|
Main Paineframe posted:They're not bitching and moaning. They don't care. Leftists are a tiny group compared to racial minorities, the working class, and so on. Of course, leftists have many priorities in common with those groups...but their priorities aren't identical, which is why the Bernie endorsement (which matters a lot to leftists but not very much to minorities or workers) didn't play a significant role in the DNC chair election. Assuming leftists have different priorities than workers and minorities, the people who leftists most purport to defend, is a provably false premise. The concerns of leftism are the concern of the Democratic Party. The only ones who'd purport otherwise are people who are selectively interested or even generally disinterested in the Democratic platform.
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:They threw a bone, just a small one, deputy chair. made up positions aren't bones. especially since they have no power. you can expect ellison to be brought in line quick if he ever comes out against the party line like bernie did.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Considering they gave Ellisson a loving position and "leftists" are acting like the DNC just executed him live on stage while cackling, I don't think you understand how people or politics works. The fact that they offered him a deputy position under Perez is nice but it doesn't change the fact that the establishment was offered a way to make nice with the left and they chose to reject it. It's not about the man, it's about the left feeling like they have a real voice in their own party. quote:I think the reason they aren't throwing them a bone is pretty clear. Not really. Care to clarify?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I'm fairly sure the ideal Democratic base is the working poor and lower middle class blue collar types in urban areas, and that "progressives," which in our context means overwhelmingly younger and college educated people, aren't being factored in because we already don't vote in large numbers to begin with. holy loving moley these people want jobs and to not go bankrupt. Sure, mass murder all the bankers for a vote winner, we're all in favour of that. You can talk all you like about appealling to bases and not three months ago your working class told the democratic party to gently caress itself all the way to hell on a road paved with bad intentions and bland promises. Nationalise something, jesus christ. Fulchrum posted:Considering they gave Ellisson a loving position and "leftists" are acting like the DNC just executed him live on stage while cackling, I think the reason they aren't throwing them a bone is pretty clear. maybe the role shouldn't be given to a guy who outright refused to prosecute bankers responsible for soldier suicides, I hear you people like soldiers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
Condiv posted:nope. even in my blood red state people were interested in sanders while hating clinton like poison. better healthcare, better minimum wage, etc. is really popular. Better healthcare and better minimum wage are popular in the abstract, but virulently hated once they get to the concrete stage and you start talking about paying for them. Sanders enjoyed a great deal of popularity running as "not Hillary or Trump," but I highly doubt 100% of the Rust Belt voters who hated Hillary would've stuck with him if he won and the Republican attack ads started rolling in. Most of the people we've lost in the Rust Belt don't conceive of progressive politics in ideological terms and policy specifics, but unfortunately at some point those things have to enter the conversation and that's when the left starts unraveling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:This is it, everyone. You do understand that Cutter won, right? Kilroy posted:Well at least you admit that the deputy chairmanship was not a concession. I just loving said they gave him the position. Where did I lie and say it was not a concession?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Better healthcare and better minimum wage are popular in the abstract, but virulently hated once they get to the concrete stage and you start talking about paying for them. Sanders enjoyed a great deal of popularity running as "not Hillary or Trump," but I highly doubt 100% of the Rust Belt voters who hated Hillary would've stuck with him if he won and the Republican attack ads started rolling in. Did you see the Republican attack ads this election? They sucked! Fulchrum posted:You do understand that Cutter won, right? Yes, that's what scares me, idiot. Did you read what he said?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:They're not bitching and moaning. They don't care. Leftists are a tiny group compared to racial minorities, the working class, and so on. Of course, leftists have many priorities in common with those groups...but their priorities aren't identical, which is why the Bernie endorsement (which matters a lot to leftists but not very much to minorities or workers) didn't play a significant role in the DNC chair election. Like, yeah the DNC does not and should not care in a strategic sense on the vote of people who follow the DNC chair election closely and argue on dead comedy forums about it all day. But it may be the case that some of those people have some good ideas about what the party should do going forward to win elections, and instead of listening to them and adopting some of those ideas and the Democratic establishment has chosen to extend a giant middle finger in their general direction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:And