|
Fulchrum posted:Stop this smug loving attitude that your way is obviously the only way that will ever work to help people  You've been smugging it up all over this thread proclaiming poo poo left and right. Take a step back and re-read some of your posts.
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:00 |
|
|
Condiv posted:i'd rather trump be impeached, but centrist dems are too spineless for that too so they'll just say trump's mean. I missed the part of the process where 48 senators could impeach the president. Would have thought Republicans would do it to Obama.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:I missed the part of the process where 48 senators could impeach the president. Would have thought Republicans would do it. I'm sure you could get a few people to flip, especially with Trump continuing on the path he's on and with more and more Russian evidence coming to light. The Senate doesn't matter here, though, it's the House. And that is unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
Speaking as a dirty socialist Millennial voter, gently caress the Democratic party. Why don't Democrats just run a celebrity? Democrats have all the best celebrity endorsement. Just run one of those schmucks and win the election. The democrats wouldn't even need to pretend to care about the left. Or maybe Democrats could try getting Millennial votes. Hardly any Millennials votes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
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. 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. For what it's worth I am encouraged that he got the deputy chair position, but I'm not as optimistic as I would have been had he been elected chair. Keep in mind Ellison was already a compromise which is why the constant "he's the same as Perez!" bleating from centrists didn't gain much traction - we already knew that and it isn't the point. The point is that the left already extended their olive branch and the party just swatted it away. So within the last year, aside from the deputy chair position consolation prize, and aside from Hillary adopting a lot of Bernie's platform which she mostly ignored during the campaign in favor of "Trump is bad", what are these concessions that the left keeps getting from Democrats and which we keep insisting just aren't good enough? Kilroy fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
This I can agree with. What the centrists who claim we cannot be placated want is us to stop participating so they can then have the party be a antitax pretend to care about social issues. We need to be here soon we can get rid of such nasty types.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:59
|
|
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.
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:SMH, people in this thread would seriously rather see the Dems under Perez to lose to Trump just to prove a loving point. you're mistaken if you think i or others want that, it's just what's going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:
Cept for the gently caress wits saying they want to go third party to maintain their delicious purity, I can't see ever claiming that people didn't want to help people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted: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. i need that gif of the irony cat expanding to fill the entire page
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:00
|
|
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. Right. There are pretty much thousands of election races when you consider state legislatures, mayors and sheriffs of large cities, etc. If the Dems are going to create a new 50 state strategy, as they should, they can't afford to deny a large source of funding that their opponents won't.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:00
|
|
|
Condiv posted: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 That's an argument that the DNC was incompetent, not that big money donors had no impact. Trump got away with fewer donations than Hillary precisely because he got billions in free advertising from media outlets that he didn't need to raise money to buy. I don't think that big money donors are good or strictly speaking helpful, I just think that the other option is every Democratic candidate getting buried in Republican attack ads until the end of time. Probably Magic posted: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? Tulsi Gabbard is a bad role model to bring into any discussion of good progressives, just saying. I don't really care what Hillary said on the issue, but I'm interested to see when Perez implied that leftists are out to get minorities. I think that black people have plenty of stake in a better economy and healthcare, but I also don't blame them for not putting those things as their top priorities when they're systematically less likely to be employed and facing an occupying police force and institutionalized imprisonment. I think that the argument here is that it's more about the safe bet versus the unsafe bet, and that fixing the perception problem means supplying candidates who won't be ineffectual on addressing race issues as Bernie has been. Ellison is a role model in that regard. The Democratic center doesn't care about anything particularly much that I care about and I frankly don't care for what they care about either. What I do care about is minority voters who could quite easily be convinced to back more and more left wing candidates given left wing candidates who clearly also care about minority issues. Again, unironically Ellison for President 2020.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
The Democratic Party can never fail, only be failed
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i'd rather trump be impeached, but centrist dems are too spineless for that too so they'll just say trump's mean. I didn't realize a Dem Congressional minority with zero Republican support could just go and impeach the President all willy nilly. Those cowards for not doing it already! Shimrra Jamaane fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
im just lolling here and stocking up on ammo so i can survive in the barren wasteland that the USA will become in a few years because dems are literally incapable of not fighting amongst themselves
