|
Lightning Knight posted:Hahaha like you would've been an abolitionist in the early 1800s, every white dude in this thread would've been at best pro-"send them back to Africa" and you loving know it. Liberals in the late 19th and early 20th century were racist, because it was politically correct at the time to do it. Meanwhile, early American socialist movements like the IWW were out recruiting minorities and giving them participation in unions.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 03:53 |
|
|
# ? May 24, 2024 21:02 |
|
Dan Didio posted:The real story is actually that Ellison lost. Not really. I mean it's lovely and I would've preferred Ellison, but I disagree in the grand scheme of things. Ellison's political career isn't coming to a screeching halt while he does permanent administrative work, he has a place at the head of the DNC and we turned a procedural vote for a bureaucratic position into a battle over the future of the party when four years ago we wouldn't have even been listened to. Leftists are bemoaning their lack of power without recognizing that in this political moment, we have power at all, which is a huge improvement from past standing and an opportunity to kick the door down harder next time.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 03:54 |
|
But I'm glad Jeb!Repetition got to feel like a big man on campus calling people a homophobic slur.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 03:54 |
|
Literally, in a very real and important sense, the story is that Ellison lost. The 'real story' being that there was a fight (?) is just a weird platitude that doesn't mean anything. Leftists don't have any actual actionable power within the democratic party's structure despite all that they've done and gained in the past few years and how much they've worked to change it and that's the real take-away.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 03:56 |
|
Lightning Knight posted:Not really. I mean it's lovely and I would've preferred Ellison, but I disagree in the grand scheme of things. Ellison's political career isn't coming to a screeching halt while he does permanent administrative work, he has a place at the head of the DNC and we turned a procedural vote for a bureaucratic position into a battle over the future of the party when four years ago we wouldn't have even been listened to. why should we have power at all? it's not like the centrists blew an election they should've had in the bag and have been blowing elections so much recently that we're close to the repubs being able to convene a constitutional convention on their lonesome. we're lucky we even get made-up positions in the party
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 03:56 |
|
Majorian posted:Greater name recognition, and the narrative that the Clintons were better on race than they actually were. And I think that false sense of superior Clinton minority handling comes from the economy doing better in the Nineties and benefiting them immensely, with a lot of the blame for the eventual bubble collapse falling on Bush, so they were never held accountable for how little longevity their power had. It's an easy mistake to make, especially since it's what's buoyed Hillary for so long even after 2008, but I think a lot of Millennial minorities suffering under the full brunt of neoliberalism understood that the Nineties had ultimately let them down.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 03:57 |
|
Lightning Knight posted:Not really. I mean it's lovely and I would've preferred Ellison, but I disagree in the grand scheme of things. Ellison's political career isn't coming to a screeching halt while he does permanent administrative work, he has a place at the head of the DNC and we turned a procedural vote for a bureaucratic position into a battle over the future of the party when four years ago we wouldn't have even been listened to. Once again, . Plus, as I said before, Ellison would only have disappointed left-Dems as head of the DNC, largely because the DNC chair doesn't set the platform or pick candidates. He would have had more of a platform, and that would have been nice, but I think he would have been wasted in the position, overall.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 03:57 |
|
Promising a vague, incremental future victory and stage for leftist politics has been the Democratic party's inner stick to swat at disruptors for decades now.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 03:57 |
|
It’s going to be harder to sell your incrementalism lies as 2018 draws closer.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 03:57 |
|
stone cold posted:But I'm glad Jeb!Repetition got to feel like a big man on campus calling people a homophobic slur. You're getting burned so bad you're hoping anyone, me included, will care about some poo poo from a year ago in my rap sheet you obsessively combed over.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 03:58 |
|
Majorian posted:Let me stop you there and direct you to a couple posts ago, when I said that most voters are low-information, regardless of race, gender, etc. That doesn't make it any less paternalistic in addition to being poor speculation. It is the fact that you do not understand this which drives the disconnect between how you perceive people should vote and how they actually vote more than any 'low information' scenarios.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 03:59 |
|
speaking of racist dems, turns out islamophobia won the day in the dem party today https://twitter.com/NomikiKonst/status/835314705807917059?ref_src=tw glad racist dem leadership gave in to obvious lies about ellison
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 03:59 |
|
