|
Lightning Knight posted:You can, but running against trade agreements won't do what the anti-trade voting public wants, which is bring back the good (factory) jobs. Yes, we are on the same page on that, and I don't necessarily think that renegotiating NAFTA is actually the best policy going forward, anyway. What the U.S. working class needs is well-funded trade adjustment programs. But there's a difference between what one promises on the campaign trail, and what one actually does when in office. Trump clearly understands that distinction. Hopefully the Dems, going forward, understand that they must at least acknowledge that NAFTA, as enacted, didn't work out for everyone.
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 13:19 |
|
|
Majorian posted:There's certainly evidence. I'm a little drunk so perhaps I didn't read as carefully as I could have, but this quote suggests that anti-semitism was an extremely fringe element in Trump's campaign. quote:Many of the owners of the 1,600 Twitter accounts were anonymous, though at least two are prominent white supremacists: Andrew Anglin, the founder of the website The Daily Stormer, and Lee Rogers of the Infostormer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
quote:But in Atlanta, many Democrats were convinced they didn’t need Ellison to harness grassroots excitement. It’s not just Sanders’s backers who are energized, they argued. And officials said they are confident that most of the Sanders/Ellison wing will come back into the fold even with Perez as chair — in part to oppose Trump, and in part because Ellison and Sanders are themselves committed to party unity. http://www.vox.com/2017/2/25/14736930/tom-perez-dnc-race
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 05:12
|
|
|
Bro, for real.Majorian posted:Yes, we are on the same page on that, and I don't necessarily think that renegotiating NAFTA is actually the best policy going forward, anyway. What the U.S. working class needs is well-funded trade adjustment programs. I agree.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:Analytic philosophers always charge continentals as being obscure, when its really the latter that is at pains not to be. In addition, and I recognize this is a quality for which is often excoriated, his thoughts are unpredictable. I find myself engaging with them, disagreeing often but finding his views provocative (in the best sense of the term). Has anything Chomsky has said -- I mention him because, along with Žižek, he is one of the few philosophers today who has any cachet outside academic circles -- not been entirely predictable (even if it is rigorously defended)? I think the same applies to most analytics, with the exception of the ones influenced by American pragmatism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
what a surprise. yet again the dems assume they can poo poo on the left and we'll just fall in line anyway. gently caress the dem party
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
Condiv posted:what a surprise. yet again the dems assume they can poo poo on the left and we'll just fall in line anyway. gently caress the dem party Oh man. This is totally informative. I wasn't already EXTREMELY aware how you would feel about this. Lightning Knight posted:Trump's narrative wasn't about class warfare, it was about how the Jewish conspiracy was trying to kill the white working class. In Florida a week ago he appealed to the blood descendants of the original colonists and was clearly barely able to avoid appealing directly to Christianity in defense of the travel ban. I can't believe that didn't get more attention.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Oh man. This is totally informative. I wasn't already EXTREMELY aware how you would feel about this well then I guess you can stop posting as well because we already know what you'll say
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
Close the thread, we know what everyone's going to say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
In addition, the race is over.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:While I don't disagree that a lot of people don't understand the reality of how hard it is to sell leftist policy, I think that framing it as "if the left was so great, why don't they just win already" ignores the structural and systemic reasons why that hasn't happened and is in fact quite hard. Those structural reasons were always there, though, and it was always hard. Leftist organizers like Eugene Debs and MLK didn't whine passively about how they couldn't do anything because the system wasn't giving them enough support - not even when the system put them in jail. They recognized that their task was to fight the system, not to beg the system for influence. Being a leftist used to be grounds for ending up in prison or being blacklisted from entire industries. Leftist organizing used to be not only illegal but downright unconstitutional. Organizing a political movement and coordinating mass action isn't easy, but it's easier now than it's ever been before. The fall of the left isn't because the system got more hostile, it's because the left stopped trying. I do realize that it's difficult, but previous leftist movements accomplished much more with much less. Majorian posted:I don't think it's a given that they fully knew her record as a political figure. If that's the case, then her opponent did a piss-poor job of explaining to them why they shouldn't vote for her. 