this has precisely nothing to do with intersectionality and "political correctness." It has everything to do with intersectionality and political correctness, because both hinge on the idea that you can come with correct political positions by taking in unfiltered noise from various parties and turning it into a proper movement. Your poor farmer doesn’t have the same priorities as some bourgeois liberal in NYC, or a blue collar black in Louisiana. These groups seldom get along. Trump knew precisely where he had to win and what to say to those voters. Hillary didn’t know precisely where she had to lose and didn’t say the right things. But you can act like a child, if you want, and shout out anyone and everyone who doesn’t agree with political correctness; not that any of that is relevant now since Trump got elected. This thread is living somewhere back before the primary, except now the country is more divided than ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Assuming leftists have different priorities than workers and minorities, the people who leftists most purport to defend, is a provably false premise. A lot of people in minority groups don't feel that progressives and leftists have their interests at heart, because of rhetoric dismissing minority issues as identity politics and distractions, sooooo. quote:Did you see the Republican attack ads this election? They sucked! No they didn't, actually. You and I just weren't their intended audience. Republican messaging works very well on the uneducated and the desperate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Condiv posted:made up positions aren't bones. especially since they have no power. you can expect ellison to be brought in line quick if he ever comes out against the party line like bernie did. "And furthermore, they didn't hire any TRUE Scotsmen....." I'm honestly curios if even one of you understand what compromise and concession even is, or if you think it just means 'we get everything we want but don't use our secret magic powers to kill them, we're totally capable of doing that'
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:A lot of people in minority groups don't feel that progressives and leftists have their interests at heart, because of rhetoric dismissing minority issues as identity politics and distractions, sooooo. Or rhetoric from people like Hillary Clinton telling them they don't have their interests at heart, more like. After all, going after banks won't cure racism, right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Yes, that's what scares me, idiot. Did you read what he said? Well you obviously didn't, given that Stephanie Cutter prefers female pronouns.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Well you obviously didn't, given that Stephanie Cutter prefers female pronouns. Sick gotcha, bro. Rest assured knowing I have been owned hard, and now you can forget the actual thing we were arguing about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
I'm going to die laughing when Perez gets caught up in some scandal, the dems lose big on some midterms and then they hang him out to dry and explain how this just shows that progressiveness had it's chance and they need to appeal to the sensible centre ground.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:I just loving said they gave him the position. Where did I lie and say it was not a concession? Are we really at the point, Fulchrum, where I have to parse your own posts for you and explain them back to you? I thought even you were better than that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Better healthcare and better minimum wage are popular in the abstract, but virulently hated once they get to the concrete stage and you start talking about paying for them. Sanders enjoyed a great deal of popularity running as "not Hillary or Trump," but I highly doubt 100% of the Rust Belt voters who hated Hillary would've stuck with him if he won and the Republican attack ads started rolling in. a lot of people in the rust belt think the dems only care about big donors, and it's kinda hard to convince them otherwise when the dem party is a phantom in your state and they do stuff to help big donors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:It has everything to do with intersectionality and political correctness, because both hinge on the idea that you can come with correct political positions by taking in unfiltered noise from various parties and turning it into a proper movement. Lol you're such a loving spineless piece of poo poo, hiding behind the rhetoric of the right to justify why you hate minority rights. Hillary Clinton wasn't parading around rural Pennsylvania touting the virtues of Black Lives Matter, you twit. "Political correctness" is a buzzword to justify why conservatives want to be able to be racist and sexist in public without facing any pushback and that you're gleefully tossing it around as "the reason leftism cannot win" is comically absurd. Probably Magic posted:Or rhetoric from people like Hillary Clinton telling them they don't have their interests at heart, more like. After all, going after banks won't cure racism, right? This is rather patronizing, isn't it? Millions of older black people decided they preferred Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders and voted accordingly, and that perception problem exists regardless of why you think it does. It, like all perception problems, can be fixed by better candidates, campaigning, and platforms, but asserting unilaterally that "anybody who claims leftists don't stand for minorities is a liar" flies in the face of the reality that many minorities think exactly that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:I'm going to die laughing when Perez gets caught up in some scandal, the dems lose big on some midterms and then they hang him out to dry and explain how this just shows that progressiveness had it's chance and they need to appeal to the sensible centre ground. reason #2 to abandon the party now
