|
cargo cult posted:-as someone pointed out claiming sanders would achieve nothing simply because it's impossible to achieve anything without the house. then once sanders was done switching to, "you will get nothing from us you needy racist millenial/hicks, and you will like it" That's a takeaway that cannot be dismissed or downplayed - the leftist coalition is not motivated by policy, its always about a charismatic leader. Saying "their only recourse is to go left" from the most progressive platform in history, is just ignoring the reality for a convenient fantasy.
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 08:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 02:58 |
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:literally no one bought that they were gonna fight for a single loving thing on that platform But of course, if they go still further left, then you'll for sure believe it, and it won't be because of the name at the top of the ticket at all.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2016 08:32
|
|
|
So how long did it take for you guys to replace "we need to do something, we need to come together, we need to fight this monster any way we can" with "gently caress YOU dad! I refuse to ever be associated with the only possible party with the infrastructure that could possibly oppose Trump!". Should we just tell LGBT voters and minorities to give up all hope, there will be no calvary because the silver in the armor wasn't pure enough? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
MJ12 posted:I suspect a lot of centrists are actually sympathetic with more left positions. They only take up that position because they felt that those harder-left positions were unelectable or electoral poison. I mean, it's in the name. Incrementalism. So now that it turns out centrism isn't more electable, well then.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Assuming it isn't followed by 4 years of bitter Clintonites claiming Keith is an illegitimate pretender to the throne. If he can deliver in 2018 and turn the tide back against the Republicans absolutely no-one in the party is going to say poo poo to or about the guy. If. Getting him in is all well and good, but he still must prove himself.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Zythrst posted:Also its narrated by Bernie and Mark Ruffalo so now I want Bernie to be in The Avengers. 90% of the audience - "why did Stan Lee shave his moustache?". OhFunny posted:I just got home. And that woman's name was Albert Einstein. Seriously though, why are people saying Ellisson is the only choice for a labor focused Dem party? Does he have experience as a strike leader or a union boss or something? Not being dismissive, I just want to know what exactly people are referring to.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:But I didn't vote for him. I'm not even in his district. Do you think he can tell that from a phone call?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
So has any Democrat figure pledged support for anyone other than Ellison at this point? It seems like there's not even a token resistance to the handing over of power.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
100 degrees Calcium posted:I'm a baby idiot who spent the last four years mistaking tweeting and blogging for participation in democracy. What do I need to do to make Keith Ellison DNC chairperson. At this point it looks like nothing. Nearly all the remaining party leadership seems to have backed him, and as far as i know no-one has come out in support of Dean or Harrison. I literally cannot understand why they haven't just said "y'know what, forget it" and formally withdrawn - especially Harrison.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
bump_fn posted:not actively backing is the same as denigrating him. speak out or gently caress off Okay, so they're denigrating all choices equally. Seems fair to me. Dnc chair doesn't need a unanimous mandate from all elected officials. Ellisson will not need their love, just their compliance. Zikan posted:the election isn't until next near so there's still time for a third way resistance for form Unlikely. With how people are talking Brazille may be pressured to step down within weeks, and Ellisson would most likely be named interim. Yeah, there'd be a proper election in March still, but you can't really build a case against the guy who just got the job that quickly.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:what if the dem leadership is embracing progressives so they can blame them for a bad election in 2018 and purge them again? Im just having a hard time accepting all these ancient neoliberal third way shits who have dominated the party for a generation are just surrendering this easily to a takeover by the progressive wing I like how this is based on the premise that you know progressives will do really poorly in 2018, but they are still absolutely the right choice. Crazy thought, but maybe these people aren't acting out of malice, and after seeing that their path doesn't work, instead of wailing and raging, accept the defeat and want to empower people who can fight better?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 03:03
|
|
|
hobotrashcanfires posted:I guess the only answer is to take it and make it work. Maybe it fails, and maybe they will, but I doubt they have that plan now. Hubris got us into this situation, a genuine ground-up grassroots movement is almost certainly the only way out. If a true and renewed democratic party of real every day people can't get us out of this, pretty sure were hosed whether they take it back or not. If that's their plan, we can foil it by retaking the house and a majority of governorships in 2018, ensuring that there is no way for them to claim failure. Hah, won't they look stupid then?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 03:23
|
|
|
Anyone got that "this labor day, Republicans support union workers" thing from the 50s?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
hobotrashcanfires posted:I guess the only answer is to take it and make it work. Maybe it fails, and maybe they will, but I doubt they have that plan now. Hubris got us into this situation, a genuine ground-up grassroots movement is almost certainly the only way out. If a true and renewed democratic party of real every day people can't get us out of this, pretty sure were hosed whether they take it back or not. Why exactly is your clinging to leadership and power after your way fails to work better or more justified than them doing the same thing? Shouldn't you, in the case of a loss, be as willing to hand over the reins as you expect them to be?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
