|
Cease to Hope posted:Noted accelerationist bernouts Chuck Schumer, John Lewis, Elizabeth Warren, and, uh, Bernie Sanders. This is baldly dishonest and I don't know why you lie so poorly.
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 17:00 |
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Noted accelerationist bernouts Chuck Schumer, John Lewis, Elizabeth Warren, and, uh, Bernie Sanders. I meant your average person, not the party establishment. There's a shitload of dumb, butthurt people who didn't show up to vote or voted third party and were mad about Crooked Hillary who want Ellison. Ellison is Cool and Good. So give them Ellison. It's a win-win to me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Ellison losing to Perez sends a really terrible message to the activist base. Because they set it up as a false choice? Maybe they should put on their big kid pants and pick better fights? Hell that's half of the left's problem -- picking the right loving targets for poo poo. Megaman's Jockstrap posted:That's their senior editor, Glenn Greenwald, describing the kind of journalism he wants in an interview in 2013. Lol, a yes this 2013 article that has been completely disproven by everything they've published since launching, including in the piece quoted where they did the exact thing i mentioned. And please, stop calling everything gaslighting. It's offensive. And this isn't really the thread for it, but uh, Gleen Greenwald being a self-righteous prick is pretty well known. Lightning Knight posted:Last I heard they wanted him to do something in Maryland if he didn't become DNC chair, no? Either Governor or Senator, I don't recall. Maryland governor I think. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Feb 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Well then poo poo, might as well get started on murdering and robbing people since I can just lie about doing it and no one will be able to tell. No you simply don't run campaigns or policies based on truths you run them on lies that sound good. Bernie got this 80% right. At least the policy that sounded good part. If he had used lies he would have run. Us: "Were the richest nation on earth and super special, God has choosen us. Because of that magical ability of America we can give everyone in this country healthcare, and balance the budget and destroy the deficit, without increasing taxes for anyone, and we'll make Russia pay for it! Because we are America!" Them: "Wtf, no you can't" Us: "America! USA, USA USA! Make America Exceptional Again!" Them: "your lying." Us: "no your lying and you hate America's exceptionalism. USA USA USA." Thats loving politics 101
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:No you simply don't run campaigns or policies based on truths you run them on lies that sound good. No it's not. Like, this is poo poo even the most blatant apologists for tyrannical dictatorships (Legalism, etc. would condemn). Because it's birdbrained.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Because they set it up as a false choice? Maybe they should put on their big kid pants and pick better fights? Hell that's half of the left's problem -- picking the right loving targets for poo poo. It can't help but be a fight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Hey is effectronica going to explain how I am a anti Semite for wanting money spent on middle eastern countries instead spent on free college ?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:This is baldly dishonest and I don't know why you lie so poorly. Lightning Knight posted:I meant your average person, not the party establishment. The DNC race is a symbolic struggle between the Sanders wing of the party and much of the rest of it, but it's not a re-run of the primary, and the "Sanders wing" doesn't map perfectly onto the people who supported Sanders in the primary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:No it's not. Like, this is poo poo even the most blatant apologists for tyrannical dictatorships (Legalism, etc. would condemn). Because it's birdbrained. Except thats literally how Trump won the election. gently caress it's how Clinton won the election too. He was the best at lying through his teeth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:The DNC race is a symbolic struggle between the Sanders wing of the party and much of the rest of it, but it's not a re-run of the primary, and the "Sanders wing" doesn't map perfectly onto the people who supported Sanders in the primary. Ok, but the basic point still stands. You can placate people who are really mad by giving them the candidate they want. The candidate they want happens to be cool, good, and qualified. So everybody wins. Perez gets to go try to be Governor of Maryland or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Hey is effectronica going to explain how I am a anti Semite for wanting money spent on middle eastern countries instead spent on free college ? I will if you tell me about BOFA.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It can't help but be a fight. I don't think creating it as some sort of conflict that it's not is a good idea. I've said that all the way along. I like Perez, and I am mildly annoyed that Bernie decided to shove himself into the race, but I support Ellison. We have so much other poo poo we need to be focusing on and so many other people in the party that we need to be hounding that getting all worked up like this is the biggest decision we're going to make, when it's fairly low on the priorities list, seems like a waste of limited resources. Like, I'd way rather y'all who are really worried about the future of the Democratic party, be calling up House Reps and Senators and getting involved in community action groups. Like, call Nancy Pelosi and tell her that you think we need to go full obstruction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I will if you tell me about BOFA. I don't know what that even is. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Feb 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:29
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I don't know what the even is. BOFA DEEZ NUTS