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:I don't think you understand how people or politics works. The fact that they offered him a deputy position under Perez is nice but it doesn't change the fact that the establishment was offered a way to make nice with the left and they chose to reject it. It's not about the man, it's about the left feeling like they have a real voice in their own party. quote:Not really. Care to clarify? Everything that they get, they will toss aside and say not good enough, inventing excuses for why it's an insult. Demanding the party bend over backwards and hand them everything, then threaten and rant when they are given less than everything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:40
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Everything that they get, they will toss aside and say not good enough, inventing excuses for why it's an insult. Demanding the party bend over backwards and hand them everything, then threaten and rant when they are given less than everything. Fun exercise, this line of thinking is equally applicable to whichever side you disagree with!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
Condiv posted:a lot of people in the rust belt think the dems only care about big donors, and it's kinda hard to convince them otherwise when the dem party is a phantom in your state and they do stuff to help big donors. I mean, the reality is that so long as big money donors wield immense power in the system, categorically denying big money donations is essentially unilateral disarmament. Even Bernie's Our Revolution didn't want to forgo big money donations, because they can't afford to do anything without money to spend. That's the reality of the system we face today.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:This is rather patronizing, isn't it? Millions of older black people decided they preferred Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders and voted accordingly, and that perception problem exists regardless of why you think it does. It, like all perception problems, can be fixed by better candidates, campaigning, and platforms, but asserting unilaterally that "anybody who claims leftists don't stand for minorities is a liar" flies in the face of the reality that many minorities think exactly that. At least you concede it's older black people, implying age comes into play, which it does. And yeah, assuming leftism doesn't stand for minorities is lying. It was lying enabled by multiple remarks from Democratic politicians, from Hillary Clinton to John Lewis to, pertinent enough, Tom Perez, but it doesn't actually ring true. To say that class issues don't apply to race issues is to deny the intersectionality of race and class. Perceptions should be examined and corrected, not touted as a replacement for reality. Pushing this as an issue actively divides the party more than any squabble about chairman politics because it is the fight for the soul of the party - those who want a division between class and race politics for their own means, and those who recognize that there isn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Better healthcare and better minimum wage are popular in the abstract, but virulently hated once they get to the concrete stage and you start talking about paying for them. Sanders enjoyed a great deal of popularity running as "not Hillary or Trump," but I highly doubt 100% of the Rust Belt voters who hated Hillary would've stuck with him if he won and the Republican attack ads started rolling in. When it comes to healthcare Americans are absolutely right to demand more while paying less.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, the reality is that so long as big money donors wield immense power in the system, categorically denying big money donations is essentially unilateral disarmament. except for the fact that big money donations didn't win hillary anything. she lost with a 2:1 spending ratio. we can gather enough money to do good campaigns without big money donors, and relying on regular voters would also keep us grounded to our base.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:You said it's pretty clear why they didn't throw the left a bone. "To throw a bone" is an idiomatic expression similar in meaning to "to give a concession". Therefore, by stating that they gave him the deputy chair position, but also that no bones were thrown, you are implicitly stating that the deputy chair position is not a concession. Okay, then, since I need to explain what i thought was obvious to you, the reason that the people who think they speak for the real Left didn't feel like they got thrown a bone, is because they are cracked out of their loving skulls on a persecution complex and interpreted the concession they got as an insult. Therefore, the reason they feel they didn't get a concession, is because they keep claiming all those concessions they got are just a reason to hate the party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:They took the way to make nice and make people who think they are the only real Left feel they have a real voice in the party. This was not enough, because as us becoming clear, what they want is to have THE voice in the party. Sharing it with any other concerns or any other people who will also have a say is unacceptable. You seem very offended by the idea of the the Democratic party actually being run in a way that benefits people and workers. It's pretty weird.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
