|
Main Paineframe posted:On the other hand, Obama was generally perceived to be to the left of Hillary and a relative outsider to the Dem establishment (at compared to Hillary), and he didn't end up being a big triumph for leftists or anti-establishment, not even in messaging. In fact, I'd say the net effect was pretty bad, because people who had thought he would be more of a leftist were generally slow to change their opinions, so for the first couple of years of his presidency, most of the progressive enthusiasm his campaign drummed up ended up being directed at defending his centrism and making excuses for his foot-dragging. I'm real worried about another betrayal like that - if the left elects someone they think is a leftist but turns out to be another lovely centrist, I think that's honestly worse than electing a clear centrist that the left can spend the next two years hating unconditionally. This is fear of winning. Sometimes you will win and it won't work out as well as you hoped. That isn't a reason to stop trying, or worse yet to actively play to lose.
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 10:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 02:50 |
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:This is fear of winning. Sometimes you will win and it won't work out as well as you hoped. That isn't a reason to stop trying, or worse yet to actively play to lose. It's also the constant problem on the left where anything other than total victory/perfect policy is perceived as worse than the status quo. It's very frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
Also, Obama was never actually any sort of hard left wildcard----he was just the 3rd and shiniest prong in the trident alongside Clinton and The Amazing Imploding Edwards. Your then From The Starting Line folks back at Primary Debate #1 were Gravel and Kucinich, who then got bumped out of the proceedings with incredible speed as the media settled in on their chosen Dem spectacle same as the party establishment as they wanted a certain direction of Optics* and Professionalism* in the wake of Bush's Crazy 8. That Sanders did so much better, even to the point of getting to drag the platform to a theoretically better place if it is at all kept to, is something of an encouragement in a broad sense at the party may yet shake off the yoke of the last few decades. Perez did solidly making a case for passion on Maher's show last week, though he did indulge him a bit much in terms of why Democrats have been getting raked over the coals in recent times.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:This is fear of winning. Sometimes you will win and it won't work out as well as you hoped. That isn't a reason to stop trying, or worse yet to actively play to lose. I think the worst enemy of the left is overly high expectations, because they can become actively counterproductive. The intense drop in enthusiasm among the left was painful to see, and watching progressives make excuses about "11th-dimensional chess" and "political capital" while Obama was trying to bargain away Medicare and SS was downright excruciating. If people had realistic expectations of what Keith Ellison is going to do (say slightly more leftist things while continuing to support centrist and establishment candidates against progressive challengers), I'd be fine with it. But I don't think they do. Keeping young people involved has always been a challenge, and I'm worried that too much emphasis has been placed on the DNC chair election - to the detriment of other, more important, races. I'm worried that if Ellison wins, people are going to take that as a victory for progressivism and check out of politics for four years, while if Perez wins the angry progressives would react by increasing their efforts elsewhere, which is exactly what I want to happen. Apparently, the third of six DNC chair debates happened Monday night. I don't even know when the second happened, since it certainly wasn't mentioned here. According to Politico, "on virtually every question asked...the candidates were in near-perfect agreement" and "the only real disagreement between the candidates was which candidate had more experience needed to be elected chair".
