the Democratic party isn't interested in kowtowing to the GOP's bigotry.

Fiction posted:

Hillary Clinton managed to be a worse candidate than Donald Trump lmao.

RaySmuckles posted:

yeah, i'm sorry too. now Donald Trump is president.

# ? Feb 10, 2017 20:39

BI NOW GAY LATER: Jan 17, 2008; So people stop asking, the "Bi" in my username is a reference to my love for the two greatest collegiate sports programs in the world, the Virginia Tech Hokies and the Marshall Thundering Herd.

RaySmuckles posted:

oh cool, the intercept has an article about literally everything we're talking about that does a great job of covering it.

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/09/tom-perez-apologizes-for-telling-the-truth-showing-why-democrats-flaws-urgently-need-attention/

i feel this sums up the discussion nicely

edit: hey look, brainic! even this article talks about saban!

It kind of plays fast and loose with the truth, as _the Intercept is wont to do, and again, fails to illustrate in any concrete way how Ellison is any different other than, he backed a different candidate (who lost) in the primary, before becoming a vocal supporter of HRC in the general (to the extent that some people ITT were saying how disappointed they were in him.)

So again, my point has been that in typically every case where people are turning this into a proxy primary, they're simply saying BUT ELLISON SUPPORTED BERNIE AND BERNIE LIKES HIMS as sufficient evidence that he is different from Perez in some meaningful way at the job they're both attempting to secure. Who someone supported in a primary should not be a qualification for who is going to run the damned party, I am sorry.

# ? Feb 10, 2017 20:41

Cease to Hope: Dec 12, 2011

Chelb posted:

In a world where Republicans control all three branches of government, electing a Muslim person of color is an uplifting message that the Democratic party isn't interested in kowtowing to the GOP's bigotry.

Barring a Buttigieg upset or an outbreak of Buckleymentum, a man of color is winning no matter what.

# ? Feb 10, 2017 20:42

mcmagic: Jul 1, 2004; If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

It kind of plays fast and loose with the truth, as _the Intercept is wont to do, and again, fails to illustrate in any concrete way how Ellison is any different other than, he backed a different candidate (who lost) in the primary, before becoming a vocal supporter of HRC in the general (to the extent that some people ITT were saying how disappointed they were in him.)

So again, my point has been that in typically every case where people are turning this into a proxy primary, they're simply saying BUT ELLISON SUPPORTED BERNIE AND BERNIE LIKES HIMS as sufficient evidence that he is different from Perez in some meaningful way at the job they're both attempting to secure. Who someone supported in a primary should not be a qualification for who is going to run the damned party, I am sorry.

Can't you see that Ellison is about 100x more charismatic than Perez is at AT WORST a much better TV surrogate?

Brainiac Five posted:

I enjoy how the Bernie or Bust people are dumb enough to think that open white supremacy and misogyny makes you a bad candidate in American politics. We definitely should let you all have control of anything more important than a model train set.

Trump was NOT a good candidate.

# ? Feb 10, 2017 20:43

Chelb: Oct 24, 2010; I'm gonna show SA-kun my shitposting!

Cease to Hope posted:

Barring a Buttigieg upset or an outbreak of Buckleymentum, a man of color is winning no matter what.

Well, yeah. Sorry if that post sounded like I was ignoring that Perez is Hispanic.

# ? Feb 10, 2017 20:43

Fiction: Apr 28, 2011

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

It kind of plays fast and loose with the truth, as _the Intercept is wont to do, and again, fails to illustrate in any concrete way how Ellison is any different other than, he backed a different candidate (who lost) in the primary, before becoming a vocal supporter of HRC in the general (to the extent that some people ITT were saying how disappointed they were in him.)

So again, my point has been that in typically every case where people are turning this into a proxy primary, they're simply saying BUT ELLISON SUPPORTED BERNIE AND BERNIE LIKES HIMS as sufficient evidence that he is different from Perez in some meaningful way at the job they're both attempting to secure. Who someone supported in a primary should not be a qualification for who is going to run the damned party, I am sorry.

It's not "whether he showed the suitable deference to St. Bernie" and more "how aware is he about how pissed the base is." I trust Ellison more on that front of knowing what people want out of the party.

Brainiac Five posted:

So do you vary up your Clinton snuff fantasies, or are they fairly consistent?

The only fantasy I have involving Clinton involves a quiet retirement in Chappaqua and maybe some philanthropy work.

# ? Feb 10, 2017 20:44

BI NOW GAY LATER: Jan 17, 2008; So people stop asking, the "Bi" in my username is a reference to my love for the two greatest collegiate sports programs in the world, the Virginia Tech Hokies and the Marshall Thundering Herd.

mcmagic posted:

Can't you see that Ellison is about 100x more charismatic than Perez is at AT WORST a much better TV surrogate?

I support Ellison and this is a big reason why. That's a valid criticism. "He didn't support bernie in the primary," isn't.

Fiction posted:

It's not "whether he showed the suitable deference to St. Bernie" and more "how aware is he about how pissed the base is." I trust Ellison more on that front of knowing what people want out of the party.

Based on you not knowing that the Secretary of Labor is going to back the president's initiative?

BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Feb 10, 2017

# ? Feb 10, 2017 20:44

The Glumslinger: Sep 24, 2008; Coach Nagy, you want me to throw to WHAT side of the field?; Hair Elf

mcmagic posted:

Can't you see that Ellison is about 100x more charismatic than Perez is at AT WORST a much better TV surrogate?

Trump was NOT a good candidate.

He managed to best ever republican field ( :lol:

)

Whether he intended to or not, he tapped into the pure id of a lot americans

# ? Feb 10, 2017 20:44

Dr. Fishopolis: Aug 31, 2004; ROBOT

RaySmuckles posted:

oh cool, the intercept has an article about literally everything we're talking about that does a great job of covering it.

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/09/tom-perez-apologizes-for-telling-the-truth-showing-why-democrats-flaws-urgently-need-attention/

i feel this sums up the discussion nicely

edit: hey look, brainic! even this article talks about saban!

See, I hadn't watched Perez completely stonewall that reporter. This article genuinely changed my mind.

I'm still not convinced that Ellison would hold any different position re: israel than Perez would, but I'm fairly confident he wouldn't slink away from a fair, direct question like that like a loving coward.

# ? Feb 10, 2017 20:45