BrownClown posted:So, I'm in MA. Why are you posting this in the Adult Swim thread?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 08:15
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:I could imagine Schumer sees the progressive rumblings in a similar vein as the tea party movement post the 2008 election. He knows that his best bet is to get on board early and fully because we all saw what happened to establishment republicans in 2010 that tried to stand against the tea party.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
Mr. Jive posted:Politicians should do more than win elections. Do as much as you can more, but winning elections is still item one.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
Why is it necessary for people itt that not only you be allowed to win and take control over the party, but that everyone else be fearful and hate you for it. All signs show that there is a decisive and clear move by all members towards giving your way the full speed ahead. Why are you now needing to invent stories of these Democrats raging and crying that it's happening?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2016 00:15
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:There's probably a shitload of favors that are never going to be paid back if the Clinton wing is tossed out. And yet they are relinquishing the reins quietly and peacefully. Once again, maybe these people actually care about America more than enriching themselves and saving their own skins, and aren't fighting it cause they want the party to change footing when ir needs to as soon as possible.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
iospace posted:One thing the democrats need to do now, and it's not involving policy: Isn't that Ellison's job if he takes the chair?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:"Senate Democrats’ Surprising Strategy: Trying to Align With Trump" Bernie: we should work with Trump on improving infrastructure and maternity leave. Thread: this is why Bernie is a courageous and smart leader! What a plan! Any other leftist: we should work with Trump on improving infrastructure and maternity leave. Thread: HANG THE TRAITORS!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2016 03:52
|
|
|
big juicy nectarine posted:Donald Trump, who to be fair is funny as hell. The man got booed off stage at a charity dinner.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2016 03:53
|
|
|
loquacius posted:I would appreciate this link if it is real, tia http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38008954 Here, laugh at a woman feeling the pain of a dream she has worked towards her whole life die, if you must. MaxxBot posted:If Dems think "block everything" is a Cool and Good strategy like Republicans do then they'd just be proving the Republicans point that government is dysfunctional. Besides, improved infrastructure and maternity leave are two things Americans need, and getting it to the people even if it's under Trump can only be a good thing. Nixon gave America the EPA, but the EPA is still objectively good. Fulchrum has issued a correction as of 04:23 on Nov 17, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
comingafteryouall posted:If Bernie died in any kind of foul play there would be riots everywhere Which is actually sounding really dangerous. The man is 75. He could just die of natural causes, but in this climate, many people wouldn't believe it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
Hamelekim posted:Anyone else incredibly worried about a fascist takeover of the US by Trump and Co? All of the pieces are there for it to happen, and it scares the hell out of me. What would a fascist US do to Canada? I mean, we would be screwed. What does giving secret information to his children have to do with destroying the democratic process? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
Grey Fox posted:I don't agree with this. It was a big fight just to give Bernie a bigger voice in the platform creation process, and even then that was recognized as being a big compromise on both sides. The party certainly started to lean more towards the left in the final negotiated platform, but I think it still needs to be made clear that the party did not just take Bernie's positions and paste them into the party platform. Mainly because Bernie was being a dick about the entire thing and not taking it seriously, putting up loving Jill Stein supporter Cornel West to represent him on the committee.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
So you think Hillary Clinton lost because she didn't call Barack Obama the n word enough? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2016 13:25
|
|
|
He threw his support behind Jill loving Stein. He loses the right to be treated as a serious person with serious views as soon as he looked at Crystal Healing McRussia Stooge and thought "Now this is a person whose views I trust". Are you seriously at the point where any figure who criticizes the dems, no matter how clowning or ridiculous, needs to be treated as a very serious person? Why don't we just post Ted Rall poo poo and get it over with? Fulchrum has issued a correction as of 13:40 on Nov 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2016 13:38
|
|
|
Has anyone got numbers on those counties where Trump won that Obama won? I'm still wondering if there is any truth to the idea that anyone who voted for Obama voted for Trump, or if it was just a hugely depressed dem turnout while Republicans would not be dissuaded from voting against a D.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 01:38