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. It's also been the left's stick to swing at the center: the promise that next time, they'll totally win all the elections and take over the Democratic Party and usher in a socialist utopia. Totally. Next time, you'll see! Honest, we just weren't trying up till now! If the left doesn't want to hang their hopes on vague promises from centrists, all they have to do is win elections until they outnumber the centrists. If they can't do that, it's only natural for them to be at the centrists' mercy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:If that's the case, then her opponent did a piss-poor job of explaining to them why they shouldn't vote for her. I think Sanders realized that Clinton winning was more likely than not, and didn't want to damage her too much going into the general. Which isn't unusual; primary rivals oftentimes hold back from doing too much damage to each other.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I think Sanders realized that Clinton winning was more likely than not, and didn't want to damage her too much going into the general. Which isn't unusual; primary rivals oftentimes hold back from doing too much damage to each other. If only the rest could learn the lesson Bernie tried to teach. Stunning parallels to Catholicism, really.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:If only the rest could learn the lesson Bernie tried to teach. Stunning parallels to Catholicism, really. I don't think you can fairly pin the blame for Clinton's loss on Sanders' supporters; most of them turned out for her.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't think you can fairly pin the blame for Clinton's loss on Sanders' supporters; most of them turned out for her. Some are clearly still fighting that fight though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it's always the worst possible time. dems have already decided they'd rather cede everything to repubs with the election of the man no-one really cared about, but a whole lot of people hated. I sincerely do not see how you can look at the current government and not see how it is worse than other recent Republican administrations. It really is the worst possible time in decades to let the American left fall into infighting for the next decade and a half. "It's always the worst possible time" is a cowardly excuse to make legitimate political disappointment into an affront worth burning the country down over.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Some are clearly still fighting that fight though. I think most of them just don't want the Dems to keep making the same dumb mistakes that put all three branches of government in Republican hands.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
jfc that quote
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 05:51
|
|
|
Harrow posted:I sincerely do not see how you can look at the current government and not see how it is worse than other recent Republican administrations. It really is the worst possible time in decades to let the American left fall into infighting for the next decade and a half. "It's always the worst possible time" is a cowardly excuse to make legitimate political disappointment into an affront worth burning the country down over. it is the worst republican admin ever. and the next one will be worse, and so on and so on cause dems are letting this country slip into fascism with their spineless triangulation. that's why it's not the worst possible time to start this fight. the worst possible time would be in the future when we've become even more fascist (cause it will be far too late by then).
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
Condiv is the only one in this thread that is actively trying to improve things for the working class by taking the socialist and leftist enthusiasm out of the Democratic Party and into a new party. We can't just sit in the backseat and let the Democratic Party take leftist votes, but not implement leftist policy. There are only two national political political parties right now. As long as the choice is binary, leftists and socialists in America will always feel compelled to give in to the Democratic Party. That's why we need a third national party to compete and make the Democratic Party earn the votes of American socialists. You guys are harassing Condiv for wanting to "take his ball and go home" because he wants to create a national socialist party, but he is actually trying to organize. What is everyone else doing in this thread other than just typing? If you don't want Condiv to start a national socialist party, then give him and others like him an actual tangible reason to support the Democratic Party and don't just take them for granted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't think you can fairly pin the blame for Clinton's loss on Sanders' supporters; most of them turned out for her.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Condiv is the only one in this thread that is actively trying to improve things for the working class by taking the socialist and leftist enthusiasm out of the Democratic Party and into a new party. We can't just sit in the backseat and let the Democratic Party take leftist votes, but not implement leftist policy. gently caress off nazi
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
Harrow posted:I sincerely do not see how you can look at the current government and not see how it is worse than other recent Republican administrations. It really is the worst possible time in decades to let the American left fall into infighting for the next decade and a half. "It's always the worst possible time" is a cowardly excuse to make legitimate political disappointment into an affront worth burning the country down over. I'm open to arguments that we should take over the party, but honestly the centrists are pretty dug in, and they'd rather see Republicans in power forever than allow leftists any real influence in their party. It's not a foregone conclusion that the best path to stopping fascism lay in the Democratic party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it is the worst republican admin ever. and the next one will be worse, and so on and so on cause dems are letting this country slip into fascism with their spineless triangulation. that's why it's not the worst possible time to start