|
Fiction posted:The optics are that a candidate who is widely liked among both disaffected progressives and the party establishment itself is being contested by proxy by the Obama wing with a candidate who has no such credentials. It's a blatant power grab. Except that's not true? Perez, until like a month ago when y'all decided he was Hitler, was widely liked by Progressives. Hell he was the person progressives were hoping Hillary would pick as her VP. Like if Perez becomes chair, it's not as if nothing is going to change. Things will still change. Like Perez isn't some "centrist rear end in a top hat who loves him some big banks." Dude is a progressive who's spent his entire loving life fighting for people.
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 15:53 |
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Except that's not true? Perez, until like a month ago when y'all decided he was Hitler, was widely liked by Progressives. Hell he was the person progressives were hoping Hillary would pick as her VP. Then why do I keep insisting otherwise huh smartguy?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Except that's not true? Perez, until like a month ago when y'all decided he was Hitler, was widely liked by Progressives. Hell he was the person progressives were hoping Hillary would pick as her VP. Like if Perez becomes chair, it's not as if nothing is going to change. Things will still change. Like Perez isn't some "centrist rear end in a top hat who loves him some big banks." Dude is a progressive who's spent his entire loving life fighting for people. He may have been widely liked but he was not liked in the same way Ellison was liked- i.e. progressives actually wanted him to be chair. Then Perez came in long after a candidate appeared who could bridge the gap, basically said he would do the same thing as Ellison, hewed slightly closer to the lobbyist wing of the party in his rhetoric, and now we're being told to fall in line again because chances are the unelected representatives voting in this race prefer to keep their stranglehold on all party functions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Then why do I keep insisting otherwise huh smartguy? you also keep insisting you make good posts
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Condiv posted:yes, i'm sure he'll be ethical. he's already done a good job of showing his ethics by letting banks who foreclose on active duty service members illegally get off with a slap on the wrist His boss was working on a plea bargain, which unlike a trial guaranteed immediate relief for the victims. Perez had zero power to overrule him. The intercept rots your brain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
Fiction posted:There's documented evidence that he was pushed by Obama's wing of the party to run because they fear giving any concessions whatsoever to the Sanderistas. This right here is why we have a problem with him. Perez is in the race in an attempt to "save" the party from the people who opposed Hillary Clinton in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Then why do I keep insisting otherwise huh smartguy? All I'm saying is it's incredibly transparent what they tried to do by having him enter this race to contest Ellison. He might talk the same exact talk but why even run if he's also planning to walk the exact same walk?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
Did the Tea Party oppose Reince Priebus when he was made RNC chair?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Fiction posted:He may have been widely liked but he was not liked in the same way Ellison was liked- i.e. progressives actually wanted him to be chair. Then Perez came in long after a candidate appeared who could bridge the gap, basically said he would do the same thing as Ellison, hewed slightly closer to the lobbyist wing of the party in his rhetoric, and now we're being told to fall in line again because chances are the unelected representatives voting in this race prefer to keep their stranglehold on all party functions. No one's telling you "fall in line." We're telling you that if Perez does win, that it's not the end of the universe and that you should channel your energy into making sure he does what you want to be done. Go and get involved in state and local party membership. Take the drat party over from the bottom up. Go, grab three of your friends, and attend a meeting of the local party. Go to town halls, go to city council meetings, go to board of education meetings. Condiv posted:yes, i'm sure he'll be ethical. he's already done a good job of showing his ethics by letting banks who foreclose on active duty service members illegally get off with a slap on the wrist Boy howdy I am glad you have zero clue what you're talking about. Fiction posted:All I'm saying is it's incredibly transparent what they tried to do by having him enter this race to contest Ellison. He might talk the same exact talk but why even run if he's also planning to walk the exact same walk? And you think it's okay for Bernie to have no doubt pushed Ellison to run for the same reason?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:His boss was working on a plea bargain, which unlike a trial guaranteed immediate relief for the victims. Perez had zero power to overrule him. The intercept rots your brain. don't try to pretend he was opposed or he would've done something different if he could've. he went on as head of the DoL to give waivers to banks who had repeatedly and frequently violated the law to manage pensions. he's a friend of big banks, through and through
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Her winning by 3 million votes? People took the wrong lesson from this, by the way. The story should have been "Holy poo poo, some nothing senator who wasn't even a Democrat came really really close to beating someone with the name recognition of Hillary Clinton, maybe we ought to re-think our positions." "Nah lol."