Probably Magic posted:And I think that false sense of superior Clinton minority handling comes from the economy doing better in the Nineties and benefiting them immensely, with a lot of the blame for the eventual bubble collapse falling on Bush, so they were never held accountable for how little longevity their power had. It's an easy mistake to make, especially since it's what's buoyed Hillary for so long even after 2008, but I think a lot of Millennial minorities suffering under the full brunt of neoliberalism understood that the Nineties had ultimately let them down. Yeah. Plus Perez isn't even that bad. I mean he's definitely better than DWS
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 03:59 |
|
Majorian posted:the narrative that the Clintons were better on race than they actually were. Please elaborate
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 03:59 |
|
stone cold posted:I'm also a woman, and maybe we should turn on our fellow women who voted for the orange pig who wants us to revert to chattel, and keep agitating, instead. that's the issue, i don't feel like they see me as a person when they favor lobbyists over me or abandon me because i'm in a red state so my vote isn't worth the investment. i'm not as valuable to them because i don't have enough money to change anything but they can pretend like they're the ones on our side because the other side is worse, they can decide how much or how little effort they spend defending my rights because there's no better alternative, they can tell me i don't have a choice because third-party is suicide and that's the reality of the two party system, and i'll probably keep gobbling up the poo poo they feed me because they're right, but that's not going to mobilize people and right now they really loving need to mobilize people. i voted for hillary in the election, if you put a literal war criminal paying mere lip service to progressive policies i would vote for them over trump, i've compromised with dems every time because i felt too much was at stake to risk it and they've continued to lose and to make dumb decisions and shoot themselves in the foot and it's looking like they will continue to do that. stone cold posted:You're the one who has to live with yourself, after all. i'm probably going to die before the next election so it doesn't really matter what i think.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 04:00 |
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:You're getting burned so bad you're hoping anyone, me included, will care about some poo poo from a year ago in my rap sheet you obsessively combed over. Oh no! Not the burns! I sure am sad we won't have homophobes like you voting for Democrats, you pretty-much-Trumpist.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 04:00 |
|
Nevvy Z posted:Please elaborate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqLfvQfuvsA
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 04:00 |
|
According to the NAACP Hillary and Bernie were both really good on race. They have A+ grades that were only one percentage point different.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 04:01 |
|
Dan Didio posted:Promising a vague, incremental future victory and stage for leftist politics has been the Democratic party's inner stick to swat at disruptors for decades now. Yes, it has been. So we need to take over the party. It sucks that we didn't this time around, but that doesn't mean there won't be many, many more opportunities in the future. Probably better opportunities than this one.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 04:01 |
|
Condiv posted:why should we have power at all? it's not like the centrists blew an election they should've had in the bag and have been blowing elections so much recently that we're close to the repubs being able to convene a constitutional convention on their lonesome. we're lucky we even get made-up positions in the party I mean, for forty odd years leftists have very literally been mostly powerless, we're at a moment of sea change in American political history and losing the DNC chair isn't going to put a stop to it so easily, and it would be an immense mistake to assume that there is nothing more to be gained from the Democratic Party. I think it's bad to frame it in terms of "the establishment should cede power to us." Of course they won't. That's not how this work. It was always going to be a matter of taking. Majorian posted:Once again, . Plus, as I said before, Ellison would only have disappointed left-Dems as head of the DNC, largely because the DNC chair doesn't set the platform or pick candidates. He would have had more of a platform, and that would have been nice, but I think he would have been wasted in the position, overall. I disagree that he would've been a waste, but I think that a hypothetical Senator Ellison or President Ellison is looking mighty attractive right now.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 04:01 |
|
yellowyams posted:that's the issue, i don't feel like they see me as a person when they favor lobbyists over me or abandon me because i'm in a red state so my vote isn't worth the investment. i'm not as valuable to them because i don't have enough money to change anything but they can pretend like they're the ones on our side because the other side is worse, they can decide how much or how little effort they spend defending my rights because there's no better alternative, they can tell me i don't have a choice because third-party is suicide and that's the reality of the two party system, and i'll probably keep gobbling up the poo poo they feed me because they're right, but that's not going to mobilize people and right now they really loving need to mobilize people. i voted for hillary in the election, if you put a literal war criminal paying mere lip service to progressive policies i would vote for them over trump, i've compromised with dems every time because i felt too much was at stake to risk it and they've continued to lose and to make dumb decisions and shoot themselves in the foot and it's looking like they will continue to do that. you're a bigger person than me, i'm not gonna put up with it anymore.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 04:01 |