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Nope, we're happy to share power with other groups, but we have to be actually sharing power, not being Demsplained to by people like you and JeffersonClay. You keep pulling this outta your rear end and think it's some sort of blistering own. He was literally the first person Sanders endorsed. When was this secret meeting of the claiming to be the only real voice of the Left where they pitched other candidates and then rejected them as not enough of a compromise? Is this you confusing "he is not literally the most radical gently caress-you candidate that could be suggested" with compromise? Like if the Establishment had picked Manchin first then switched to Perez?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:SMH, people in this thread would seriously rather see the Dems under Perez to lose to Trump just to prove a loving point. What? No one has said that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Tulsi Gabbard is a bad role model to bring into any discussion of good progressives, just saying. I don't really care what Hillary said on the issue, but I'm interested to see when Perez implied that leftists are out to get minorities. Perez said that Bernie only appealed to young white people during the primaries, which was a lie. And I really don't think Bernie was that ineffectual, but he was framed that way while the Clinton campaign tried to get away with acting like Tim Kaine knowing Spanish made him an honorary minority. I'll concede there are plenty of flaws in Gabbard, I was just fishing for an example to flesh out a Rule of Three.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:That's an argument that the DNC was incompetent, not that big money donors had no impact. Trump got away with fewer donations than Hillary precisely because he got billions in free advertising from media outlets that he didn't need to raise money to buy. uh, yeah, free advertising saying he's poo poo. like grab em by the pussy. which hillary added to by running attack ads repeating the poo poo the news shows just showed. deal with it, some day sooner or later those big money donors are going to bury us in republican attack ads till the end of time anyway. they are more closely associated with the republicans ideologically than even centrists, and that is reflected by the dow jones index doing better on the announcement of trump's election. either build alternate funding or keep sliding rightwards, we can't have both. that you think we should keep moving right instead of weaning ourselves off of big money donors is extremely concerning.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
If Ellison had won instead and appointed Perez as his co chair there would be people in this thread screaming about how Perez's new position was meant to undermine Ellison and would in fact have the real power and influence. And that Ellison winning was just a bone thrown to leftists to placate them. You know I'm loving right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:07
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I didn't realize a Dem Congressional minority with zero Republican support could just go and impeach the President all willy nilly. Those cowards for not doing it already! they should be clamoring for it every day. dude's hosed up that's too scary for them though so they're hiding or voting with fascists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted: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. You see where I'm going with this? It's possible the Democratic party is basically doomed because of it - and leftists would be wise to start building a real alternative where they won't be shut out. Better to do it now rather than wait until the Democrats are no longer a going concern nationally. I still don't know if it's come to that but this election certainly hasn't improved my outlook.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Perez said that Bernie only appealed to young white people during the primaries, which was a lie. And I really don't think Bernie was that ineffectual, but he was framed that way while the Clinton campaign tried to get away with acting like Tim Kaine knowing Spanish made him an honorary minority. Ah. I won't speak to Perez's intent, but the problem with Bernie wasn't that he specifically intended to only appeal to young white college students, but that his message ended up appealing most to them because it filled a niche that was unfilled. I also don't think that running on free college and universal healthcare is incompatible with running on racial and gender equality, etc. That, more than anything, is the point worth making. Anybody who claims that identity politics and economic leftism are incompatible is arguing in bad faith, from either end. What I argue is more true is that there is a deep, deep perception gap, where centrist Democrats are viewed as incapable of backing up economic leftism claims, while predominantly white progressives aren't trusted by typically older minority voters. Coming from the progressive end, the latter problem can be fixed by ensuring we present more Keith Ellisons alongside our Sherrod Browns.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Perez said that Bernie only appealed to young white people during the primaries, which was a lie. Which column do you think is Clinton and which is Bernie? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:If Ellison had won instead and appointed Perez as his co chair there would be people in this thread screaming about how Perez's new position was meant to undermine Ellison and would in fact have the real power and influence. And that Ellison winning was just a bone thrown to leftists to placate them. Nah, rather Perez would have been a bone thrown to the establishment Dems. This is all about optics bro.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted: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. Trying to get a point across is frustrating, and just one of the reasons I have turned towards the world of death culting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
