|
cool well if I have a time machine I'll go back and vote for Al Gore again, in the meantime here in the year 2017 if the establishment candidate gets to lead the party then the party is going to have to earn my vote again, instead of just getting it automatically like they have in the past seems reasonable to me but I guess anything less than blind fealty to our DNC overlords is treason for some 
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
political parties are false gods and I eagerly await our inevitable libertarian socialist future when we can do away with this poo poo
Venomous fucked around with this message at 13:28 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Unlike the absolutely magnificent accomplishments of the 50 or so Socialist, Greens or "pure leftist" parties in those areas. If memory serves me right more Democrats voted for Bush than Greens voted for Nader. But that doesn't fit into The Narative so... Kilroy posted:seems reasonable to me but I guess anything less than blind fealty to our DNC overlords is treason for some Yeah I'm not seeing the issue here. We're not asking for perfection on every issue. We just want someone we reasonably feel will work in our interests. Unfortunately most of the major players in the Domocratic party don't meet this standard. readingatwork fucked around with this message at 13:45 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:
Well and Trump, considering Jill Stein was likely also a Russian stooge who was coerced to run aggressively to siphon off Clinton votes. Third Parties Are For Idiots. readingatwork posted:Yeah I'm not seeing the issue here. We're not asking for perfection on every issue. We just want someone we reasonably feel will work in our interests. Unfortunately most of the major players in the Domocratic party don't meet this standard. Yep because complete Republican Party control of the Federal government is going to be sooo good for your interests 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
axeil posted:Well and Trump, considering Jill Stein was likely also a Russian stooge who was coerced to run aggressively to siphon off Clinton votes. what on earth does this conspiracy theory bullcrap have to do with the DNC chair race
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
axeil posted:Yep because complete Republican Party control of the Federal government is going to be sooo good for your interests Not really. But kicking them out means little if the people who replace them just do slightly less terrible versions of the same things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
I believe that Perez as DNC chair represents the old guard desperately clinging to power, but if he wins and immediately comes out of the gate swinging on voter registration drives, pushing back on voter suppression, and getting more involved at the state and local level, I will be more than happy to admit I was wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Voting for the lesser of two evils while the Democrats have gone to utter poo poo since LBJ is what got us Donald Trump. Actually I think if you look closely you'll find that voting for the greater of two evils is what got us trump. You have this weird insistence that it's the democrats fault that Trump is president even though the Republicans are the ones who ran him and voted for him and in fact many democrats actually voted in the general election for the most likely other person to win and in turn prevent him from winning. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:I believe that Perez as DNC chair represents the old guard desperately clinging to power, but if he wins and immediately comes out of the gate swinging on voter registration drives, pushing back on voter suppression, and getting more involved at the state and local level, I will be more than happy to admit I was wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if Perez is being seen as a sop to labor, the same way Ellison is often seen as a gesture toward the more progressive side of the party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:I believe that Perez as DNC chair represents the old guard desperately clinging to power, but if he wins and immediately comes out of the gate swinging on voter registration drives, pushing back on voter suppression, and getting more involved at the state and local level, I will be more than happy to admit I was wrong. It certainly would be better than nothing, but at the same time far less then what the party and more importantly the country would need. Admittedly, I still don't think Perez and Ellison are that different and the head of the DNC only has so much power but I am pretty skeptical (or rather I have little to no faith) that there is going to ever going to be shift to the left on economic issues from the Democrats. The problem is they really need to, especially regarding wages and the ACA. At the same time, third parties are never going to national influence, our system is simply designed around two parties. Nevertheless, it is hard not to see much change even if Trump (or Pence?) is eventually defeated. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Actually I think if you look closely you'll find that voting for the greater of two evils is what got us trump. You have this weird insistence that it's the democrats fault that Trump is president even though the Republicans are the ones who ran him and voted for him and in fact many democrats actually voted in the general election for the most likely other person to win and in turn prevent him from winning. it is dems fault. they had an easy election and they flubbed it hard with an unlikeable candidate who apparently can't figure out how to campaign. trump is an incompetent boob and his presidency so far has made that drat obvious, but the dems couldn't pull out a win against him even though he was their favored candidate. it's dems job to convince people to vote for them, and they absolutely refuse to do that and instead rely on party loyalty to win them election.the dems need to stop being just the lesser evil and actually appeal to someone other than wall street.