|
Brainiac Five posted:But why would they back a progressive candidate like Perez if their goal is to forestall progressivism? This is, and I must admit being gleeful at the chance to use this phrase, "9-dimensional chess". supporting the TPP isn't progressive
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 02:50 |
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So the sole litmus test should be: do they support trade deals y/n? tpp is a poo poo trade deal. sorry if i think a guy who's for nafta 2: nafta harder isn't progressive. plus, perez has other problems like suggesting the "bernie is for whitey" meme during the primary, refusing to take a stand against dems taking mega-donor money, being in the pocket of the same establishment that has been screwing over the poor for 8 years, etc. All good reasons to support ellison over him, as well as ellison having actual election experience
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Okay, so Perez's sins are 1) he insulted Saint Bernard Sanders of Burlington, 2) he refused to advocate running the Democratic party on no budget, 3) he held public office under the Obama administration which has been actively hurting the poor, unlike white presidential administrations, and 4) he distinguished between NAFTA and the TPP, which is another insult against Saint Bernard Sanders of Burlington. 1) making false attacks against a primary candidate sucks, and i think he's not trustworthy because of it 2) bernie seemed to run his campaign well enough on small donors, ditto obama. maybe the dems should have to appeal to the general populace instead of taking billions from mega-donors only to lose. 3) yep, he's the pick of an administration that has been coddling bankers after they destroyed the economy and letting said bankers kick people out of their houses. obama letting the banks off with a slap on the wrist after they were caught forging ownership documents so they could evict people is hosed up, and I'd like as few people associated with that poo poo in control of the party 4) nafta is terrible and has been used to gently caress over the poor in all signing countries for the benefit of the upper class. TPP is nafta redux and is poo poo, and a supposed labor advocate and progressive should be against it. got it?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Well, to judge from the Bernie diehards, it wasn't a false attack at all. Furthermore, it's also possible for someone to be wrong about something without it being a nefarious conspiracy to destroy you. except he knew it was wrong. it was a smear campaign. also love that you are clinging to "bernie diehards" to try to win an argument quote:Sure, let's rely on squeezing money from the people least able to afford it, because by god, we're gonna run this place on the cheap instead of taking advantage of the free money being handed to us by idiots. money from mega-donors is not free, it's always got strings attached. also, bernie didn't have to run his campaign cheap, and neither did obama. what did the excessive donations to the hillary campaign buy her? a loss to an orange clown who had half her money quote:Okay, let's blacklist everyone who held public office as a Democrat before 2016, except for the Blue Dogs who disavowed Obama and got their asses kicked in elections. nah, just the ones being pushed by the obama administration. you can tell the difference right? quote:TPP isn't poo poo and latching onto it as a nefarious gambit by Haim Saban and George Soros to drain the blood of the poor is one of the many reasons why Bernie diehards can't be trusted with power. yeah, i'm not gonna believe that after nafta was pushed the same way and then turned out to hollow out the poor and middle class.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:You can't prove that, you are engaging in conspiratorial rhetoric. In fact, all your thoughts on the issue seem to be purely half-baked. You want to punish that uppity Obama because someone told you he personally destroyed the middle class with NAFTA, so you pretend that Democrats generally were all in favor of having wild horses tear all bankers apart on live TV and only oppressed into silence by B-Rock the Islamic Shock. first, bill clinton signed nafta into law against the wishes of unions. he also hosed up welfare among other things so yeah, he seemed to be p anti-middle class. second, barack obama definitely shielded bankers from prosecution. we could've sent a poo poo ton of them to jail for the stuff they did in the leadup to the 2008 recession, and we could've sent more to jail after the robo-signing scandal, but we didn't because obama and his DoJ was banker friendly. quote:You insist that Obama funded his campaign on small donors, but people donating the maximum legally made up a full third of Obama donors as compared to a quarter donating $200 or less. Bernie Sanders, meanwhile, also took money from PACs and large-scale individual donors as well. You basically are ignorant of a great many things and subsist solely on memes rather than actual thought. Your mind has been wasted. meanwhile, nearly half of hillary's primary donors gave the legal maximum. definitely something we need to shrink
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Obama, Holder, and Clinton are not running for DNC chair. the obama admin's pick is though. i don't want his wing of the party in control anymore
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
imo, perez isn't the worst thing ever for a DNC chair pick but his lack of election experience as opposed to ellison makes him strictly inferior to ellison, as well as ellison having called trump's ascendancy better than most dems.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:gonna have to be more specific, because calling his ascendancy better could mean "was willing to entertain a .01% possibility" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHkPadFK34o