|
yellowyams posted:i'm probably going to die before the next election so it doesn't really matter what i think. That's horrible, and I'm genuinely sorry to hear that.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 04:01 |
|
Majorian posted:Yes, it has been. So we need to take over the party. It sucks that we didn't this time around, but that doesn't mean there won't be many, many more opportunities in the future. Probably better opportunities than this one. lol
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 04:02 |
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:Yeah. Plus Perez isn't even that bad. I mean he's definitely better than DWS An incredibly low bar to jump over. Much like Tim Kaine, it's not an enthusiasm killshot in and of itself, but it's just another reminder that the DNC not only doesn't care but actively wants to subvert any leftist momentum. Maybe I'd feel differently if Perez had entered the race before Ellison, but as it is, well, it's a bad look.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 04:02 |
|
Dan Didio posted:Promising a vague, incremental future victory and stage for leftist politics has been the Democratic party's inner stick to swat at disruptors for decades now. man so loving what, nothing happens quickly. we aren't going to get a dem candidate that runs on full socialism now in 2020 we have pretty much universal support for marriage equality in the party AND transgender rights which didn't even exist as a concept at a major party level 8 years ago. the party is actively saying that single payer healthcare is the goal do you realize that if you told a voter from the 80s or 90s that this was the democratic platform they would probably begin foaming at the mouth?
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 04:02 |
|
Lightning Knight posted:Now I only mostly make angry pissbaby arguments. me too, buddy. me too. as for defeatism, its just disheartening to be interested in politics since before obama, vote in the 2006 resurgence, correctly predict obama's election in 08 (while in the army, surrounded by conservatives), watch him fail to be noticeably different from bush, then predict hillary's vulnerability while trying to warn about trump's strengths, and then watch hillary lose and the democrats lose their mind. nowadays democrats sound even more delusional than post 2012 republicans and are all screaming about "fake news" and "russia stealing the election" and "everyone who supported trump is a nazi racist" when its all bullshit. countless people here predicted this election correctly based on the candidates and their policies. now at their lowest point the dems are refusing to consider meaningful, visible change in anyway. it may not be "ethical" or whatever, but i can't really blame people for being disillusioned and alienated by the dems. they way they talk a huge ethical and moralistic game, use the kind of language that creates strong emotional bonds, and then fail to do anything meaningful is bound to just shed disheartened supporters. oh well! we'll see in 2018 (my take is that we'll lose)
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 04:02 |
|
The democrats couldn't give Ellison something that didn't matter at all (?) yet they're definitely going to allow the leftist takeover and Pres. Ellison.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 04:03 |
|
BiohazrD posted:we have pretty much universal support for marriage equality in the party AND transgender rights which didn't even exist as a concept at a major party level 8 years ago. Nor does it exist in the governing party, that beat the Democrats at the last national election and every lower level election for the last good long while.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 04:04 |
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, for forty odd years leftists have very literally been mostly powerless, we're at a moment of sea change in American political history and losing the DNC chair isn't going to put a stop to it so easily, and it would be an immense mistake to assume that there is nothing more to be gained from the Democratic Party. if they won't cede power they can die with their party. we should make that clear to them by not knee-jerkingly voting every dem they throw in front of us.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 04:04 |
|
Majorian posted:Yes, it has been. So we need to take over the party. It sucks that we didn't this time around, but that doesn't mean there won't be many, many more opportunities in the future. Probably better opportunities than this one. You do realize the US government as it currently exists isn’t going to be around in 8 years, right? Voter ID laws + deportations + executive overreach + drug wars 2.0 + mass incarcerations + the GOP being entirely complicit about all of this Young voters are going to be turned off if they see the DNC keep on running on the same poo poo and won’t show up to the polls. Basically, the neo-liberals doomed us all, and all for one lovely candidate.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 04:04 |
|
And yet, on every issue, Democrats have moved leftward for the last decade. A decade ago, an Ellison figure would not have gotten half of the votes he received today and Sanders would have been an also-ran. To say that Democrats are moving rightward is belied by all evidence I can see. Now, like many of you, I wish they were moving leftward faster and will vote according to make them happen. What are you doing to achieve that?