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Keeping young people involved has always been a challenge, and I'm worried that too much emphasis has been placed on the DNC chair election - to the detriment of other, more important, races. I'm worried that if Ellison wins, people are going to take that as a victory for progressivism and check out of politics for four years, while if Perez wins the angry progressives would react by increasing their efforts elsewhere, which is exactly what I want to happen. The vast majority of people don't even know this is happening, never mind knowing the differences between the people running. I think one of the reasons wonks predictions are often garbage (see the primary election) is because they think people think about politics and policy the way they do and the truth is most people don't have a clue and almost no one votes on policy. People vote on identity and tribe membership, basically no one actually takes an honest intellectual approach. We read things that agree with what we think, we dismiss things that disagree with us. Like who the gently caress is actually going to take Ellison winning as a victory for progressivism? 10 people? Besides that I'm going to agree with everyone who is disappointed that it seems everything needs to be some huge battle now. You can't just think Ellison is slightly better than Perez, people feel the need to hate one and love the other for essentially arbitrary reasons. It seems the major takeaway people had from bush, particularly the young kids here, is that it's us vs them. It's very sad and it's a very bad thing for the future of politics in this country. If we can't even have civil arguments and disagreements within parties we are completely hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:On the other hand, Obama was generally perceived to be to the left of Hillary and a relative outsider to the Dem establishment (at compared to Hillary), and he didn't end up being a big triumph for leftists or anti-establishment, not even in messaging. In fact, I'd say the net effect was pretty bad, because people who had thought he would be more of a leftist were generally slow to change their opinions, so for the first couple of years of his presidency, most of the progressive enthusiasm his campaign drummed up ended up being directed at defending his centrism and making excuses for his foot-dragging. I'm real worried about another betrayal like that - if the left elects someone they think is a leftist but turns out to be another lovely centrist, I think that's honestly worse than electing a clear centrist that the left can spend the next two years hating unconditionally. While I see what you mean, in terms of actual policy he still probably wasn't worse than Hillary would have been (they probably would have been mostly the same, minus possibly foreign policy), so I think the benefit of having a concrete manifestation of the popularity of more leftist views outweighs the downside of a potential negative backlash from them not actually being leftist (and it's not like Obama's lack of leftism hurt leftists; if anything Sanders' performance in the primary is well beyond what he could have achieved pre-Obama, though this is more evidence of Obama having no effect than Obama having a positive effect). Also, while Obama was definitely perceived as more leftist, I don't think he had the same direct association with socialism among those on the left (since obviously conservatives consider literally every Democrat socialist). People thought Obama was more leftist, but he rarely actually referenced anything particularly leftist on the campaign trail; he just used a lot of rhetoric that sort of implied he might. Sanders, on the other hand, was very explicit with some of his leftist views (and hopefully future leftist candidates will be as well). Main Paineframe posted:I'm worried that if Ellison wins, people are going to take that as a victory for progressivism and check out of politics for four years, while if Perez wins the angry progressives would react by increasing their efforts elsewhere, which is exactly what I want to happen. Hm, I guess I can understand that, though as another poster mentioned this logic leads to always being afraid to win because it'll make leftists less politically active. Like, if it's the case that victory causes leftists to inevitably lose their next elections, we're just hosed regardless, right? tsa posted:The vast majority of people don't even know this is happening, never mind knowing the differences between the people running. I think one of the reasons wonks predictions are often garbage (see the primary election) is because they think people think about politics and policy the way they do and the truth is most people don't have a clue and almost no one votes on policy. People vote on identity and tribe membership, basically no one actually takes an honest intellectual approach. We read things that agree with what we think, we dismiss things that disagree with us. This is a point I've tried to make when talking about some Trump voters. People say "well, Trump said/did all this obviously terrible racist stuff, is supported by the KKK, etc, so everyone who supports him must also agree with these things, right?", but I don't think they understand how low info the average American voter is. Many people go into the ballot box with nothing but some vague fourth-hand perception of the candidates in question (and in the case of Trump, probably the main thing a low-info voter would associate with him is "anti-establishment", which was a big appeal this past election). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Jan 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
I don't get the fascination with the DNC Chair position. It's a terrible job that progressives should want nothing to do with. Ellison's primary role would be kissing up to donors up and down the coasts to ensure Democrats have half the funding of their GOP counterparts, instead of 1/3rd the funding.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
