|
VitalSigns posted:Maybe I just don't want to see the Democratic party smug out about stupid babies and tell everyone to get lost again, and then wake up in 2018 wondering why a winning coalition didn't magically appear. "We called everyone who complained about us sucking Goldman-Sachs' collective dick a whiny baby moron, what more do you stupid assholes want!?” Good thing the party isn't doing that. But I sure as gently caress am. Meanwhile, Ellison is deputy chair and other than this circular "this is worse than the alternative because I am mad about optics because I didn't get what I wanted" tantrum I haven't heard a single argument to suggest that the party is in a significantly worse place than they would be if Ellison had won. And I've seen no figures cited to suggest that this is remotely on the scale of the Bernie defectors, who we repeatedly have established weren't the deciding factor. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Feb 27, 2017 |
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 10:10 |
|
|
Fulchrum posted:He was instrumental in drafting the platforms parts pertaining to Israel and getting its support, people here describe the dems as heavily pro Israel based on that platform, seems straightforward to me. Well, then, you're either a moron, or, more likely, you're being extremely dishonest. Ellison can have, and probably did, play a moderating role in the Democratic Party's policy towards Israel - which became way too slavishly pro-Israel long before Ellison came into the picture, btw. Nevvy Z posted:Good thing the party isn't doing that. But I sure as gently caress am. Then stop. Seriously. Please stop being part of the problem. Those of us who want to oppose Trump, instead of scoring personal online points, need every person we can get.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Whereas telling them they suck Goldman Sachs dick makes them so ready and willing to respect you and listen to you. 1. You do. 2. I want you voting GOP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
It's funny how the anger over each side in here lightly burning each other here resembles poo poo like kotaku in action trying to engage Gamerghazi and vice versa
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, then, you're either a moron, or, more likely, you're being extremely dishonest. Ellison can have, and probably did, play a moderating role in the Democratic Party's policy towards Israel - which became way too slavishly pro-Israel long before Ellison came into the picture, btw.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
We're probably better off without people that can't tell the difference between losing a primary and getting ratfucked by the FSB.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:So you are saying Schumer knowingly lied when he said that the platform after Ellisson was involved was one of the strongest pro-Israel platforms? What are you basing this on? What definition of pro-Israel are you operating from before we go any further?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:So you are saying Schumer knowingly lied when he said that the platform after Ellisson was involved was one of the strongest pro-Israel platforms? What are you basing this on? No you're a lying Islamophobe.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:So you are saying Schumer knowingly lied when he said that the platform after Ellisson was involved was one of the strongest pro-Israel platforms? Nope. I'm saying that Ellison was overruled, or just flat-out ignored.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:So you are saying Schumer knowingly lied when he said that the platform after Ellisson was involved was one of the strongest pro-Israel platforms? What are you basing this on? I think he's saying Schumer is a politician. Also something can be weakened and still be one of the strongst of that kind of thing. Yay for words Crowsbeak posted:No you're a lying Islamophobe. You do this a lot. He's not. Shutup.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:35
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:We're probably better off without people that can't tell the difference between losing a primary and getting ratfucked by the FSB. I would say "No you're not, and here's why" but then I realize who it is I'm quoting and that you could not give a single gently caress that you're wrong, so why bother giving reasons? You're not better off without them.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
To elaborate on my point about using and gaining influence in a way that's intelligent, Hillary is a great example. Just look at her actions during this last election cycle. She had a huge advantage and did gently caress all of nothing to capitalize on it. And when she did try to capitalize on the advantages she had it was in the most ham-brained and idiotic way imaginable. She completely ignored the areas that ultimately went for Trump in the midwest and were largely considered somewhat reliable givens for the Democrats. Instead she ran up the score in areas that were a given to vote for her. Likewise, she had a ton of opportunities to solidify her lead into a win by uniting people both within and without the party behind her. One big example that I recall is that after Bernie lost the primary he reached out to her for a cabinet position to bring in voters that liked him (Much as Obama did when her branch of the party started trying to sabotage his run previously. Which makes it a doubly stupid move. She saw the effectiveness of it herself.) and she ignored him because she falsely thought that he had nothing to leverage against her. Of course, the truth is that he personally didn't. But she completely overlooked the voters that supported his policies and the perceived views about what he represented. PR wise she also failed horribly at exerting the virtues of her experience in politics. Which was pretty loving important since --- Well, she's Hillary loving Clinton and has a ton of baggage attached to her name. Furthermore, you don't run for the presidency and attend multi million dollar meetings to major corporations as a keynote speaker. Or...Well, you can. But only if you're a Republican and can trot out a few half-hearted lines about Jesus whenever it's possible. The image it projects for a Democrat is just downright awful. Heck, that just helped bolster all the crazy bullshit that certain groups were slinging at her down the line about her being corrupt. It's stupid politicians like that that make up a good chunk of the Democrats currently in office. They're a big part of the problem and if you think just advocating for left leaning policies to the establishment is going to fix things then hahaha oh my god. You've got to get them out of power before any true change will occur. Archonex fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:We're probably better off without people that can't tell the difference between losing a primary and getting ratfucked by the FSB.  there it isI thought I'd have to wait until early 2018 for this kind of thinking to make a comeback but I see I gave my species too much credit. Enjoy your party and the stranglehold short-sighted fools like yourself have on it. When we're all dying from climate change you can take comfort in the fact that you never broke character from being The Adult In The Room.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:Again if you hate Goldman-Sachs, I have bad news for you about the other guys, including the secret president. But I'm not the person you have to convince, it's the other people who didn't show up that you need to worry about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:39
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:It's funny how the anger over each side in here lightly burning each other here resembles poo poo like kotaku in action trying to engage Gamerghazi and vice versa It's because both sides had bad things happen to them, and neither side wants to admit the other one got hosed as well. We wouldn't keep having this fight if clintonites just loving admitted that the primary wasn't entirely fair and if berniebros admitted that spreading the idea that she was just as bad as Trump played a role in putting Trump in the white house. There's a lot of other poo poo, too, but it's a good core thing to stop fighting over. But gently caress that, it's never gonna happen, so keep slap fighting I guess. Republicans haven't needed olive branches for decades, why should we?