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Like, I'd way rather y'all who are really worried about the future of the Democratic party, be calling up House Reps and Senators and getting involved in community action groups. Like, call Nancy Pelosi and tell her that you think we need to go full obstruction. I think we should be doing both. And the DNC chair does matter because it affects people's idea of the impartiality of party functions, which continue to be in question.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I don't think creating it as some sort of conflict that it's not is a good idea. I've said that all the way along. I like Perez, and I am mildly annoyed that Bernie decided to shove himself into the race, but I support Ellison. We have so much other poo poo we need to be focusing on and so many other people in the party that we need to be hounding that getting all worked up like this is the biggest decision we're going to make, when it's fairly low on the priorities list, seems like a waste of limited resources. Why the gently caress wasn't this election 2 months ago? They are leaving so much on the table like, right now with so much activism going on that they should be channeling. Also, it's not just Bernie. Most of the senate caucus supports Ellison.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
Fiction posted:And the DNC chair does matter because it affects people's idea of the impartiality of party functions, which continue to be in question. This is the made up stupid poo poo I was talking about. mcmagic posted:Why the gently caress wasn't this election 2 months ago? They are leaving so much on the table like, right now with so much activism going on that they should be channeling. I mean it's been set for this date for like a year plus now, but I am generally in agreement we should have had a leader in place before the inauguration for no other reason than we absolutely don't need this kind of duck season rabbit season distraction. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Feb 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
Are we now disputing that DWS and Brazile did in fact act in a way that was unethical and more importantly looked really stupid for no particular gain? I think that arguing that the primaries were rigged or that Hillary didn't otherwise legitimately win substantially more votes is silly but the DNC did attempt to cheat. Poorly, like morons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Why would Biden's endorsement be a big tipping point? The man isn't in office anymore and always had O'Malley numbers when he ran for president. Most of the DNC members are sitting politicians or party chairs, wouldn't they be the ones most likely to know how badly the Obama years hosed them? Or is that indicative of the institutional rot?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:This is the made up stupid poo poo I was talking about. Oh word?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Are we now disputing that DWS and Brazile did in fact act in a way that was unethical and more importantly looked really stupid for no particular gain? They didn't "cheat" or "rig the system." The calendar was set before Bernie ran. The super-delegate system hasn't changed since like 1984. The DNC emails only revealed some mildly stupid poo poo, but conveniently missed where we know the DNC helped Sanders campaign as well. Fiction posted:Oh word? Primaries aren't and have never really been democratic. Did you know that Bernie is a senator because the DNC cleared the field for him in Vermont when he ran, and gave him a whole bunch of money? Like it's always been part of the process.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
OK, and clearing the field in that manner got a terrible candidate nominated who lost to an insane reality TV star. Maybe we should be looking towards an alternative for Dem primaries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:They didn't "cheat" or "rig the system." The calendar was set before Bernie ran. The super-delegate system hasn't changed since like 1984. The DNC emails only revealed some mildly stupid poo poo, but conveniently missed where we know the DNC helped Sanders campaign as well. I categorically do not think the primaries were rigged or that anything the DNC did had a substantial impact on who won. But the DNC did act like morons and ended up looking really bad. Perception matters more than reality and so here we are with millions of dumb people who legitimately believe Bernie would've won if not for the DNC  .What does "clearing the field" actually entail? I keep seeing diehard Bernie supporters complaining about it. Is it just up-and-coming people deciding not to run because they're told this one person has a lot of institutional support or are they being taken to a back room and ordered not to run? Like what is the assertion here?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
Fiction posted:OK, and clearing the field in that manner got a terrible candidate nominated who lost to an insane reality TV star. Maybe we should be looking towards an alternative for Dem primaries. Ah, yes, caucuses. Smoke-filled back rooms. Or maybe banning campaign staffing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Ah, yes, caucuses. Smoke-filled back rooms. Or maybe banning campaign staffing? Maybe we should have all open primaries and not allow for backdoor scheming that clears the field for a uniquely weak candidate because she shook the correct hands.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
Fiction posted:Maybe we should have all open primaries and not allow for backdoor scheming that clears the field for a uniquely weak candidate because she shook the correct hands. And took the right bribes