axeil posted:It's also the constant problem on the left where anything other than total victory/perfect policy is perceived as worse than the status quo. It's very frustrating. No, this is a fictitious "problem" that liberals like to say exists. The thing with incrementalism is it only works if you have someone who keeps saying "that's not far enough, we need to go further". Otherwise it stops being incrementalism & just becomes a new slightly better status quo. There Is nothing wrong with saying that policy does not go far enough but is also better than what was before, and that's good, but it can be so much better, in fact its absolutely vital to incrementalism working.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
I don't think Perez is a bad man, both him and Ellison seem like they would be good for the job, but I do think Ellison's symbolic win is important for the future of the party. Right now I see a lot of people waiting to determine whether they can work within the party or whether they just have to cut ties altogether, and they've decided Ellison's victory will show them how willing the Dems are to change. Even if that's greatly overestimating how much Ellison would shake up the establishment and the actual reach of the DNC, these people are very energized and we can't afford to lose them and split up the left even further. I like to believe that all the bad legislation and discrimination still going on after Ellison gets elected would keep them motivated to stay involved, I don't think getting over-confident is going to be an issue until we see a much larger scale victory like winning the white house or congress. Also not very thrilled about Perez just dodging questions about his stance on Israel and I'm not as clear on how good he is at mobilizing a strong grassroots movement which is the most important thing out of the DNC for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:I don't get the fascination with the DNC Chair position. It's a terrible job that progressives should want nothing to do with. Ellison's primary role would be kissing up to donors up and down the coasts to ensure Democrats have half the funding of their GOP counterparts, instead of 1/3rd the funding. But didn't the Democrats outspend the Republicans by some tremendous margin in this past election?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:But didn't the Democrats outspend the Republicans by some tremendous margin in this past election?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:No, this is a fictitious "problem" that liberals like to say exists. The thing with incrementalism is it only works if you have someone who keeps saying "that's not far enough, we need to go further". Otherwise it stops being incrementalism & just becomes a new slightly better status quo. There Is nothing wrong with saying that policy does not go far enough but is also better than what was before, and that's good, but it can be so much better, in fact its absolutely vital to incrementalism working. Bullshit. The people being complained about expect to have everything they want, the way they want it and want it now. All without any understanding that poo poo takes time and effort and that not every political position is capable of enacting the entire package. Oh, and if there isn't a president on the ballot then forget about bothering to vote. Voting is for leap years only.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Bullshit. The people being complained about expect to have everything they want, the way they want it and want it now. All without any understanding that poo poo takes time and effort and that not every political position is capable of enacting the entire package. The people being complained about are a strawman built by centrists whenever people complain that poo poo like the ACA didn't go far enough, and then they wonder why they have trouble getting people who would like the dems to move beyond the vaguely tolerable to the polls without some sort of life threatening opponent on the other side.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I think the worst enemy of the left is overly high expectations, because they can become actively counterproductive. The intense drop in enthusiasm among the left was painful to see, and watching progressives make excuses about "11th-dimensional chess" and "political capital" while Obama was trying to bargain away Medicare and SS was downright excruciating. If people had realistic expectations of what Keith Ellison is going to do (say slightly more leftist things while continuing to support centrist and establishment candidates against progressive challengers), I'd be fine with it. But I don't think they do. Keeping young people involved has always been a challenge, and I'm worried that too much emphasis has been placed on the DNC chair election - to the detriment of other, more important, races. I'm worried that if Ellison wins, people are going to take that as a victory for progressivism and check out of politics for four years, while if Perez wins the angry progressives would react by increasing their efforts elsewhere, which is exactly what I want to happen. So your take away from the Obama administration and from the last primary is that rather than vocally pressing their demands and taking advantage of how discredited the Democratic establishment has become that the left of the party should be negotiating with itself and watering down its own demands. Instead of, you know, emulating much more successful interest groups who advanced their agenda by making their support contingent on receiving some real policy victories. If you really think that huge numbers of people are going to "check out" for four years after the DNC election then you might as well give up now on the Democrats ever accomplishing anything. I mean seriously, this has got to be one of the most bizarre strategic visions for moving forward that I've ever heard someone articulate. "Oh god if we ever were perceived to win a real victory then people will just check out. The best way to keep people engaged is to be constantly watering down their demands and telling them it's unrealistic to ever expect anything."