Condiv posted:uh, yeah, free advertising saying he's poo poo. like grab em by the pussy. which hillary added to by running attack ads repeating the poo poo the news shows just showed. deal with it, some day sooner or later those big money donors are going to bury us in republican attack ads till the end of time anyway. they are more closely associated with the republicans ideologically than even centrists, and that is reflected by the dow jones index doing better on the announcement of trump's election. Again, that was the message we heard. Millions of Americans, and not just Trump voters, didn't internalize and digest these negative messages as bad, and instead they reinforced the "Trump is a good outsider who will shake up the system, see how much the system hates him!" You're talking about huge swaths of the population not educated or engaged enough to realize that there can be good reasons to hate an outsider and that anti-establishment isn't actually categorically good. "Build alternative funding" in a nation that is increasingly facing devastating wealth inequality and deepening poverty is not a simple proposition. I think that increasing the rules, allowances, and disclosure requirements around funding within the Democratic Party would be helpful without categorically shutting down all major donations and hoping that everybody chipping in a five will be enough to face down the Koch brothers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:Being from the rust belt, I can confirm this, people in the rust belt do not understand what a "health care" is on a normal level, instead only conveying the idea of such a thing by swinging wooden clubs into others' heads
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Which column do you think is Clinton and which is Bernie? Now segment this chart by age as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
Condiv posted:they should be clamoring for it every day. dude's hosed up I'm sure that constant calling for breaking ranks to impeach and vocal prominent gently caress yous will do absolutely nothing to unite the Republican base and boost Trump's popularity. For fucks sake. If you don't have the votes, all attempts to impeach do is make the president more popular. Even the loving Freedom Caucus understood this with Obama.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
Corn is the instrument of our collective death, my friend
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
People in the rust belt voted for Trump cause they are sick of establishment type of politicians like Hilary who promise x, y, z and never deliver, or underdeliver. Trump represented someone outside the usual politician choice that might better their prospects. Oh and he did campaign on actual ideas, which helps and he did reach out to them. This election loss was less about HIlary, herself, and more of what she symbolized. More of the same, status quo in the vein of Obama who didn't do a whole lot to help those in the rust belt that voted for him twice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:Being from the rust belt, I can confirm this, people in the rust belt do not understand what a "health care" is on a normal level, instead only conveying the idea of such a thing by swinging wooden clubs into others' heads  I have painstakingly spent years trying to explain every single progressive position on every issue I know of to my Ronald Reagan voting, blue collar, lower-middle class suburban parents and it took Donald loving Trump to convince them the Republican Party is evil and they need to prevent Scott Walker from obliterating the state.To my credit, they now vote straight D. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:Now segment this chart by age as well. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
This is the biggest election a centrist Dem is likely to win anytime soon
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
anyone who supports the democratic party at this point is literally supporting donald trump, which makes them a huge piece of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Which column do you think is Clinton and which is Bernie? where are hispanics, aapi, and other pocs
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:People in the rust belt voted for Trump cause they are sick of establishment type of politicians like Hilary who promise x, y, z and never deliver, or underdeliver. Trump represented someone outside the usual politician choice that might better their prospects. Oh and he did campaign on actual ideas, which helps and he did reach out to them. Again, it's very, very important to recognize that Midwestern blue collar middle/lower-middle class, predominantly older and white voters have correctly identified a problem. It's just that all of the solutions to the problem they want won't fix the problem, and often will actively make the problem worse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:18
|
|
Fulchrum posted:I'm sure that constant calling for breaking ranks to impeach and vocal prominent gently caress yous will do absolutely nothing to unite the Republican base and boost Trump's popularity. Being relatively quiet for the dems is good right now, especially with the responses GOP congressmen are getting at townhalls from elderly conservatives.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
stone cold posted:where are hispanics, aapi, and other pocs The only minorities who went heavily Bernie were Native Americans. Luckily, Native American rights haven't been a major topic in the months since. Actually, South Asians and Middle Easterners might have favored him as well, if I recall correctly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:00 |
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:If Ellison had won instead and appointed Perez as his co chair there would be people in this thread screaming about how Perez's new position was meant to undermine Ellison and would in fact have the real power and influence. And that Ellison winning was just a bone thrown to leftists to placate them. Perez actually surprised me with that and I'm glad of it. He'll be the best chair the party has had since Dean easily, and possibly better. That's a really, really low bar to clear (and Ellison would have been better still) but it's something at least. It's the rest of the party choosing him in spite of the message it sends to a lot of the party which concerns me. Like I said I'm happy to be convinced the Democratic party is still worth voting for.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 02:20
|
|