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
karthun posted:While Perez may not have experience running for elections Ellison doesn't have experience running institutions. I also don't like the idea of having a 53 year old Chief Deputy Whip resign from Congress when we have a 76 year old minority leader and a 77 year old Minority Whip. You know what I like better then DNC Chairman Keith Ellison, Speaker of the House Keith Ellison.  ellison is one of nine chief deputy whips, so reaching speaker is not a clear line of succession for keith ellisoni'd rather have him take the position of power he's closer to taking than a longshot that may take 10-20 years for him to reach.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 07:32
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Why oh why would you ever favor Ellison over Perez, at least in results-oriented terms on the national level? not particularly worried about it. it's not like perez is gonna be much better. the full quote from that interview: quote:MAHER: Why doesn't your party come out against the Second Amendment? It's the problem. and here's perez pushing for common-sense gun safety laws i'd prefer the dems give up on gun control, especially after the terrible no-fly list sit-in, but neither candidate is really gonna be the NRA's friend and i don't think gun control was the deciding issue this election.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 07:58
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Have we discussed the possibility about physically fusing the two together and creating one super liberal? the fusion dance isn't permanent and we can't get a potara without the gods
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
electing perez dnc chairman would be like bring spoon to a knife fight
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 12:19
|
|
|
perez is a bad choice cause he lashes out at half the dem base unprompted. we should probably avoid putting someone who will intentionally divide the dem party in as DNC chair. having someone who loves to spread fake news is probably also a bad idea
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 10:52
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Also, leftists who are claiming to be democrats, please stop smearing putin's ratfucking bullshit everywhere, thanks. He hacked and released this poo poo precisely to inflame primary salt. maybe dems shouldn't ratfuck their base and then their base won't be salty over emails released that demonstrate the ratfucking
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 10:55
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:So we're back to "black people shouldn't have been allowed to vote"? i'm not sure why you're in the dem party if you hold opinions like that fulchrum Cease to Hope posted:This isn't the thread to relitigate the primary. oh so he's a faux pas machine worse than biden. not really a mark in his favor tbh. ellison doesn't seem to have these problems Condiv fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Feb 4, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Condiv, maybe you should shut up about fake news when you're spreading misleading garbage from /r/sandersforpresident just because it happens to fit your preconceived notions, eh? hmm? i saw the tweet when it was originally posted on the 18th. if it was indeed a faux pas, then it was especially dumb for perez to just delete the tweet and pretend it didn't happen instead of clarifying. like i said, not particularly good signs for a DNC chair candidate. it's a good thing we have actually good candidates like ellison, it's just too bad the dem establishment would rather push a strictly inferior candidate so they can retain their grasp on the dying dem party
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_cDNaNWnkU yet another reason perez is bad. he supports the extreme right-wing government of israel and their genocidal actions
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
and he's still closer to being right on israel than perez and will almost certainly take a harder line stance against israel's atrocities than perez who is too scared to deal with israel to even entertain a question relating to said atrocities
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:House members who are committee heads have more power to affect policy on Israel than the DNC head, so be careful what you're wishing for here. i am. keith ellison is a better choice as DNC head in every respect and hopefully he can push the party in a better direction on a lot of issues tom perez is inferior not only ideologically, but practically, and only makes sense as DNC head if you're worried about bernies getting control of the party (aka an idiot)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:What in Perez's background makes you feel he is an inferior option for the practical tasks involved with running the Democratic National Committee? he's never won a contested position in his life and his fundraising game sucks compared to ellison considering ellison's got more with less wealthy donors (and without the clinton wing giving him a leg up)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Helsing posted:It would be very in character for the Democrats to decide that Trump is so bad that they will inevitably win in the next midterms and the next presidential election. there's already been rumblings from establishment types along these lines. thankfully they seem to get laughed down every time it's brought up so far, and hopefully it stays that way Cease to Hope posted:Push their people into positions of power, primary centrists and corporatists. That doesn't change no matter who is DNC chair. that'd be about the only thing I'd do if the dems forced perez into place and triangulated to alt-fascism or fascism-lite. the party was nauseating enough with an alt-republican as our nominee
