|
Paracaidas posted:So the unions, who wanted to work with CS, had to be protected from themselves? That's nuts. Hammer the unions for going back to the organization that cost them cash. There are valid criticism of Perez, but "allowed unions autonomy over their money while heading Labor" doesn't seem like one of them to me. it's not about union autonomy. should we let doctors that have killed patients through massive malpractice continue to deal with willing patients cause their patients happen to like them? No! These companies have shown themselves not the least bit responsible to their clients or their nation and therefore, they should not be eligible for waivers to administer pensions for unions. we don't need those pensions hosed in some shady illegal scheme! quote:Reread the post. I agree with you. My point was that Perez charging people for the misdemeanors that he was able to enforce wouldn't have gone anywhere (certainly not to trial) because Obama and Holder very clearly didn't want them to. This only falls on Perez if you believe that Obama and Holder would have allowed him to keep his job and actually try those cases. Based on what we both agree was Obama's policy, he very clearly wouldn't have been. based on what we saw with him at the DoL he was fine with it anyway, and will continue to support these kinds of bank friendly policies in the future.
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
Fiction posted:THEN Because organized labor loving loves him and college progressives aren't the only demographic the Dems want to rebuild their relationship with, especially since by all accounts this election was decided by the votes of a few hundred thousand union voters in the Rust Belt. I guess that isn't as attractive as conspiracy theories about the establishment plot to thwart progressive ascendance, though, because the left insists on seeing this as a battle between "the left" and "the center", and acknowledging that other factions exist hurts that narrative. It can't be all about a battle to reunite two factions if we admit that there are at least five or six different factions in the Democratic Party, and a dozen or more demographics that they try to keep the approval of. SKULL.GIF posted:This is something I see brought up a lot when talking about rallies, OWS, anti-Iraq War protests... why do you think they didn't vote? Why is "the people who cared enough to spend days of their lives traveling and protesting, didn't care enough to vote" the default assumption, and not "they cared enough to vote, but other people who didn't care enough to protest probably also didn't care enough to vote"? When did I say "vote"? I didn't. I said 2004, and you just assumed that I was talking about voting in the presidential election a year and a half after the protest they marched in, because that's all politics was to the left over the last two decades: go march in a protest, go home, and then go register your disapproval in the voting booths at the next presidential election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The DNC did not affect the outcome of the democratic primary. Bernie lost by a very substantial margin. Your misplaced rage is driving you further away from relevance in the party by the day. Yeah, I can't imagine how in a system where one well-connected candidate can lock up the support of like 200 delegates before a single person has voted we could assert that the system was rigged in any way to favor the establishment. Nope. Nothing to see here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Because organized labor loving loves him ok but which candidate has more union endorsements hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Because organized labor loving loves him which is why SEIU, AFL-CIO and the teamsters endorsed Ellison
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Because organized labor loving loves him and college progressives aren't the only demographic the Dems want to rebuild their relationship with, especially since by all accounts this election was decided by the votes of a few hundred thousand union voters in the Rust Belt. No, the election was decided by 6 million Obama voters staying home because Hillary wasn't an exciting candidate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
The 2016 primary is instructive not so much because of its results but because of how casually the New Democrats had assumed that they could take victory for granted no matter what they said or did, which came back to bite us all in the rear end come the general election. Now the question becomes how many of them will try to learn from this and how many will revert into screeching about Bernie bros and how you can totally win by just putting the same turd in a nicer package next time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
the dnc winter meeting is having a livestream right now (not officer elections, thats tommorrow) and the pump-up video they played featured bernie but NOT hillary LMAO https://www.democrats.org/page/dnc-future-forum-livestream
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The DNC did not affect the outcome of the democratic primary. Bernie lost by a very substantial margin. Your misplaced rage is driving you further away from relevance in the party by the day. Your candidate is taking a walk in the woods somewhere in Jersey, and likely will be for the rest of her politically relevant life. Sanders, Warren, Franken, Ellison, are the rising stars in the party. Even Schumer is running left as hard as he can right now, if only to appease the horde of people camped outside his house. The only place I've actually heard an argument for centrism in the last two weeks has been right here, from you. Nobody in the DNC except Manchin dares to speak of compromise or triangulation lest they be burned in effigy. So who, exactly, are you calling irrelevant?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:the dnc winter meeting is having a livestream right now (not officer elections, thats tommorrow) and the pump-up video they played featured bernie but NOT hillary LMAO They know where the energy is and they would be smart to make sure Ellison wins.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
There seems to be a substantial overlap between the people saying "The DNC stole the election, Bernie should have won!" and the people saying "why are those dumb democrats focusing on Putin stealing the election it's a distraction!" Only the latter helps us beat trump.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