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:cool well if I have a time machine I'll go back and vote for Al Gore again, in the meantime here in the year 2017 if the establishment candidate gets to lead the party then the party is going to have to earn my vote again, instead of just getting it automatically like they have in the past you have to remember that for a lot of these centrist democrats, it is not the job of the dem party to earn your vote. it's your job to earn the dem party's support by voting for them long enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it is dems fault. they had an easy election and they flubbed it hard with an unlikeable candidate who apparently can't figure out how to campaign. There isn't a rolleyes big enough for this. People voted for her in the primary. You may not like it but acting as though refusal to appeal to you is the cause of all the nation's woes is incredibly childish. If you are making this DNC thing a proxy battle for your leftist vote you are an idiot. If you don't care who they pick because they didn't elect Bernie you don't need to post in this thread. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:I believe that Perez as DNC chair represents the old guard desperately clinging to power, but if he wins and immediately comes out of the gate swinging on voter registration drives, pushing back on voter suppression, and getting more involved at the state and local level, I will be more than happy to admit I was wrong. He's already said he wants to most of those things? I don't know why you all insist on making this about the "establishment vs the outsiders" when it's about two relatively center-left folks with ties primarily to the Obama-wing of the Party running for an inside baseball position. They're both supported and opposed by people from all the primary wings of the party, as well. They've both been clear they believe the party needs to change. I will say that the national party does not need to be more involved at the local and state level directly. No one really wants that, but they do need to provide more resources to state and local levels.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
Gorelab posted:I wouldn't be surprised if Perez is being seen as a sop to labor, the same way Ellison is often seen as a gesture toward the more progressive side of the party. Hard to see that given the AFL-CIO's Ellison endorsement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:There isn't a rolleyes big enough for this. People voted for her in the primary. You may not like it but acting as though refusal to appeal to you is the cause of all the nation's woes is incredibly childish. people voted for her after the dem party chanted in chorus that she was the most qualified and electable candidate possible. dems lying to their base is a good part of our nation's woes right now, the other part being said candidate's arrogance and foolishness that let caused her to lose to an incompetent fascist clown who can barely read.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
Condiv posted:people voted for her Either can do a great job, that's why they both have so many endorsements. Some leftists are gonna be big babies about the party not leaping left fast enough, and those idiots can get hosed. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
Condiv posted:people voted for her after the dem party chanted in chorus that she was the most qualified and electable candidate possible. dems lying to their base is a good part of our nation's woes right now, the other part being said candidate's arrogance and foolishness that let caused her to lose to an incompetent fascist clown who can barely read. I'd also like to point out that her approval ratings were underwater with anyone who wasn't a registered Democrat since before Medicare existed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Great. Your insane hatred has nothing to do with Perez/Ellison you big baby. A person who voted for Hilary in the general has less responsibility for Trump than literally every single other person in the country. i didn't say anything about the people who voted for hillary in the general being responsible for trump. the dems are. also, i was responding to your assertion that dems weren't responsible for trump, so if you want to only talk about perez/ellison don't talk about trump and who's responsible for him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Actually I think if you look closely you'll find that voting for the greater of two evils is what got us trump. You have this weird insistence that it's the democrats fault that Trump is president even though the Republicans are the ones who ran him and voted for him and in fact many democrats actually voted in the general election for the most likely other person to win and in turn prevent him from winning. Blaming Republicans isn't helpful. We can't exercize any pressure on them and they aren't going away. They are going to be there as a malevolent force in our politics for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Blaming Republicans isn't helpful. We can't exercize any pressure on them and they aren't going away. They are going to be there as a malevolent force in our politics for the foreseeable future. Blaming people in general isn't helpful, but blaming the exact wrong people seems worse to me, for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Blaming Republicans isn't helpful. We can't exercize any pressure on them and they aren't going away. They are going to be there as a malevolent force in our politics for the foreseeable future. Which is why voting for the lesser of two evils, rather than purity posturing, is your ethical duty.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Which is why voting for the lesser of two evils, rather than purity posturing, is your ethical duty. voting is not a duty at all. that's why it's legal to not bother voting. the longer you keep pretending that people are obligated to vote for your party, instead of trying to convince them to vote for your party, the more support the dems will bleed. hth