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:What does "clearing the field" actually entail? I keep seeing diehard Bernie supporters complaining about it. Is it just up-and-coming people deciding not to run because they're told this one person has a lot of institutional support or are they being taken to a back room and ordered not to run? Like what is the assertion here? It's back room dealing where you more or less tell people not to run because you won't support them. So like, when Bernie ran for senate, the DSCC declined to recruit a challenger and made it known they were going to support Bernie. Fiction posted:OK, and clearing the field in that manner got a terrible candidate nominated who lost to an insane reality TV star. Maybe we should be looking towards an alternative for Dem primaries. And both Perez and Ellison have said they believe we need to reform the process? That's very different from what you said though. Fiction posted:Maybe we should have all open primaries and not allow for backdoor scheming that clears the field for a uniquely weak candidate because she shook the correct hands. The DNC has near zero power over whether a Primary is open or not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Fiction posted:Maybe we should have all open primaries and not allow for backdoor scheming that clears the field for a uniquely weak candidate because she shook the correct hands. We definitely should go back to brokered conventions and also eagerly welcome Operation Chaosing of critical primaries by Republicans. These are smart loving ideas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:It's back room dealing where you more or less tell people not to run because you won't support them. So like, when Bernie ran for senate, the DSCC declined to recruit a challenger and made it known they were going to support Bernie. Do you feel that this is a good thing or a bad thing, on principle? In the sense that it exists at all, not in its practical application.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Do you feel that this is a good thing or a bad thing, on principle? In the sense that it exists at all, not in its practical application. There's utility in it. My preference is for open elections that are transparent, but I am not naive enough to think that sort of thing can be eliminated from the system. I mean Primary Elections are a relatively new thing, and they're a relatively unique part of our democratic system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:We definitely should go back to brokered conventions and also eagerly welcome Operation Chaosing of critical primaries by Republicans. These are smart loving ideas. I'm glad your fear of trolling Republicans overshadows your desire for the Democrats to be able to run candidates for an increasingly unaligned electorate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Keep in mind that winnowing candidates via multi-round primaries would further depress participation in primaries (leaving aside the extent to which this would be practical under the basic system of winning delegates) and IRV/AV systems have not worked quite as advertised when implemented.Fiction posted:I'm glad your fear of trolling Republicans overshadows your desire for the Democrats to be able to run candidates for an increasingly unaligned electorate. The electorate is increasingly polarized, actually. Party membership declining probably has more to do with why membership in Elks Clubs has declined than with childish fantasies about how the evil neoliberals will all explode by 2019.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Fiction posted:I'm glad your fear of trolling Republicans overshadows your desire for the Democrats to be able to run candidates for an increasingly unaligned electorate. BUt you do understand that closed/open primary isn't really upto to the DNC, yes? Like the only way for the DNC to do that involves some explicitly undemocratic methods of punishing voters for decisions made by their states and state parties.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
Does open primary mean that you don't have to be a registered member of the party to vote? I believe we have that in Wisconsin, it doesn't seem awful. Is brigading/outside sabotage by conservatives a meaningful problem?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:BUt you do understand that closed/open primary isn't really upto to the DNC, yes? I know, but the DNC is uniquely positioned to pressure state committees on how to run their poo poo. That doesn't have any bearing on who I prefer though because as you said, both want to reform the process. Also as a note to who is winning: I emailed my state chair about the chair election this morning and he responded saying he was going to a summit this weekend to learn more about the candidates. So it's still up in the air at least to the public.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Does open primary mean that you don't have to be a registered member of the party to vote? It handed Michigan to George Wallace. It happens, especially when there's an incumbent president running for a second term.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:It handed Michigan to George Wallace. It happens, especially when there's an incumbent president running for a second term. I see. On balance, would we gain more from having open primaries than we'd lose?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I see. On balance, would we gain more from having open primaries than we'd lose? I think that depends on the state, to be honest. Which is why letting state parties decide is probably the best idea.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Does open primary mean that you don't have to be a registered member of the party to vote? I think there are argument for and against open primary systems. On one hand, nominating a candidate for represent the party is, explicitly, not entirely a democratic imperative and, as I said, is a relatively new idea -- primaries weren't really a thing until the 60's and 70's-- but on the other-hand, there's a lot of value in the whole process being "open" and democratic as a matter of principle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 17:00 |
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I think there are argument for and against open primary systems. On one hand, nominating a candidate for represent the party is, explicitly, not entirely a democratic imperative and, as I said, is a relatively new idea -- primaries weren't really a thing until the 60's and 70's-- but on the other-hand, there's a lot of value in the whole process being "open" and democratic as a matter of principle. Brainiac Five posted:I think that depends on the state, to be honest. Which is why letting state parties decide is probably the best idea. So I guess the real question is, how do we get more people to actually participate in the primary process?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2017 22:03
|
|