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:It's what you should be doing either way, if you want the Democrats to shift left. i dunno, if the dems adopted alt-fascism i don't know if i'd even bother with politics anymore
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:That's what you should be doing either way! Hell, that's what you should have been doing all along! The power of the DNC chair is tiny compared to the power of the DNC members - it's like making a fuss over who gets to be minority leader when the Senate is full of centrist shitheads anyway. i've been voting for dems like a good little democrat for a while now. if they triangulate towards fascism in 2018 i'm done with them Cease to Hope posted:Perez is not an "alt-fascist". not yet at least, but with how weather-vaney recent dems have been it wouldn't surprise me if he triangulated towards fascism in a pragmatic hunt for the political center Fulchrum posted:I don't. Which is why I'm not the one claiming that the Dems should have intervened and overturned the rules to give the nomination to Sanders. You know, actually ratfucking their voters. too bad they ignored their rules and were not impartial in the slightest during the primary Article 5, Section 4 DNC Charter posted:The National Chairperson shall serve full time and shall receive such compensation as may be determined by agreement between the Chairperson and the Democratic National Committee. In the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee, particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process. whoops. looks like dem voters got ratfucked Cease to Hope posted:Both Perez and Ellison are running against DWS (and Brazile). Using up local party donation caps to launder donations to the presidential campaign left a huge impression, and both of them are running on not only ending that but reversing the flow of money to support local candidates and parties. oh? has perez actually taken a stance on that now? last I heard he was refusing to make the same pledge ellison did (yet another reason he's a bad choice imo)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:If Ellison weren't running I'd be profoundly delighted to have Perez as the frontrunner. As it stands I'd say I'm reasonably fired up about Perez-or-Ellison-whichever reforming DNC strategy. i'd probably be ok with perez if we didn't already have ellison and ellison wasn't straight out superior to perez in every way
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Dems have held MN-5 since 1962...and 2006 was the first time in (best as I can tell) decades that the Democrat running failed to receive at least 60% of the vote, despite being a wave election nationally. While Ellison deserves credit for his fundraising prowess, it seems disingenuous to mention Perez being propped up by the Clinton Wing while not acknowledging the boost that Ellison gets from having Bernie's endorsement and fundraising list. bernie's endorsements and fundraising may be giving ellison quite the leg up, but imo that's just more of a testament to the bernie wing's methods than anything. those endorsements, and that cachet did not exist a year and a half ago, it sprung to life over a short period of time, and if ellison can produce the same results he's much better equipped to rejuvenate the party. quote:More bluntly-which do you believe is a better qualification for running the DNC, having lead an organization or department to progressive policy victories or having won an election in one of the nation's safest blue seats? I think being able to win an organize an election is an extremely necessary skillset considering the dire straights the dem party is in right now. I'd have to say being able to win elections is a better qualification, merely because if you asked if hillary was better qualified to be DNC chair than ellison because she was SoS I'd say no.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Did you seriously think this means that even beyond their conduct (which was objectively impartial) they need to purge any and all personal feelings from their body and not be allowed to think anything? uh, their conduct was not impartial. we already know that for a fact, so I'm not sure why you're trying to pretend otherwise. brazile using her connections to give hillary debate questions in advance is not impartial behavior, and that was not the only impartiality the DNC exhibited (or was caught on). Main Paineframe posted:What, the no-lobbyists pledge? Ellison's backed down on that, didnt you hear? All just a cunning trick, I'm sure. he's gathered a vast majority of his money from under $200 donations so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:And yet the best example you have for this lack of impartiality is someone saying the fuck8ng obvious. i'm glad you admit the DNC wasn't impartial, ditto that they ratfucked their voters by breaking their clearly stated rules, multiple times and in multiple ways (hell, the rule I quoted says the DNC chair is supposed to be fulltime, but hillary dems ignored the hell out of that too huh?) Main Paineframe posted:Obama got plenty of small donors too and look at how anti-establishment he turned out obama was a real disappointment yes, but he was the best viable option in 2008 and voting for hillary wouldn't have done me any good. in the same vein, keith ellison is the best viable option for DNC chair, and it's in my best interest to support him and his theoretically anti-establishment campaign than to support perez and his obviously pro-establishment campaign.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:This isn't the thread for relitigating the primary. We get it, Perez is Clinton and Ellison is Sanders. Point made. if the point was made then you wouldn't support perez at all. i mean even though the clinton wing likes replacing dems with republicans, i don't think it's a viable strategy for our party's future