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Fiction posted:He may have been widely liked but he was not liked in the same way Ellison was liked- i.e. progressives actually wanted him to be chair. Then Perez came in long after a candidate appeared who could bridge the gap, basically said he would do the same thing as Ellison, hewed slightly closer to the lobbyist wing of the party in his rhetoric, and now we're being told to fall in line again because chances are the unelected representatives voting in this race prefer to keep their stranglehold on all party functions. All while having 1/1000th the charisma and presence on TV and having never won an election for anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:No one's telling you "fall in line." We're telling you that if Perez does win, that it's not the end of the universe and that you should channel your energy into making sure he does what you want to be done. Go and get involved in state and local party membership. Take the drat party over from the bottom up. Go, grab three of your friends, and attend a meeting of the local party. Go to town halls, go to city council meetings, go to board of education meetings. Trust me, I plan to show up and run for state delegate in march. All I'm telling you guys in this thread is that if Perez gets elected, the message is loud and clear to all progressives that the party is more interested in retaining what tiny vestiges of power they have left than even listening to what a huge portion of the base wants.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:And you think it's okay for Bernie to have no doubt pushed Ellison to run for the same reason? When Bernie pushed Keith to run there was no figure who had announced that would reunite the two cleaved portions of the party. When Obama pushed Perez to run there was, and Obama cared more about losing control than listening to what the most engaged part of the base had to say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
What is the argument for Perez again? He's got a lot of union support? All I'm hearing is "no really he's not that bad and is basically the same as Ellison" Why am I supposed to like Perez over Ellison?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:All while having 1/1000th the charisma and presence on TV and having never won an election for anything. DNC Chair doesn't need to really have won an election, tbqh. I think the other part is important though. Fiction posted:Trust me, I plan to show up and run for state delegate in march. All I'm telling you guys in this thread is that if Perez gets elected, the message is loud and clear to all progressives that the party is more interested in retaining what tiny vestiges of power they have left than even listening to what a huge portion of the base wants. There's no such thing as the "democratic base." And it's not loud and clear to "all progressives" because you do not speak for all progressives. The Bernie Show ain't the only show in town dude.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Fiction posted:Trust me, I plan to show up and run for state delegate in march. All I'm telling you guys in this thread is that if Perez gets elected, the message is loud and clear to all progressives that the party is more interested in retaining what tiny vestiges of power they have left than even listening to what a huge portion of the base wants. I think this is true, even if it's not the message they would be intending to send. Just as the message The Elites would receive from the progressive wing would be "we are more interested in symbolic concessions than actual results," even when I know for a fact that's not the message anyone is trying to send. That crossed wiring is one reason I've avoided getting much involved in the chair stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Who cares about the 3 million votes? You should because that is why she was the nominee.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:There's no such thing as the "democratic base." There most certainly is, it's all the people who vote for Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:There's no such thing as the "democratic base." And it's not loud and clear to "all progressives" because you do not speak for all progressives. The Bernie Show ain't the only show in town dude. Fine. The young portion of the progressive base, the ones who the Democrats will need votes from not only in 2018 but will solely rely on by not long after the end of this decade, will hear the message loud and clear: We do not care what you think, everything is fine, and nothing needs to change.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:You should because that is why she was the nominee. No. She was the nominee because no one else ran and the entire party endorsed her in 2014 while willfully looking the other way at how horrible a candidate she was.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:How'd that work out for her, by the way? Not getting into primarychat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
nachos posted:What is the argument for Perez again? He's got a lot of union support? All I'm hearing is "no really he's not that bad and is basically the same as Ellison" I support Ellison. I think he'd be better at the job. Perez, though, does have a lot of history with cleaning up broken institutions. When he took over the Civil Rights division at Justice it was absolutely loving broken from eight years of the Bush Administration, and he cleaned it up and made it one of the better places to work in government. He did a very good job at Labor as well and did manage to win some of the few policy wins for progressives in the last four years on labor rights.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
