|
B B posted:https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/822930660675489792 lol He's also still refusing to clarify his position on donations from corporate lobbyists.
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 08:25 |
|
|
I support Ellison because I fully recognize the existence of a leftist-corporatist split in the party and realize that Perez is the Obama-Clinton wing's horse in the race. So he can get hosed.
Red and Black fucked around with this message at 12:38 on Jan 23, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Keep in mind, Schumer has had people camped outside his house in Brooklyn screaming at the top of their lungs pretty much constantly since the inauguration. The locals have made it pretty clear that he either stands up for progressives or gets voted the gently caress out. My favorite moment was around 100 people showing up with literal spines. Schumer's endorsement was a peace offering to the left to basically say "we'll give you the chairmanship if you leave the minority leadership positions alone". It looked like that's how things were going to go down until Obama started pushing back against Ellison through his proxies. Now it looks like the establishment might ratfuck the left out of the only meager concession it seemed it might get. If so the Democrats are actually finished for good.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Is there any scenario where Perez wins without it being a ratfuck, in your eyes? Sure, Schumer or Pelosi step down and let a hardline leftist take their position.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
Schumer is a terrible leader for the Democrats right now. He has an awful Clinton-esque voting record, and close ties to wall street. His complete lack of principle shines through every time he speaks. For example, when the muslim ban was announced his first criticism of it was that it was sloppily executed. Not that it was completely immoral and appalling. He isn't a man who's ready to fight tooth and nail to stop the country from falling into fascism.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Thats completely different from what you posted, duder.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:"And Perez does not meet these characteristics." Perez won't agree to ban corporate contributions. Tried to capitalize on Ellison being an ADL target by basically coming out in support of Israeli settlements. He was a vocal supporter of Hillary during the campaign. Those are all pretty meaningful things to me.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Neither will Ellison. Ellison backs banning lobbyist contributions to the DNC BI NOW GAY LATER posted:But Ellison also backing the wrong horse isn't disqualifying, how? It's not about backing the wrong horse. It's that Ellison supported the more ideologically left-wing candidate during the primaries. Perez's choice on the other hand makes no sense from a progressive standpoint, because Clinton is one of the more conservative, hawkish members of the party. It was cynical careerism at best and reflects poorly on him. Red and Black fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Feb 10, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 05:10
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:and two weeks later, he walked that back by saying that he'd put the question of whether to ban lobbyist donations to the DNC, a move designed to fail Well I find that deeply disappointing and that makes me less optimistic about Ellison. I still don't like Perez.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Wherein you treat Hillary and Bill as the same person and also get your history wrong about Bill "stabbing the left in the back" (He didn't, because he never ran on a promise to do anything for the left.) From a while back but holy poo poo, you are absolutely shameless. Hillary was an active proponent of her husband's policies ("superpredators"), more so than a regular first lady. She also defended them during her 2007 campaign, and has actively worked to link herself to her husband's politics (because she thought that would benefit her). These are decisions Hillary personally made to link herself to her Bill. No use crying about it now. This is also disregarding that Hillary has her own conservative record in the Senate, where she voted for the Iraq war, among other things. Or her time at the state department where she pushed for intervention in Libya. She has always been rightly known as a conservative Democrat.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2017 05:18
|
|
You're an idiot.
|
I don't think Gaddafi was left wing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:If Ellison is so much like Perez, why is he running? Perez wasn't in the race when Ellison announced his candidacy
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 07:46
|
|
|
Capfalcon posted:Because they're separate people and each thinks they can do the job better than the other, even if they personally like the other person and thinks the other wouldn't be a bad choice? The real question is, if Ellison and Perez are exactly the same, why the did the Obama Whitehouse push Perez to run as an alternative to Ellison and encourage so many Democrat Party insiders to rally behind him?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 09:05
|
|
|
It's because Perez is loyal to the Clinton/Obama wing of the party
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 09:07
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:And if the Chem trails aren't brainwashing all of us, why do the Jews keep releasing them? You're a moron
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2017 10:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 08:25 |
|
|
Honestly, I'm more depressed than anything. I'll still vote democrat because it's the "rational" choice, but it's pretty clear that a significant number of people, both within and outside the party, will be turned off by this result. It sends a very clear message that the Dems cannot and will not change. Pretty hard to see how they'll fight Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 11:36
|
|