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 04:05 |
|
BiohazrD posted:man so loving what, nothing happens quickly. we aren't going to get a dem candidate that runs on full socialism now in 2020 if we haven't shifted appreciably in 2 years the dems are dead as a party. i hope all you incrementalists are aware of that
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 04:05 |
|
stone cold posted:Oh no! Not the burns! I sure am sad we won't have homophobes like you voting for Democrats, you pretty-much-Trumpist. I never said anything about not voting for Democrats. I always have and (probably) always will, and one of the reasons is I actually give a poo poo about LGBT rights beyond using them as a pretext to call internet people I don't know homophobes.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 04:06 |
|
Edible Hat posted:And yet, on every issue, Democrats have moved leftward for the last decade. A decade ago, an Ellison figure would not have gotten half of the votes he received today and Sanders would have been an also-ran. To say that Democrats are moving rightward is belied by all evidence I can see. Now, like many of you, I wish they were moving leftward faster and will vote according to make them happen. What are you doing to achieve that? this post copy and pasted for all eternity
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 04:07 |
|
Edible Hat posted:And yet, on every issue, Democrats have moved leftward for the last decade. A decade ago, an Ellison figure would not have gotten half of the votes he received today and Sanders would have been an also-ran. To say that Democrats are moving rightward is belied by all evidence I can see. Now, like many of you, I wish they were moving leftward faster and will vote according to make them happen. What are you doing to achieve that? we've moved so far left we're trying to deny staffers unemployment benefits https://twitter.com/ZackMaril/status/835661544570638337
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 04:07 |
|
Don't get trapped in a depressive spiral looking at the news all day and fearing the worst. I'm not going to tell you things will be ok. Things won't be ok. But there are people who want to fight for you and protect you from people like Trump, regardless of who is DNC chair, and you can't give up on the idea that things can get better if we fight hard enough for it. If you do, there's nothing left to do. Probably Magic posted:Much like Tim Kaine, it's not an enthusiasm killshot in and of itself, but it's just another reminder that the DNC not only doesn't care but actively wants to subvert any leftist momentum. Maybe I'd feel differently if Perez had entered the race before Ellison, but as it is, well, it's a bad look. We keep saying this like we didn't already know that though. "The center-right wants to subvert the left" is a constant, the question is how we work around that reality. I mean, I came into politics in 2012 and honestly thought things were gonna get better because I came of age under Obama. 2018 is gonna be bad no matter what because 2018 is a real, real bad map for Democrats in the Senate and gerrymandering is still crushing us. That doesn't mean we don't fight, it just means we temper our expectations. Fake news, Russian involvement, and the amount of racism among Trump supporters is honestly mostly secondary, except insofar as we can maybe nail Trump to a Russian cross. We don't need Trump voters. We just have to fulfill the platform with candidates the public can get behind. That is a monumentally difficult task, but it's not as hard as fretting about whether or not we can win back Trump voters and whether or nor identity politics and economic policy are mutually exclusive or whatever bullshit.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 04:08 |
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:I never said anything about not voting for Democrats. I always have and (probably) always will, and one of the reasons is I actually give a poo poo about LGBT rights beyond using them as a pretext to call internet people I don't know homophobes. Um, as a member of the LGBT community, allies who call people faggots aren't real allies, sorry to teach you this. Or are you Milo, because if you're Milo, you can gently caress off.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 04:09 |
|
How about you put a little more effort into your posts and tell me where I'm wrong, slugger?
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 04:09 |
|
stone cold posted:Um, as a member of the LGBT community, allies who call people faggots aren't real allies, sorry to teach you this. Or are you Milo, because if you're Milo, you can gently caress off.
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 04:09 |
|
|
# ? May 24, 2024 21:02 |
|
Lightning Knight posted:Don't get trapped in a depressive spiral looking at the news all day and fearing the worst. I'm not going to tell you things will be ok. Things won't be ok. But there are people who want to fight for you and protect you from people like Trump, regardless of who is DNC chair, and you can't give up on the idea that things can get better if we fight hard enough for it. If you do, there's nothing left to doters and whether or nor identity politics and economic policy are mutually exclusive or whatever bullshit. they're just not in the dem party
|
# ? Feb 26, 2017 04:10 |