nachos posted:What is the argument for Perez again? He's got a lot of union support? he doesn't, the biggest unions have endorsed ellison
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
Fiction posted:Fine. The young portion of the progressive base, the ones who the Democrats will need votes from not only in 2018 but will solely rely on by not long after the end of this decade, will hear the message loud and clear: We do not care what you think, everything is fine, and nothing needs to change. Except Perez is explicitly yelling from the rooftops that change needs to happen?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
nachos posted:What is the argument for Perez again? He's got a lot of union support? All I'm hearing is "no really he's not that bad and is basically the same as Ellison" he'll be bank friendly and amenable to keeping the dem party bank friendly because both parties need to turn a blind eye to the crimes wall street commits
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Except that's not true? Perez, until like a month ago when y'all decided he was Hitler, was widely liked by Progressives. Hell he was the person progressives were hoping Hillary would pick as her VP. Oh hey, thanks for the reminder on why this matters, politically. You see, the person Hillary picked over Perez for VP was an incredibly boring, spineless centrist coward. Why did she pick Tim Kaine? Because Tim Kaine was the head of the DNC and stepped down as a favor so Hillary could install Wasserman-Schultz (who I don't need to remind y'all worked directly for Hillary immediately before and even more immediately after her tenure as DNC chair). Between them, they oversaw the rise of the Tea Party and a precipitous decline of Democrat seats in state legislatures and governors, and Congress. Maybe we shouldn't let the Obama/Clintonian loyalists control who the next chair is! BI NOW GAY LATER posted:No one's telling you "fall in line." We're telling you that if Perez does win, that it's not the end of the universe and that you should channel your energy into making sure he does what you want to be done. Go and get involved in state and local party membership. Take the drat party over from the bottom up. Go, grab three of your friends, and attend a meeting of the local party. Go to town halls, go to city council meetings, go to board of education meetings. We (and you!) are already doing this. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I support Ellison. I think he'd be better at the job. Perez, though, does have a lot of history with cleaning up broken institutions. When he took over the Civil Rights division at Justice it was absolutely loving broken from eight years of the Bush Administration, and he cleaned it up and made it one of the better places to work in government. He did a very good job at Labor as well and did manage to win some of the few policy wins for progressives in the last four years on labor rights. This is good! I think he'll do a fine job as chair.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Alternate Universe Condiv posted:Perez used an unrelated matter, outside his jurisdiction, as justification to prevent unions from choosing what to do with their own pensions, the first time it has ever happened. drat neoliberals in this party won't even let unions control their own money. One day, you'll get pissed at The Intercept for knowing better and assuming you don't. The only way The Intercept article is a damning indictment of his softness on finance is if you believe that Perez should have
I think that the Justice settlement was incredibly weak, that it failed to chasten the financial industry, and that it failed to give voters the sense that instrumental figures in the economic downturn that cost livelihoods and lives were actually punished. I also think it's disingenuous to lay that at the feet of Perez. Is anyone seriously going to argue that the Obama administration wasn't opposed to jailing anyone over the crash, it's just that nobody in Justice had considered trying to get individual bank employees on a misdemeanor charge? I think it's a shame that unions wanted CS to manage their funds even after the banks malfeasance. I also think that Labor stripping unions of their autonomy on financial matters is insane and I'm glad that the principle of autonomy won out over what would have been a meaningless, symbolic punishment of the bank. It's less sexy, but Perez withdrawing and clarifying the 2008 memo on Environmental, Social, and Governance is an example of the sort of Big loving Deal that takes power away from Capital and puts it in the hands of workers. Allowing Unions and others to consider factors other than immediate returns, it opens up huge divestment opportunities-strengthening BDS, allowing another vector for fighting NoDAPL, and gives unions and activists more ammunition in fighting their battles. Prior to this rule, the AFL-CIO and SEIU couldn't back the NEA by divesting from any organization that was assisting with DeVos' charter scheme. Now they can.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Except Perez is explicitly yelling from the rooftops that change needs to happen? After entering the race against the candidate that we trust to enact that change far more than the people backing him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