this fight. the worst possible time would be in the future when we've become even more fascist (cause it will be far too late by then). I'm all for trying to push the Democrats leftward, so I hope you're right. I think that having this fight within the party is ultimately a good thing. My fear is that enough of the Sanders wing of the party will up and abandon the party and try to start a new one that nobody on the left wing will win a national election again for decades. Unfortunately, leftist policy isn't a magic bullet in this country--the Democratic primary votes who voted for Clinton, for example, aren't necessarily going to wake up and flock to the more left-wing party as both parties start losing due to a split vote. And just ensuring the Republicans stay in power for decades sure isn't going to lead to the two-party-enforcing electoral system we have being changed, either. But I understand your anger. I know it doesn't seem like I do, but I do. This feels like a lose-lose. For my part, I want to fight within the party but ultimately, if the Democrats nominate someone who isn't left-wing enough for me, I'm still going to vote for them because I don't want to split what liberal vote there is in the country. And the Democrats know that and it's why they know they don't need to swing leftward as a party in a big way. But if I (and enough other voters) were to do otherwise--to turn my back on the Democrats if their next nominees aren't pro-labor and otherwise left-wing enough to match my own politics--I'm taking a gigantic gamble that splitting the vote now and handing the Republicans a decade or two of unchallenged control will lead to a more powerful, more left-wing party eventually, assuming they have a country left to rebuild by then. I'm still sticking with that first option, even though I know I'm basically Charlie Brown taking another run-up at another football.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:What you don't seem to understand, somehow despite quite a lot of really glaringly obvious evidence, is that the Democratic party is not able to reliably win elections, and if they're going to keep doing the same old poo poo that results in losses, then the time to start building something else starts precisely now. Swap "centrists" and "leftists" and you've basically got the Democratic Party circa 1990. The centrists got entrenched in the first place because they argued that the Democratic Party was losing elections in the Reagan era because they were too far left...and instead of whining to party leadership about it, they ran centrists for office and won.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
It's really interesting to see people blaming millions of voters making their own individual decisions for Democratic losses, rather than the influential individuals or small groups who are or should be aware of how their decisions affect how they are perceived and how this will affect their support/turnout. Obama in 2008 was seen, at least by the average voter, as a progressive. Clinton in 2016 was not. Someone in this thread said before the vote that there wasn't that big a difference between Perez and Ellison. So, why not pick the one that was endorsed by the progressives in the party? If you can answer that, you might know what's really important to them as well as why they keep losing.Harrow posted:if the Democrats nominate someone who isn't left-wing enough for me, I'm still going to vote for them because I don't want to split what liberal vote there is in the country. And the Democrats know that and it's why they know they don't need to swing leftward as a party in a big way. This is what they had been counting on, except, well. They are the Charlie Brown. VROOM VROOM fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:04
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Condiv is the only one in this thread that is actively trying to improve things for the working class by taking the socialist and leftist enthusiasm out of the Democratic Party and into a new party. We can't just sit in the backseat and let the Democratic Party take leftist votes, but not implement leftist policy. Condiv is an expat waste of oxygen who, much like bad Dems, likes to put on the illusion of doing something without ever actually doing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Condiv is the only one in this thread that is actively trying to improve things for the working class by taking the socialist and leftist enthusiasm out of the Democratic Party and into a new party. We can't just sit in the backseat and let the Democratic Party take leftist votes, but not implement leftist policy. This is never going to stop being funny even though I don't fully agree with your implied criticism.  Condiv posted:gently caress off nazi He's trolling you man, he's just making a "third parties don't accomplish anything" joke.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:What you don't seem to understand, somehow despite quite a lot of really glaringly obvious evidence, is that the Democratic party is not able to reliably win elections, and if they're going to keep doing the same old poo poo that results in losses, then the time to start building something else starts precisely now. No, I do understand. What I'm trying to say is that I think a lot of it is an issue of strategy more than policy. The DNC has done a loving awful job managing elections at the state level and not much better at the congressional level. I'm not sure we have the information necessary to figure out what percentage of their failures are down to horrible mismanagement and what percentage is down to unpopular policy. I think that either Ellison or Perez could gently caress up or succeed on the strategy front and the reason I'm not upset that Ellison didn't win is because I have no idea which one of them is more likely to implement a winning nation-wide strategy. That's the DNC chair's biggest job, more than anything else. I prefer Ellison from a policy standpoint for certain, but Perez isn't, like, right-wing or something, and either one of them could pull out actual good management. If the Democrats keep losing with good management--or Perez fucks up the strategy as badly as the last couple of chairs--then I'll eat my words.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:06