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:Silly question but did the Clinton's make much of an effort to paint Trump as a rich rear end in a top hat during the campaign? I remember hearing a lot about how he was a racist and a sexist but little to nothing about him being a rich kid that had everything handed to him, that he treated his employees like garbage, etc. Which is basically how the Obama campaign painted Romney in 2012 and that worked like a charm, all I could remember people talking about was how much of a rich rear end in a top hat Romney was.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:As we keep telling you. Obama won these people over because he promised "hope" and "change". He promised them jobs and an increase of quality in their lives. Trump won these people over by promising to "make America Great Again" as he campaigned on bringing back their lost industry and dropping disastrous trade deals. It's not that difficult to connect. And when it gets completely and totally ignored yet a loving gain because it's an answer that tries to be informed and relevant, and isn't just "SO MUCH WINNING", then loving what?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:But it's been successful. Are you seriously going to try and claim that Hillary was actively oblivious to any economic problems being faced by people in the rust belt, and not a single one of her plans and policies had anything to do with helping these towns? Or is this just the return of "Well she didn't really MEAN it" fallacy? speng31b posted:And literally NOONE here is saying that we need to drop economic populism entirely from the platform either. I think we can run on both and win, but you also have to understand that given the history of our country, the Democratic party, who has power, and who is more vulnerable, deemphasizing social issues as a takeaway from the handwringing about how we've failed to appeal to a certain demographic is a real danger to a lot of people. Historically, there's never once been a point in time where a party has said that we could try both economic populism to appeal to whites AND minority issues and rights" and ever actually kept the second part. Fulchrum has issued a correction as of 02:14 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:well no people are saying that, that's in fact the entire reason these arguments start, when someone needs to run in and say 'uh excuse me you can't say trump's support came from bigotry' when it did, in one major component. Hell, for all intents and purposes Hillary was doing what Obama did. Improving on all his policies and saying that they would continue the successes of the last 8 years. How do you run on "everything needs to be burned down and changed" when your party has been in the white house for 8 years?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:hello, please tell me two of her plans and policies that would have positively affected dying factory towns without checking her campaign website tia Opiod addiction focus and rehabilitation to affect poverty cycles, and heavily subsidizing green energy factories in those same towns to manufacture lithium batteries, solar panels, windmills, and so on. Oh, I'm sorry, was this supposed to be some dumbass rhetorical question because you were so sure these things couldn't exist?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
etalian posted:I am suprised she didnt give more focus to the Midwest given how being defeated by Bernie should have provided a clue about her campaign weakness. So if through a miracle Bernie had won he should have put all his resources in safeguarding California and New York?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 02:36
|
|
|
KaptainKrunk posted:You don't. You say "we need to recalibrate our policies, but these fucksticks on the other side of the aisle are in our way." Which is 100% true. Unfortunately the message is badly delivered because the Dems lack any sort of spine or fighting spirit. They think they've elevated themselves above the vulgar blood sport that is politics. But they haven't; they just suck rear end at it. In politics, you need to destroy your enemies, employing hyperbolic rhetoric if necessary.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Segmentation Fault posted:Make America Great Again? Oh for fucks.... that was literally never used once. It was a rumor that got floated on Twitter, but somehow everyone here is loving convinced she used it as a catchphrase!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:one of the biggest issues facing democrats now is that it's a machine damaged beyond repair that can be remade into something so much better and efficient, except there's nobody good to use it on in 2020 I still say Duckworth could. Jaminjami posted:it's not a either or thing You cannot make any attempt to be a unifier if you spend your time saying "gently caress those guys, those guys are assholes, everything is all their fault", you come off as just as stupid and insincere as Trump sounds now.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
Hey look, a bunch of Twitter posts floating a rumor. Now, anyone have anything with Hillary saying the words Dangerous Donald? No? Thought not. punk rebel ecks posted:This is not true in at all. When Democrats campaigned on both, both saw stunning success. See "Great Society" and the 1960s and 1970s. This is a myth perpetrated by neoliberal establishment Democrats who have turned their backs on minorities more than any other flavor of the party. The American Left hasn't had a seat in the Democratic Party since then and thus minority rights have been squandered left and right. History has consistently shown that you can be both economically progressive and social. They often tie hand in hand as a matter of fact. This notion that you can be one or the other is total bullshit and is extremely dangerous thinking that has led to the parties demise. Oh yeah, remember when all those working class whites came running into the Dems due to caring way more about economic issues than social ones following 1964? And who can forget that goddamn height of dem power from 1968 to 76? Is there any problem you won't blame on those nebulous democratic elite who seem to hate every single person they represent and exist only to stop the plucky leftists, who would be undefeatable if only those dastardly party elites weren't easily squashing them?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 02:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 02:58 |
|
|
Fullhouse posted:maybe she should have tried telling anybody about these policies because it's the first i've heard of them It's amazing that the media refusing to loving cover her goddamn speeches or her policies at all is still completely her fault. I guess she just needed to try and make a multi-part plan to fix half the country sexier.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 03:17
|
|