I don't think Perez is a bad guy but him winning would be the clearly worse candidate winning for no other reason than a few party insiders wanted him to win. It's a bad look and a bad start to what are 2 crazy important years for the party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
I'd be OK with Perez winning not only because he'd be a fine chair but because it would also wake up a ton of people that the DNC is incapable of reform and that we'll have to work outside of it to enact any real change.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:Oh hey, thanks for the reminder on why this matters, politically. You see, the person Hillary picked over Perez for VP was an incredibly boring, spineless centrist coward. Why did she pick Tim Kaine? Because Tim Kaine was the head of the DNC and stepped down as a favor so Hillary could install Wasserman-Schultz (who I don't need to remind y'all worked directly for Hillary immediately before and even more immediately after her tenure as DNC chair). Between them, they oversaw the rise of the Tea Party and a precipitous decline of Democrat seats in state legislatures and governors, and Congress. That's actually not true lol. Tim Kaine is fine. Hillary didn't install DWS, Obama did (and then came to regret it) after Kaine stepped aside to run for Senate after being termed out as VA Governor (he was DNC chair mostly while we was out of office as Governor.) Kaine was Obama's second pick for VP after Biden and basically given the DNC Chair as compensation, after Obama ousted the Howard Dean people from power. They gave DWS a meaningless, token position to make her go the gently caress the away (it was an unpaid position with no real power or authority.) Everyone in the party hated DWS by 2014 and Obama and future HRC Campaign boss Podesta schemed getting rid of her for two years, and Podesta and the Clinton campaign wanted to get rid of her ASAP -- as we know from the leaked Podesta emails. Please try to get facts correct. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Fiction posted:I'd be OK with Perez winning not only because he'd be a fine chair but because it would also wake up a ton of people that the DNC is incapable of reform and that we'll have to work outside of it to enact any real change. This is wrong and third parties are a dead end. You have to work within the current party structure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Condiv posted:why are centrists so dumb that they think trying the same poo poo that lost the election in 2016 is the ticket to victory in 2020? Because Clinton lost votes due to her personal unpopularity as opposed to any sort of policy considerations
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:One day, you'll get pissed at The Intercept for knowing better and assuming you don't. Yeas I do support destroying the settlement that Obama and Holder got. Why? Because that settlement pissed off alot of voters who wanted to see the filth that caused them to lose their homes punished. Them paying fines was not punishment. Them getting 20 years to life would have been punishment. I do love how centrists libs jerk off to the idea that sociopathic bankers don't get whats coming to them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:This is wrong and third parties are a dead end. You have to work within the current party structure. I'm suggesting not a third party but a political activist network that operates outside of the DNC proper, like OFA. Hey wait a minute I think I know something like that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Because Clinton lost votes due to her personal unpopularity as opposed to any sort of policy considerations Why do you think she was personally unpopular? Might it have something to do with her unceasing triangulation?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:This is wrong and third parties are a dead end. You have to work within the current party structure. i'm going to work to continue making the california democrats the best party in the country and wait for the installation of god emperor moonbeam and us cutting free from the driftwood that is america
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:One day, you'll get pissed at The Intercept for knowing better and assuming you don't. yes to both. the settlement was a disgrace, like all the loving wall street settlements under obama. also, the banks in question had cost pensions tons of money over the decade of them scamming everyone, i think that warrants them not getting a waiver. quote:I think that the Justice settlement was incredibly weak, that it failed to chasten the financial industry, and that it failed to give voters the sense that instrumental figures in the economic downturn that cost livelihoods and lives were actually punished. I also think it's disingenuous to lay that at the feet of Perez. Is anyone seriously going to argue that the Obama administration wasn't opposed to jailing anyone over the crash, it's just that nobody in Justice had considered trying to get individual bank employees on a misdemeanor charge? yes the obama administration was opposed to jailing anyone. how much criminal poo poo came out during his presidency? HSBC laundering money for drug dealers? banks foreclosing on active duty service members, banks forging paperwork so they can foreclose on people, the forex scandal, libor, etc. Nothing but slaps on the wrist.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 15:53 |
|
|
Fiction posted:Why do you think she was personally unpopular? Might it have something to do with her unceasing triangulation? No.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:23
|
|