|
|
|
So now that he's the new Chairman is Tom Perez worse than Ellison and if so, how?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
Harrow posted:No, I do understand. What I'm trying to say is that I think a lot of it is an issue of strategy more than policy. The DNC has done a loving awful job managing elections at the state level and not much better at the congressional level. I'm not sure we have the information necessary to figure out what percentage of their failures are down to horrible mismanagement and what percentage is down to unpopular policy. I understand that the main criticism of Perez is not really his policies or even his strategy, but that the Democrats have a good platform with bad candidates who aren't trusted to implement that platform and Perez might not support the same progressive candidates Ellison might have. I think that criticism assumes a lot of things that aren't necessarily a given, but it's a reasonable premise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
Harrow posted:But I understand your anger. I know it doesn't seem like I do, but I do. This feels like a lose-lose. For my part, I want to fight within the party but ultimately, if the Democrats nominate someone who isn't left-wing enough for me, I'm still going to vote for them because I don't want to split what liberal vote there is in the country. And the Democrats know that and it's why they know they don't need to swing leftward as a party in a big way. But if I (and enough other voters) were to do otherwise--to turn my back on the Democrats if their next nominees aren't pro-labor and otherwise left-wing enough to match my own politics--I'm taking a gigantic gamble that splitting the vote now and handing the Republicans a decade or two of unchallenged control will lead to a more powerful, more left-wing party eventually, assuming they have a country left to rebuild by then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
Condiv spent the whole election cycle boasting that he was gonna vote some flavor of Judean People's Front third party for President instead of Hillary, so it's not like he's an example of the Democrats losing votes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:So now that he's the new Chairman is Tom Perez worse than Ellison and if so, how? The optics are bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:09
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Swap "centrists" and "leftists" and you've basically got the Democratic Party circa 1990. The centrists got entrenched in the first place because they argued that the Democratic Party was losing elections in the Reagan era because they were too far left...and instead of whining to party leadership about it, they ran centrists for office and won.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:10
|
|
|
Oxxidation posted:Condiv is an expat waste of oxygen who, much like bad Dems, likes to put on the illusion of doing something without ever actually doing it. He's in France, so he actually does have experience with national socialist parties. They are probably going to get into the run-offs in the next French election. American leftists could learn from the successes of national socialist parties in France. Condiv is actively trying to start a national socialist party in America, which is at least SOMETHING. If leftists had his enthusiasm for national socialism, then we could maybe get turnout higher than 10-15% among that demographic group.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:So now that he's the new Chairman is Tom Perez worse than Ellison and if so, how? Hes really dropped the ball so far. I don't feel inspired at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Condiv is actively trying to start a national socialist party in America I hope not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:He's in France, so he actually does have experience with national socialist parties. They are probably going to get into the run-offs in the next French election. I realize this is a joke post, but seriously, the National Front are gonna pull the rabbit out of the hate, Brexit-style, and their explicit plan is to suicide bomb the Euro and implicitly crash the global economy in the process, just as Bannon was alluding to at CPAC. The next year is gonna look really nasty with all this poo poo going on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 13:19 |
|
|
Kilroy posted:Voting members of the DNC are relying on exactly this logic, except going the other direction, to keep the party centrist. I know that. I really do. I just really, really don't like rolling the dice when there's as much on the line as there is, and when the fight from within the party is still winnable. Vincent Van Goatse posted:Condiv spent the whole election cycle boasting that he was gonna vote some flavor of Judean People's Front third party for President instead of Hillary, so it's not like he's an example of the Democrats losing votes. The Democrats aren't exactly in a position where "not losing votes" is a real win. Democrats need to gain votes. With the likely wins the Republicans are going to have in 2018, it's going to be even harder to win anything in 2020. That's why I'm worried. Again, I don't think Perez was a bad choice. He's not Chuck Schumer. But I think enough of the people that we need to win over see anyone but Ellison as a bad choice that I'm afraid the Democrats have shot themselves in the foot in a very public way here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 06:15
|
|