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Which is why voting for the lesser of two evils, rather than purity posturing, is your ethical duty. I agree with this. Condiv posted:voting is not a duty at all. that's why it's legal to not bother voting. the longer you keep pretending that people are obligated to vote for your party, instead of trying to convince them to vote for your party, the more support the dems will bleed. hth Being ethically obligated to vote for the lessor of 2 evils isn't the same thing as being obligated to vote for a certain party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Being ethically obligated to vote for the lessor of 2 evils isn't the same thing as being obligated to vote for a certain party. no it's just effectively the same thing also, pretending it is an ethical obligation is just a nice excuse for the "lesser evil" refusing to appeal to voters, otherwise you're saying over half of the US is unethical
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Which is why voting for the lesser of two evils, rather than purity posturing, is your ethical duty. I don't think you realize just how toxic this argument is. Too many cycles of terrible options sours people on democracy itself and makes people like Trump possible in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no it's just effectively the same thing OTOH you have people who get almost exactly what they want., but decry it because it's not exactly what they want or it's not presented to them by the person they want, so?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:OTOH you have people who get almost exactly what they want., but decry it because it's not exactly what they want or it's not presented to them by the person they want, so? Usually when I hear this argument made the "small problems" with a candidate are actually pretty big. Like the Clintons spending the entire 90's stabbing the left in the back and then running on more of the same.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Blaming people in general isn't helpful, but blaming the exact wrong people seems worse to me, for some reason. I don't think it's unreasonable to feel like the DNC had some complicity in Trump's election. I also don't think you're doing any good by dismissing people who feel that way. I also think democrats who are unwilling to examine what went wrong, why the message of the DNC isn't resonating and what needs to change right now for it to be effective should sit down and get out of the way. Defending Hillary does no good for anyone at this point. She lost, and she's out of the game. The only way forward is to focus only on what works, and it's increasingly clear that centrism and compromise with the right is not it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:OTOH you have people who get almost exactly what they want., but decry it because it's not exactly what they want or it's not presented to them by the person they want, so? they're not unethical because they disagree with you. and clearly they disagree with you on what they want because by your estimation they should be happy, but they're not
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Lesser evilism is a dumb concept anyway. We live in a country that has two major parties to represent 300+ million people. No single candidate is going to perfectly appeal to everyone in either party. It also equates that both choices are even remotely similar, which they're not, unless you really think a Clinton administration would also be trying to dismantle every regulatory agency.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Usually when I hear this argument made the "small problems" with a candidate are actually pretty big. Like the Clintons spending the entire 90's stabbing the left in the back and then running on more of the same. Wherein you treat Hillary and Bill as the same person and also get your history wrong about Bill "stabbing the left in the back" (He didn't, because he never ran on a promise to do anything for the left.) Condiv posted:they're not unethical because they disagree with you. and clearly they disagree with you on what they want because by your estimation they should be happy, but they're not This is rhetorical nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:I'd also like to point out that her approval ratings were underwater with anyone who wasn't a registered Democrat since before Medicare existed. She was in college when Medicare came out tho? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no it's just effectively the same thing Of course half the US is unethical. That is low.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:This is rhetorical nonsense. not really. you're deciding what people should want and saying they're unethical for not agreeing with that decision. it's p hosed up imo mcmagic posted:Of course half the US is unethical. That is low. well then we have very little to discuss. i don't believe over half the US is unethical cause they don't vote. i think our political system is not really representing a large portion of the populace, which explains why such a large portion of the population doesn't bother to vote. i don't think pretending they're unethical helps convince them to vote nor is constructive at all. Condiv fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Feb 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Condiv posted:not really. you're deciding what people should want and saying they're unethical for not agreeing with that decision. it's p hosed up imo I am not saying they're unethical. I am saying they're impossible to please.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:She was in college when Medicare came out tho? It, uh, was a figure of speech.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:It, uh, was a figure of speech. This is the problem with old politicians man. I completely thought you were serious because she's almost old enough for that to make sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
*loses 900+ seats* this is fine. we are okay with the events that are currently unfolding. the current party leadership will be okay
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Wherein you treat Hillary and Bill as the same person and also get your history wrong about Bill "stabbing the left in the back" (He didn't, because he never ran on a promise to do anything for the left.) I hadn't realized that running for president as the candidate for the left wing political party of the united states doesn't count as a promise to do things for the left.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2017 17:15
|
|