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Just because you made it as well as you're going to doesn't mean it's convincing. i was being facetious. i don't think ellison is bernie and perez is hillary. i think ellison is an out and out superior candidate for DNC chair, and perez is just in the race so the flailing establishment can keep hold of the party. there's really no reason for him to be running, especially since he's worse both practically and ideologically, other than as a way for the establishment to cede no power to the left wing of the party.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
 keith ellison about to activate his stand powers
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Time to start beefing up the DSA I guess - the Democratic party is lost. nope, centrists will just call you terrible for voting your conscience it doesn't matter how idiotic, spineless, or tone deaf the democratic party is, or how much they ignore you and voters like you. they're owed your vote
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:my vote is pure and clean like unsullied snow and God says i must keep it so for the one true candidate of my heart, unlike those painted strumpets who "pull the lever" for any old fling cool i don't think rewarding dems with votes for ignoring their base is a good idea though
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Only the circular firing squad would manage to turn "both major candidates want to do what we said they should do and have the backing of major left wing organizations and unions" into a negative over symbolism politics. i don't want the tpp also perez is a gaffe machine worse than biden and really just uninspiring. going for a lovely technocrat is what the DNC did during the election and they're doing it again, so why wouldn't we be mad?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Voting third party was terrible in 2016 and it will only be more terrible in 2018. Pull your head out of your rear end. i will once the dems have. they haven't and are on track to lose even more till republicans can call a constitutional convention, so i'm not gonna bother voting or supporting these idiots. hth Lightning Knight posted:Ok, what does the TPP have to do with the DNC chair election? Besides, that would be a meaningful statement if Hillary had won. She didn't. you said perez wanted the same things I wanted. TPP is something I really do not want. and it's not a moot statement because theoretically we're trying to get dems back in power. if they get back in power just to put together more crappy trade deals that let companies poo poo on worker rights more, then that's pretty bad and I definitely do not want that. quote:Perez not being inspiring is irrelevant for what his job is. He literally has the backing of the largest union in the country lol. Like, I want Ellison to avoid exactly this problem, but Perez is fine. disagreed, the DNC chair is obviously getting more attention now, and a lovely, gaffe-prone one like perez is just going to sink dem chances.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:You understand that Democrats already lose elections, right? I'd be fine with doing a compromise vote for the lesser of two evils like I did last November, if I thought the lesser of two evils had a chance in hell of winning. If I'm going to be voting for losers either way, I'd prefer to vote for losers who earnestly court my vote and whose ideology more closely aligns with my own (or hell, who have an ideology above power for its own sake). The Democrats don't have some kind of birthright to my vote. lets make it simple. if you vote dem, you're good. if you vote republican, you're satan. if you vote anything else, you love satan. policy, ideology, and everything else don't matter. all that matters is the democratic party and that you're eternally loyal to them.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You are extremely dumb and apparently proud of it. Trump thanks you for your useful idiocy. My vote doesn't matter anyway cause the dems don't give a poo poo so why should I? Lightning Knight posted:Perez wants to do the same strategy that was generally preferred, a 50 state focus and more support for smaller races. He doesn't set platform from DNC chair. If the DNC was smart it would matter. Also, Perez will work to get more lovely TPP loving dems in power if he can, so he may not set the platform on its own but he will influence it a lot.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I'm not sure why you're so convinced that TPP is still going to be on the table in four years, but ok. I'm convinced that a clone will be on the table cause it's what dems want.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:you see NAFTA killed jobs which is why job losses didn't start until GWB's inauguration
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:You should be able to acknowledge that trade deals we have historically made were bad without being opposed to the idea of trade deals in principle. We should, but considering said deals were bipartisan we really can't trust the dems to institute a good one.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 02:50 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:TPP members: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. It does http://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-workers/
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 19:07
|
|