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Nope. I'm saying that Ellison was overruled, or just flat-out ignored. Once more, based on? And you think that being overruled or ignored makes him instrumental in making it happen?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:40
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Once more, based on? The fact that there's otherwise no evidence that Ellison has been strongly "pro-Israel" anytime in his political career. By your dumbass logic, every registered Democrat must have been a die-hard Clinton supporter because "OTHERWISE WHY DID THEY NOMINATE HER?  "
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:
If you don't want to be called something don't engage in it. I find it funny how you neoliberals like to pretend to be against bigotry but then engage in it to tear people down you disagree with politically.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
losing a few voters is nothing, for every progressive we lose, we will pick up two moderate republicans in the suburbs in philadelphia, and you can repeat that in ohio and illinois and wisconsin. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I think he's saying Schumer is a politician. Also something can be weakened and still be one of the strongst of that kind of thing. Yay for words And if that's true and Ellisson did weaken it, we're back to Schumer knowingly lying to a pro-Israel audience to try and present an anti-Israel candidate as pro-Israel. Why the poo poo would he do that? Also, once again, where are you getting this notion that Ellisson weakened the platform, which runs directly counter to what Schumer said?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Good thing the party isn't doing that. But I sure as gently caress am. Yeah I am really hoping Perez is smarter than you. Also, please stop. And I hope that the rest of the party wises up instead of continuing to be this guy "Ugh nobody wants their constituents calling them and telling them what to do all the time. gently caress the people, they have to vote D no matter what we do!" *loses election after election until Republicans burn America to the ground and Dems finally win by default*
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:
You've already said that you won't actually stop voting for democrats, just that you wont try to gain any influence over the party anymore. I think if you honestly think what Donna Brazile did to bernie is comparable to the party being ratfucked by a foreign intelligence service I think it's probably good that you don't get any influence in the party, even if that deprives us of your organizing talents.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, people are actually engaging with Fulchrum and Nevvy Z. drat.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Politics have been trending to the right economically for the last 40 years. These so called moderates with all their talk of compromise would be straight-up hard-right pro capitlists in the 60's according to their policy views. It's really sad that they ignore this and pretend to be the voice of reason and not precisely the main motive, by clinging to their failing decadent ideology, that we'll get more and more the choice between Ethnic nationalism and pure corporatism. You'll reap what you sow. I guess you don't care cause you'll manage to be confortable and pretend you care about others in your inner city cupola.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:If you don't want to be called something don't engage in it. Whatever you say /b/tard nazi propaganda mouthpiece.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:It's because both sides had bad things happen to them, and neither side wants to admit the other one got hosed as well. We wouldn't keep having this fight if clintonites just loving admitted that the primary wasn't entirely fair and if berniebros admitted that spreading the idea that she was just as bad as Trump played a role in putting Trump in the white house. There's a lot of other poo poo, too, but it's a good core thing to stop fighting over. So perhaps the trouble we're having here is that one side is taking any example they can find of Bernie supporters stirring up poo poo, and tarring us all with that brush and holding us personally accountable (and ffs I wasn't even a Bernie supporter really, I mostly liked either candidate). Meanwhile if anyone mentions the primary we inevitably hear "Ratfucked! Russia!" and are told we're playing right into Putin's hand, and a total disavowal of any culpability there. So yeah, there is not a tit-for-tat here - one side is full of disingenuous fucks and the other is not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The fact that there's otherwise no evidence that Ellison has been strongly "pro-Israel" anytime in his political career. Any evidence he's anti-Israel outside the NOI stuff he's heavily distanced himself from in later years?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Whatever you say /b/tard nazi propaganda mouthpiece. Well I have not said anything nazi like. While you attacked a person for their religion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:47
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You've already said that you won't actually stop voting for democrats, just that you wont try to gain any influence over the party anymore. I think if you honestly think what Donna Brazile did to bernie is comparable to the party being ratfucked by a foreign intelligence service I think it's probably good that you don't get any influence in the party, even if that deprives us of your organizing talents. Yeah, let's just tell people to gently caress off because we're right, even though we've been consistently losing ground in every battle except social ones that are, frankly, inevitable. We don't need those votes anyway. Jesus christ you're stupid. It has never mattered whether you were right or not. What matters is fixing the loving problem, and telling people to gently caress off is the exact opposite of fixing the problem.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:48
|
|