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" Easily a better topic than Primarychat! To start with: These are easily the two most progressive viable candidates up for chair since (at least) the DNC went back to having a single chair. Either would be a great pick, but I prefer Perez. Slightly reformatted from an earlier post of mine: The highlights of Perez' time in the Obama Administration-first at Justice (Office of Civil Rights) and then as head of Labor:
He also has strong union support (it's important not to misread their endorsement of Ellison as a lack of support for Perez. They have a preference for Ellison, but I haven't seen any unions come out against Perez, nor have I see anyone walk back past praise of him). He has executive experience in multiple governmental bodies and has shown an ability to reform and rebuild those institutions while actually accomplishing progressive goals. I'm not aware of anyone in the party who has done more to improve the economic lives of the working and middle classes in the last decade. That he's managed to do that while also winning major voting rights cases and clamping down on police abuse and college sexual assault is even more impressive. He's one of the few (the only?) Democrats who can stand up in front of unions, hourly workers, salaried workers, BLM, Moral Mondays, and the Women's March and point to actual victories and concrete steps he's taken to address their concerns with results, not just rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:There seems to be a substantial overlap between the people saying "The DNC stole the election, Bernie should have won!" and the people saying "why are those dumb democrats focusing on Putin stealing the election it's a distraction!" Only the latter helps us beat trump. until you have the numbers in congress to impeach, the russia stuff means nada zilch zero it's just a convenient excuse for distracting from reforms that are necessary for democrats to win
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:So who, exactly, are you calling irrelevant? The people like you who are still so blinded by primary salt to realize the party has moved on to embrace a unifying anti-trump strategy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The people like you who are still so blinded by primary salt to realize the party has moved on to embrace a unifying anti-trump strategy. nothing is unifying about anti-trump. if it's the same donors and backers who ran the party into the ground running the show, any short term gains will be erased by the party's utter lack of vision.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The people like you who are still so blinded by primary salt to realize the party has moved on to embrace a unifying anti-trump strategy. The 2016 strategy was anti-trump and it failed, why would you want to keep that strategy you idiot?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Your candidate is taking a walk in the woods somewhere in Jersey, and likely will be for the rest of her politically relevant life. Sanders, Warren, Franken, Ellison, are the rising stars in the party. Even Schumer is running left as hard as he can right now, if only to appease the horde of people camped outside his house. The only place I've actually heard an argument for centrism in the last two weeks has been right here, from you. Nobody in the DNC except Manchin dares to speak of compromise or triangulation lest they be burned in effigy. You very clearly don't know a whole lot about Chuck Schumer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Fiction posted:until you have the numbers in congress to impeach, the russia stuff means nada This is intensely stupid. The Russia stuff is making it much more difficult for trump to implement his agenda and is eroding his support and popularity by the day. The Russia stuff is also incredibly important to the base and is a means of actually achieving a majority in 2018. I know it makes Bernouts nervous because it implies they got ratfucked, but be brave, we're not going to purge you when we're done with trump.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:This is intensely stupid. The Russia stuff is making it much more difficult for trump to implement his agenda and is eroding his support and popularity by the day. The Russia stuff is also incredibly important to the base and is a means of actually achieving a majority in 2018. I know it makes Bernouts nervous because it implies they got ratfucked, but be brave, we're not going to purge you when we're done with trump. it's not nearly as important to the base as healthcare and jobs
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
As the political strategy of the JeffersonClays of the party is limited only to running against whatever candidate the GOP fields, I shudder to think what will happen if and when the GOP manage to scrounge up an actually respectable candidate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
I think you're also confusing how incumbent elections typically have worked versus open elections. Fiction posted:it's not nearly as important to the base as healthcare and jobs You keep saying the base, but you really just mean you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:The 2016 strategy was anti-trump and it failed, why would you want to keep that strategy you idiot? Because attacking trump the anti-establishment candidate with no record is a much different animal than attacking trump the historically unpopular president with a terrible record, as should be obvious to anyone with an ounce of political sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The people like you who are still so blinded by primary salt to realize the party has moved on to embrace a unifying anti-trump strategy. i can't believe perez' primary salt triggered you so much
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:You keep saying the base, but you really just mean you. I, too, believe that the working class cares more about Russian hackers than they do about putting food on the table.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