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:While I see what you mean, in terms of actual policy he still probably wasn't worse than Hillary would have been (they probably would have been mostly the same, minus possibly foreign policy), so I think the benefit of having a concrete manifestation of the popularity of more leftist views outweighs the downside of a potential negative backlash from them not actually being leftist (and it's not like Obama's lack of leftism hurt leftists; if anything Sanders' performance in the primary is well beyond what he could have achieved pre-Obama, though this is more evidence of Obama having no effect than Obama having a positive effect). Obama's lack of leftism isn't impairing the left now, when people have long since concluded that he's just another lovely centrist, but it was a very big deal in 2010, when progressive Obama supporters still hadn't fully come to terms with it and were thus reluctant to pressure him on his shittier policies and behaviors. 2010, of course, is when the Dems took big losses to the Republicans and lost their near-dominance in Congress, in large part because Obama's aggressively centrist agenda and inclination to let anyone scuttle a plan meant that Congressional Dems didn't really have anything to show for those two years of controlling both Congress and the White House. Obama wasn't considered a socialist, but many progressives expected him to implement single-payer healthcare, raise taxes on the rich, prosecute the bankers who destroyed the economy, implement extensive economic stimulus plans, and legalize weed. My favorite LF Goldmine thread ever, to this very day, was "Obama extends Bush tax cuts" - because even though it was a joke thread whose OP said it would never happen and implied that only a centrist Hillary shill could possibly think something like that, Obama later did just that as part of his half-baked stimulus plans. I don't think that winning is necessarily bad for the left. I think they just have to be careful about what they win and who they win with. I think the DNC chair race is a relatively unimportant race whose value is entirely symbolic, and even the left's preferred candidate will govern as a consensus-building centrist and do little to push for progressive candidates or policies (not that the DNC chair is capable of much more than that anyway). Winning state DNC chairmanships would have a lot more real power to shift the direction of the DNC, and a lot less risk of backfiring. The problem is that Keith Ellison has already intervened in at least one state DNC race - in favor of the establishment candidate. And that's exactly the kind of betrayal effect I'm worried about. If Ellison endorses a DNC insider over a progressive challenger, that hurts a lot worse than if someone like Perez does it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
Yeah but the solution is to be willing to continue exert pressure even after someone has elected and to have a realistic understanding of the fact that you can't just elect the right person, you have to be constantly pushing them in the right direction. The response should be "ugh it's too hard to keep someone accountable, might as well just let the pro-corporate centrists run things forever so we can maintain our stock of righteous indignation at maximum levels."
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
I hope the DNC hires both Ellison and Perez to build local Democrats. It's going to take more than one person to do that. Also, TyrantWD posted:I don't get the fascination with the DNC Chair position. It's a terrible job that progressives should want nothing to do with. Ellison's primary role would be kissing up to donors up and down the coasts to ensure Democrats have half the funding of their GOP counterparts, instead of 1/3rd the funding. Whoever becomes the DNC chair will quickly become the most hated person in the Democratic party. It happens whether the person is any good or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:The people being complained about are a strawman built by centrists whenever people complain that poo poo like the ACA didn't go far enough, and then they wonder why they have trouble getting people who would like the dems to move beyond the vaguely tolerable to the polls without some sort of life threatening opponent on the other side. Oh, so they do vote every year? Are their ballots simply not being counted then? EDIT: Where were they in 2010? Solkanar512 fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Jan 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Yeah but the solution is to be willing to continue exert pressure even after someone has elected and to have a realistic understanding of the fact that you can't just elect the right person, you have to be constantly pushing them in the right direction. The response should be "ugh it's too hard to keep someone accountable, might as well just let the pro-corporate centrists run things forever so we can maintain our stock of righteous indignation at maximum levels." You can't just elect the right person, you have to elect hundreds of right persons. And they have to actually be the right people - "symbolic wins" aren't worth the paper they're printed in. If Hillary had won in 2008 and proposed the ACA in 2010, progressives would have figured out it was bad in 2010, not 2014.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:You can't just elect the right person, you have to elect hundreds of right persons. And they have to actually be the right people - "symbolic wins" aren't worth the paper they're printed in. If Hillary had won in 2008 and proposed the ACA in 2010, progressives would have figured out it was bad in 2010, not 2014. That's a valid point; mainstream liberal media in general is very bad at criticizing anything they associate with being very liberal, but it puts a ton of effort into debunking the ideas of those in direct opposition. I think the perception of Obama as being a leftist lead to most liberals* just sort of trusting that he was doing a great job. * While some leftists quickly became disillusioned with Obama, I don't think this was true of most Democrats