even if perez were literally ellison in a perez costume, this sends the message to the mobilizing grassroots movements that dems still aren't willing to listen to them, now they'll organize outside the party. most likely outcome is that with the most energized people moving on and less pressure, dems will keep shooting themselves in the foot and we'll get the biggest push for a third party candidate so far but it won't be enough to win while the left is split. with trump or one of his replacements in office for 8 years, so many rights are taken away that it becomes impossible to wrestle back power until most boomers start dying and by that time climate change catches up to us so the rest of us die too. option b: nuclear winter before we even get to the next election. it doesn't really matter if you think the left are being unreasonable or putting too much importance on one minor election, this was a strategically suicidal move at a time when the party absolutely couldn't afford it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Lol you're such a loving spineless piece of poo poo, hiding behind the rhetoric of the right to justify why you hate minority rights. Hillary Clinton wasn't parading around rural Pennsylvania touting the virtues of Black Lives Matter, you twit. She either didn’t visit rural pennsylvania at all or they didn’t like what she said there. Political correctness is a buzzword used by liberals just as much as conservatives to shame any and all of their political opponents as being racist or sexist. And like I said, it doesn’t matter anymore since Trump got elected. You’re wasting time doubling down on a candidate, whom, after the election loss decided to go off hiking in the loving woods somewhere or taking pictures with fake friends instead of showing any presence as serious leadership for the party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:You can say the same of any group that "identifies" as a thing because most people don't do that. The thing is that much of the Democratic leadership is elected, which means that most of the people already running the party have good reason to think they know a thing or two about winning elections. If leftists had a much better record than centrists at winning elections, then the DNC membership would be mostly made up of progressives, and they wouldn't have to beg for the DNC chair or any other concessions because they'd be the undisputed leaders of the party and be able to choose whoever they like to hold the chairmanship. If progressives have the magic touch at winning elections, then we've got to go prove it, not sit around saying it over and over again like anyone will care.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:For healthcare specifically any proposal where it's going to end up costing more than it already does is ipso facto a terrible proposal. Healthcare costs in this country are already out of control - we already pay far more for healthcare than other countries with better quality of care. Any serious healthcare policy will address that. I don't disagree, but there's also the problem of perception of costs. I.e. getting it through your employer, versus now possibly paying higher taxes to get it cheaper in the aggregate from the government. It's wrong-headed and flies in the face of basic facts but perception is more important than reality, as this election is a testimony to. Condiv posted:except for the fact that big money donations didn't win hillary anything. she lost with a 2:1 spending ratio. we can gather enough money to do good campaigns without big money donors, and relying on regular voters would also keep us grounded to our base. The Presidential candidate can, maybe. Your average Congressional or Senate candidate is going to benefit much less from direct grassroots organization or funding. Probably Magic posted:At least you concede it's older black people, implying age comes into play, which it does. And yeah, assuming leftism doesn't stand for minorities is lying. It was lying enabled by multiple remarks from Democratic politicians, from Hillary Clinton to John Lewis to, pertinent enough, Tom Perez, but it doesn't actually ring true. To say that class issues don't apply to race issues is to deny the intersectionality of race and class. Perceptions should be examined and corrected, not touted as a replacement for reality. Pushing this as an issue actively divides the party more than any squabble about chairman politics because it is the fight for the soul of the party - those who want a division between class and race politics for their own means, and those who recognize that there isn't. I don't think that class doesn't apply to race, or vice versa. I just think that you shouldn't be so quick to tell millions of members of minority groups that their concerns about progressives - and note, I think it has a lot more to with progressives as advocates than with progressivism as a concept - are nonsense when "identity politics are evil and the reason the left always loses" is pervasive enough to have proponents in this very thread. Race and class are also not perfect circles in a Venn diagram and you shouldn't represent them as such.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:And like I said, it doesn’t matter anymore since Trump got elected. You’re wasting time doubling down on a candidate, whom, after the election loss decided to go off hiking in the loving woods somewhere or taking pictures with fake friends instead of showing any presence as serious leadership for the party. By the way, I'd be more than happy if she kept hiking forever. I never want to hear from her again in any sort of leadership role.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