fwiw I think it's incredibly loving serious that the Trump administration is stuffed to the gills with Russian puppets and I will happily work with Republican members of Congress to impeach and oust the president and his lackeys, even if it means President Ryan or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Because attacking trump the anti-establishment candidate with no record is a much different animal than attacking trump the historically unpopular president with a terrible record, as should be obvious to anyone with an ounce of political sense. You need to affect a positive message of change, not just be the "anti-Trump" candidate. I'm very glad you're not in charge of anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I think you're also confusing how incumbent elections typically have worked versus open elections. in order to have a base, you need a platform. the reason you want to defeat trump is not because tormp bad but because he and the republicans are trying to take away peoples' rights to well-paying jobs and affordable healthcare. you have to have a competing vision against his or else you have no base at all, and saying that Russia and trump are inextricably linked and bad is all well and good if you want to impede and impeach but offers no competing vision for governance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
oh god they have a pre-filmed address from shillary. she looks terrible and keeps craning her neck around like a bird
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Nobody could ever be expected to do what's right if it might cost them their high-prestige job. When given the choice between
Condiv posted:it's not about union autonomy. should we let doctors that have killed patients through massive malpractice continue to deal with willing patients cause their patients happen to like them? No! These companies have shown themselves not the least bit responsible to their clients or their nation and therefore, they should not be eligible for waivers to administer pensions for unions. we don't need those pensions hosed in some shady illegal scheme! The waiver required, among other things, consistent training of CS staff on their legal and ethical obligations and forced them to submit to enhanced oversight to ensure that they were playing by the rules and not engaging in shady illegal schemes. Training, though generally useless, is critical in this waiver process- it denies the banks, executives, and employees any opportunity to escape prosecution by pointing to the "knowingly" portion of relevant statutes (their typical, and wildly effective, defense). Meanwhile, I would think that the threat of Puzder at Labor would have made incredibly clear the dangers of Government dictating the management of Union funds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Fiction posted:in order to have a base, you need a platform. the reason you want to defeat trump is not because tormp bad but because he and the republicans are trying to take away peoples' rights to well-paying jobs and affordable healthcare. you have to have a competing vision against his or else you have no base at all, and saying that Russia and trump are inextricably linked and bad is all well and good if you want to impede and impeach but offers no competing vision for governance. I don't think anyone's saying we shouldn't offer that though? The Dems don't have base because our ideology is one of a broad tent, not because of any other reason you're also trying to obliquely hint at.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I don't think anyone's saying we shouldn't offer that though? Focusing your campaign first and foremost on "Trump bad" and "Russia bad" is that trap, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
Fiction posted:it's not nearly as important to the base as healthcare and jobs The polling suggests it is in fact as or more important to them. https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2422 91% of dems rate it as important and 77% rate it very important.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The polling suggests it is in fact as or more important to them. https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2422 Oh yay, back to a poll-driven campaign.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Fiction posted:Focusing your campaign first and foremost on "Trump bad" and "Russia bad" is that trap, though. Worked for Republicans? Also worked pretty well for neutering Bush in 2006.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The polling suggests it is in fact as or more important to them. https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2422 That's only the tip of the spear, though. You still need an overarching message for the campaigns or you can't win. Where are you getting "more" from? It may be a slam dunk issue but there's no proof that it's enough of a unifying message among non-Democrats to be enough on its own.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:You need to affect a positive message of change, not just be the "anti-Trump" candidate. If yo're running against president trump, "fix what trump broke" is in fact a message of positive change.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Worked for Republicans? ...because their voters are single-issue idiots. I thought we were better than that, no? Twice now we have seen that no matter how awful the other guy is, you cannot stand solely in opposition to him--you must give people a reason to vote for you. Why is this such a hard thing to grasp?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If yo're running against president trump, "fix what trump broke" is in fact a message of positive change. That's not nearly enough. Obama didn't run on "Fix what W broke." You need to run as for things. For healthcare, for education, for workers. Also your anti-Trump thing falls the gently caress apart when he croaks in year 3.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Worked for Republicans? The Republicans responded to Obama by driving further right because that was the message they got from town halls and primaries from their constituents who opposed him. It's natural that if you seek to fight Trump, you must also seek to have a set of defining issues you can battle them on that Trump is directly threatening. In 2006 we elected a whole bunch of House members but weren't focused on using those seats in a way that could push the party's vision forward, and we got the watered down ACA for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 18:28
|
|