Kilroy posted:Okay the difference is that no one, to my knowledge (and correct me if I'm wrong) claimed that Clinton was as bad as Trump either before or after the election. I tried to get people on board with Hillary but it was an uphill struggle (perhaps I should have taken my cue from posters in this thread and called them names instead?). You're probably right, but it'd be better to turn the other cheek and let them have that victory in order to move past this gigantic loving tire fire of a fight that only hurts everyone involved. edit: woops, doublepost, figured the thread was moving faster than that.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:
drat, this is a real head-scratcher.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:49
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You've already said that you won't actually stop voting for democrats, just that you wont try to gain any influence over the party anymore. I think if you honestly think what Donna Brazile did to bernie is comparable to the party being ratfucked by a foreign intelligence service I think it's probably good that you don't get any influence in the party, even if that deprives us of your organizing talents. You should also consider what this attitude might mean for turnout when aggregated across a great number of people. You might respond that I don't represent any constituency other than my own constituency of one, but in that case you're just arguing that a single vote doesn't matter which is hardly interesting or insightful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
I like how JC thinks his side that isn't the one organizing protests and keeping senators in fear of primaries is in control.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Whereas telling them they suck Goldman Sachs dick makes them so ready and willing to respect you and listen to you. Hillary gave paid speeches to Goldman Sachs the year before she wanted to be president because I told her to? Did I write those speeches and tell her to reassure that her public positions weren't her private beliefs? Did I tell her to keep them secret during the primary to cynically keep the Democratic electorate from finding out how disastrous they might look if they leaked in the general? Which they did, and there she was at a debate trying to mince words about Lincoln at the same time she was casting doubt on whether the leaks were what her speeches really said? Debate time she could have been using to sell America on her plans instead of fumbling about on an issue we could have resolved half a year prior? No those were all self-inflicted wounds friend. I want Democrats to stop doing this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Okay the difference is that no one, to my knowledge (and correct me if I'm wrong) claimed that Clinton was as bad as Trump either before or after the election. I tried to get people on board with Hillary but it was an uphill struggle (perhaps I should have taken my cue from posters in this thread and called them names instead?). To be fair, Bernie supporters could be and were at some points far more obnoxious about their support of the man. Hell, they wouldn't even shut up about it after the election was over. At least one thread was overrun for a solid month by people threadshitting all over anyone that pointed out that it literally does not matter if he would have won or not. Also there's the whole thing where a bunch of them bought a bunch of bullshit created by Wikileaks about the election being stolen from them hook line and sinker despite the fact that the outcome of the votes showed that he lost the popular vote within the party by a pretty hefty margin too. Heck, we've had people post recently claiming that's a real thing in some of the threads on this forum. Archonex fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
I don't think they're going to gently caress off with their votes, because they're not dumb. I think they're going to gently caress off with their efforts to organize the party around their beliefs. I'm not talking about Bernie people. I'm talking about people who think the party didn't get ratfucked and that it isn't getting ratfucked right this very second. Those people should not be organizing the party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
LITERALLY MY FETISH posted:You're probably right, but it'd be better to turn the other cheek and let them have that victory in order to move past this gigantic loving tire fire of a fight that only hurts everyone involved.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Ellisson is a politician, like every other dem, yet nearly none get any kind of slack because of it. What the gently caress do you mean by pro-Israel, do you mean "in favor of Bibi marching the Palestinians into the oceans" or what? Is that the "support" you need and any other stance is anti-Israel? Tell me what I'm dealing with here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Even if I personally felt like doing that, it doesn't scale. You're basically the DNC establishment calling for unity with progressives after completely shutting them out of power, and while that sort of thing might work on an individual level it's a totally unrealistic to expect to happen with large groups of people, as the Democrats will soon learn (or rather fail to learn, again). Look if we purge local Dems we can begin ensuring state parties are organized for the lower classes rather than ten percenters. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 01:59 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 10:10 |
|
|
Kilroy posted:Even if I personally felt like doing that, it doesn't scale. You're basically the DNC establishment calling for unity with progressives after completely shutting them out of power, and while that sort of thing might work on an individual level it's a totally unrealistic to expect to happen with large groups of people, as the Democrats will soon learn (or rather fail to learn, again). Except giving Ellison the Deputy Chair position isn't "completely shutting them out of power" and neither was the Unity Committee or the Platform Committee.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:57
|
|