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:But didn't the Democrats outspend the Republicans by some tremendous margin in this past election? Trump had alienated a lot of the GOP donor base, and most importantly the Koch network. I wouldn't be surprised to see them dump over $1b into defending GOP control of all three branches of government in the next 4 years. Whoever the next DNC chief is, will practically be camping out on the couch of every celebrity and Silicon Valley millionaire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
TyrantWD posted:Trump had alienated a lot of the GOP donor base, and most importantly the Koch network. I wouldn't be surprised to see them dump over $1b into defending GOP control of all three branches of government in the next 4 years. Whoever the next DNC chief is, will practically be camping out on the couch of every celebrity and Silicon Valley millionaire. Because the libertarian billionaires of Silicon Valley are just going to hate Trump and the GOP enacting a bunch of right wing poo poo while wiping out regulations left and right. He definitely isn't going to have one of them in his inner circle either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:You can't just elect the right person, you have to elect hundreds of right persons. And they have to actually be the right people - "symbolic wins" aren't worth the paper they're printed in. If Hillary had won in 2008 and proposed the ACA in 2010, progressives would have figured out it was bad in 2010, not 2014. I think the symbolism in this specific case is more about boosting the morale of the Democratic base going forward. Keith Ellison would be a really effective olive branch to start rebuilding the party, inclusive with the young "berniecrats".
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
The clip of Perez completely blowing off someone's questions on Israel rather turned me off of him, to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
Biden endorsed Perez, and various outlets are citing a 66-vote lead in favor of Perez at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
So Perez is still pretty decent right? This isn't Ellison vs some crappy stiff right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Perez is probably bad because a lot of the left will see it as yet another betrayal. He could be the best possible pick on paper and still be a terrible pick in practice if it's seen as the centrist establishment domineering over the left again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:So Perez is still pretty decent right? This isn't Ellison vs some crappy stiff right? As DNC chair, their proposed strategies and their paths forward for the DNC are basically indistinguishable. As marketing entities for the Democratic Party, Perez is noticeably less charismatic and clearly was not ready to be quizzed on issues (which, to be fair, are not usually the concern of a DNC chair).
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
Perez is the pick of the wing of the party that seems determined to learn no lessons whatsoever from the worst overall defeat in decades, which ought to be a bit disconcerting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:As DNC chair, their proposed strategies and their paths forward for the DNC are basically indistinguishable. As marketing entities for the Democratic Party, Perez is noticeably less charismatic and clearly was not ready to be quizzed on issues (which, to be fair, are not usually the concern of a DNC chair). More or less this. Between this and the Bernie faction thing, I support Ellison but not as much as if he weren't a sitting Congressman.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
The DNC elections should've been democratised years ago. If they had, you'd have elected Ellison for sure. Instead, they're probably about to elect another neoliberal. Great job.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Perez is the pick of the wing of the party that seems determined to learn no lessons whatsoever from the worst overall defeat in decades, which ought to be a bit disconcerting. Except Perez is, himself, vocally interested in learning lessons? Edit: Venomous, do you have a particular objection to either Perez's policies as SecLabor, or any policy differences between him and Ellison as DNC chair?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
Venomous posted:The DNC elections should've been democratised years ago. If they had, you'd have elected Ellison for sure. Instead, they're probably about to elect another neoliberal. Great job. If it was democratised people would have elected Jill goddamn Stein. Cease to Hope posted:Biden endorsed Perez, and various outlets are citing a 66-vote lead in favor of Perez at the moment. Really? I'm not seeing much evidence for this lead given the huge disparity of endorsements between the two.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