I watched Perez suspend the rules to make Ellison his chair and the sweetness/great TV of it was seriously undermined by how awkward Perez is. I never get how people like that can be such successful politicians.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:The Presidential candidate can, maybe. Your average Congressional or Senate candidate is going to benefit much less from direct grassroots organization or funding. as opposed to the candidates last election who received little to no funding from the DNC, which instead hoovered all that big donor money into hillary's warchest again, how are big donors helping us in this case instead of keeping the dems away from their base? cause big donors are not giving money away for free, and the concerns of plutarchs should not be the concerns of the dem party
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
SMH, people in this thread would seriously rather see the Dems under Perez to lose to Trump just to prove a loving point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
Chelb posted:Never mind four years, dude. America's gonna look different by the midterms, and I struggle to see a future in which people are still talking about this by 2018 that doesn't involve Perez being a DWS-level disaster - which I don't think he will be.  I think Perez is going to do his best to at least pay lip service to the Sanders wing of the party, because his primary concern is his continued political survival and relevance. Left-Dems need to watch him like a hawk and hold him accountable for his actions. If they do, I think there's a good chance that he will turn out to be a decent-enough DNC chair.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:She either didn’t visit rural pennsylvania at all or they didn’t like what she said there. Because rural Pennsylvania isn't going to vote for us anyway, you rear end in a top hat. They also aren't numerically significant. Political correctness doesn't mean anything and you're one to talk about being shamed for being racist and sexist given how aggressively willing you are to dismiss the idea of intersectionality and anything other than "no war but the class war." They call you racist and sexist because you are, bro. I'm not doubling down on anything because I couldn't give less of a poo poo what Hillary does now, she's not gonna run again and if she did she wouldn't win. All I care about is that your version of why she lost is toxic and wrong-headed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:SMH, people in this thread would seriously rather see the Dems under Perez to Trump lose just to prove a point. i'd rather trump be impeached, but centrist dems are too spineless for that too so they'll just say trump's mean. too bad centrists can only find their spines when it comes to the left, and not when it comes to fascism
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I don't think that class doesn't apply to race, or vice versa. I just think that you shouldn't be so quick to tell millions of members of minority groups that their concerns about progressives - and note, I think it has a lot more to with progressives as advocates than with progressivism as a concept - are nonsense when "identity politics are evil and the reason the left always loses" is pervasive enough to have proponents in this very thread. I see far more general sentiment trying to say that leftists are out to get minorities than sentiment that leftism needs not to address minorities. And I'm sure we could swap stories, but simple fact is, Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and Keith Ellison never said there was a conflict of interest, while Clinton and Perez have both implied there is, and those are the voices that matter. So what seems to bigger problematic ideology for the Democratic Party at present, then? And I never said that race and class are perfectly matched in concerns - for example, I recognize that Bernie's initial response to Ferguson was very poor, and I think he has too from the way he's tried to reach out to minority concerns even after having lost the primary. But that doesn't stop the fact that a black person has just as much stake in single payer healthcare as any white person, and that seems to be neglected by the present Democratic Party as disingenuous rationalization that really just wants to support centrist technocratic interests. Let's not pretend the Democratic center cares about minorities more than the left in any capacity more than if they were entrepreneurs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
readingatwork posted:You seem very offended by the idea of the the Democratic party actually being run in a way that benefits people and workers. It's pretty weird. Cut that poo poo out right this goddamn second. It's exactly as loving infuriating as those Republicans who ask why you hate America if you oppose any of their policies. Stop this smug loving attitude that your way is obviously the only way that will ever work to help people, and that people like John Lewis just hate working class people and minorities and want to oppose any effort to help them. How about you try and remember that just because you think your way is best, not everyone is obligated to just suck your cock for thinking of it, or else they're just evil.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:55
|
|