I'm slightly preferential to Perez as he has experience running an organization of 1,000 of people. He lacks the charisma of Ellison but that's not really his job.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:If it was democratised people would have elected Jill goddamn Stein
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:You can't just elect the right person, you have to elect hundreds of right persons. And they have to actually be the right people - "symbolic wins" aren't worth the paper they're printed in. If Hillary had won in 2008 and proposed the ACA in 2010, progressives would have figured out it was bad in 2010, not 2014. You're advocating an autistic view of politics that completely ignores the role that morale plays. Granting concessions to different wings of the party is part of how a big tent organization functions. This is especially true when there's a lot of justifiable bad blood over past grievances. If the party once again ignores the endorsements of the more energized and progressive wing of the party and picks an Obama administration official whose finger pints are all over some lovely decisions like the TPP, while passing over a more progressive candidate that is the clear favorite of the Bernie/Sanders wing of the party, then that's going to be a signal about what kind of rebuilding the Democratic party is or isn't willing to consider.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:If it was democratised people would have elected Jill goddamn Stein. Yes because Democrats by and large are crazy fucks who are wishy-washy about vaccinations, or believe in things like healing crystals and other Jill Stein insanity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:So Perez is still pretty decent right? This isn't Ellison vs some crappy stiff right? Depends. These are the highlights of his time during the Obama administration: *Pushing for ENDA *Running the rollout of Hate Crime enforcement *Spearheading the use of Title IX for interstudent behavior on campuses (laying the foundation that's now being used to force colleges to set standards and processes for dealing with sexual assault and harassment that may not rise to "beyond a reasonable doubt" or that the police are unwilling to meaningfully investigate) *Making Arpaio's life miserable *Successfully overturning blatant disenfranchisement in SC and Texas *Implementing a rule change where 'exempt' managerial workers had to have substantively different responsibilities than those that they supervised in order to avoid paying overtime (You can't have a 'Shift Lead' at Taco Bell working 60hr weeks for $28k if the only difference between them and the rest of the shift is the shift lead picks up the phone when someone calls) *Implementing a since-blocked rule that would double the minimum salary required for exemption from overtime pay *A shitload of other blocked rules as head of Labor, designed to make unionizing easier and unionbusting more difficult and public I think the guy with executive experience in multiple governmental bodies, who can point to a track record of rules and policies that (would) have dramatically improved life for those in the working and middle classes, who has successfully fought back disenfranchisement across the country, who was the point person for the DoJ's Trayvon response, who fought for workers in the TPP process, and who helped lead the charge on stemming collegiate sexual assault is a drat sight better than pretty decent. I'd love to hear the reasons he's a neoliberal centrist though. Helsing posted:This is especially true when there's a lot of justifiable bad blood over past grievances. Justifiable, in this case, being the important word. Turns out that a lot of those who are angry feel that their grievances are justifiable while the majority of the party appear to find at least most of the concerns overblown (based, if nothing else, on their votes). There are parallels to how the fringey evangelical right felt in 2012 after Romney/Santorum. Call it rehabilitation vs retribution-I'm all for discussing and implementing policies that would fix the inequities perceived by the wing that adopted Sanders... but the performances of Strickland and Feingold make me skeptical that a purge to establish an identity as fiery antineoliberals fixes the Dem EC and Gerrymandering disadvantage. Posters in this thread make me skeptical that antineoliberalism would maintain any consistent or coherent definition.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
What did Perez do to make Arpaio's life miserable?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 02:50 |
|
|
Tab8715 posted:What did Perez do to make Arpaio's life miserable? He was AAG of Civil Rights when the snowball started to really get trucking, so the profiling report that cost him/MCSO the authority to do anything with immigration. As importantly, he lead the suit that wound up likely being the nail in his coffin after Joe refused to settle with a monitored consent decree-though was at Labor by the time judgement came down. Evil Fluffy posted:Yes because Democrats by and large are crazy fucks who are wishy-washy about vaccinations, or believe in things like healing crystals and other Jill Stein insanity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2017 02:51
|
|