Fulchrum posted:

If it was democratised people would have elected Jill goddamn Stein

JeffersonClay posted:

The argument seems to be "the left is irrationally committed to Ellison and if they don't get their way they'll throw a tantrum" which does not remind me of anything else that has happened recently at all.

Brainiac Five posted:

Haim Saban doesn't vote?

Brainiac Five posted:

Characterizing a Jewish person as a phony infiltrator attempting to hijack politics from real Americans is sketchy. So is using terms like "donor class", and singling out Jewish people as exemplars of this "donor class" that apparently is distinct from the bourgeoisie. There are perfectly innocent explanations, I am sure, but y'all can't control your fool mouths for long enough to throw some bloodthirstiness at auto execs alongside "unmanly" industries like finance and entertainment.

Brainiac Five posted:

Insisting that it's Jewish Zionists who control American foreign policy concerning Israel more than the MIC and various Gentile imperialists is also very telling.

Brainiac Five posted:

I will if you tell me about BOFA.

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Their Gun Rights.

Brainiac Five posted:

That's right, defend themselves against themselves. They rationally conclude, at high rates, that they are the greatest threat to their own well-being and that of the people around them, and Messrs. Smith and Wesson are just one of the many organizations dedicated to assisting them in their moment of need, unlike fascistic hotlines and psychiatrists.

Brainiac Five posted:

Do you disagree that psychiatry is neoliberal imperialism on the mind? Telling people they should be "free" from anxiety attacks and mood swings and intrusive thoughts?

Sapozhnik posted:

How many layers of irony are you two even on

Can you just say "I strongly disagree with [policy x] because [reasons]" without all this nauseating sarcastic condescension

Also, of all the issues around gun ownership, their contribution to suicide rates is an awfully odd thing to get wrapped around the axle about. I'd suggest that we should combat the stigma around mental illness and provide much much greater funding (i.e. greater than what is basically zero) for support services instead.

Brainiac Five posted:

Speak English please, I am not fluent in the language of "Gibbering Idiot".

Brainiac Five posted:

Friend, it sounds like you believe in telling people what to do. Telling them it's wrong to defend themselves against themselves, that they should receive "cognitive"-"behavioral" "therapy" and "selective" "norepinephrine" "reuptake" "inhibitors" if they feel that desire.

Quite simply, much like how it's neoliberal evil for a politician to do that, to be political, it's even eviller for psychiatrists to exist and impose on our fundamental rights to self-defense and to make monkey love to firearms.

Brainiac Five posted:

Speak English please, I am not fluent in the language of "Gibbering Idiot".

Helsing posted:

Do you think Obama could have won in 2008 or 2012 without winning a share of those racist white rust belters? I think we can say with a fair degree of certainty that many Obama voters in places like Michigan would not have been comfortable with Obama dating their daughter. They still turned out to vote for him when he was either perceived as a change agent or when his opponent was successfully presented as a predatory vulture capitalist.

Sapozhnik posted:

Also slay this stupid loving "Brocialism" meme or progressives are never going to gain any traction.

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

They made it subtext, not text.

What are you trying to ask me? Do I think Obama could have won without a bunch of racist whites in Wisconsin, Michigan , Ohio and Pennsylvania? Yes. Hillary drat near did.


"He's a Goddman Nazi" should actually have been sufficient; but you're conflating poo poo.

Chelb posted:

A little bird with bad hair is whispering in my ear that not campaigning in Michigan and some other states much probably didn't matter

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Can we never use that word again?

Chelb posted:

I'm not sure what's so unconvincing about drawing comparisons between states that clinton (or trump) campaigned in heavily but still lost, or pointing to earlier presidential elections where ground game seemed less important than other factors (c.f. 2012), but okay.

I used to think the ultimate problem lied in fatal ground-game based mistakes too, but eventually that reasoning falls apart on a few levels. We wouldn't have heard about Hillary's ground game if she had won, so a conversation like this is in a sense biased by the victor; A ton of people, me included, thought she had a good ground game, with ample funds and favorable polling for most of the campaign; demographics explain political shifts much better than candidate campaigning does.

Anyway, sorry for adding to the derail. I like all 3 of the notable candidates offered for the DNC chair and will not be unhappy regardless of the choice.

Nevvy Z posted:

That still involves us using that stupid word so uh...

In exciting news, David Duke endorsed Ellison.

Brainiac Five posted:

The part where enthusiasm is more important than percentage of the electorate, the part where safeguarding against Breiviks and Roofs is via medicalizing racism, or the part where we treat depression by restricting people's rights?

Brainiac Five posted:

I see, you need to cater to racism and homophobia. Or you need to define your base so that it includes people opposed to any gun control no matter what. Intriguing, intriguing.

Brainiac Five posted:

No you're not. You're lying about Democratic gun control policies, fetishizing firearms, and obsessing about hurting possible neoliberals but in an ineffectual way, like you couldn't just burn down your county Democratic office or something to get them urges out.

Mukaikubo posted:

this really feeds into my contention that modern leftism is a race to be able to say "i told you so" with the most moral authority to the other prisoners in the gas chamber before dying

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.

Brainiac Five posted:

Your narrative is out of date, Ellison is bad because he didn't grow crocodile jaws and bite Chuck Schumer's head off.

Nevvy Z posted:

"gently caress everyone that's not me"

Nevvy Z posted:

I'm not a centrist and it's very hosed up of you to accuse people of this kind of poo poo because they wanted a competent politician instead of a transparently corrupt businessman as president.

paranoid randroid posted:

okay real talk for a second here - i seriously think this guy is a markov bot because every post ive ever seen from him looks like its been bolted together procedurally

Lightning Knight posted:

So... we should just sit and do nothing? That's kind of stupid.

I agree that Ellison in charge is probably better for progressive primary challenges, but I don't know if it would make a huge difference as compared to bottom up organization.

Really it seems to me that regardless of who wins progressivism needs an alternate, parallel organizational structure that is loosely allied with but not beholden directly to the party.

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.

Main Paineframe posted:

Instead of primarying Mark "close tax loopholes for the rich and the corporations" Dayton in spite of his solid progressive record, why not work on booting out Collin "Founder of the Blue Dog Coalition" Peterson, you unbelievable moron? You're talking about booting a reliable progressive out of some idiotic anti-establishment sentiment while your fairly blue state has two Republican reps, a Blue Dog rep, and Republican majorities in both houses of the state legislature.

Main Paineframe posted:

Where do you think unions came from in the first place? Organized labor wasn't created by the government - it was organized by the people, from the bottom up. The protections unions enjoyed in their heyday weren't generously given to them by the government - they were concessions extracted from the government after hard-fought battles, often physical as well as political. Sure, unions are facing challenges today as the protections they won back then are now being rolled back...but that's nothing compared to the challenges they faced back in labor's heyday, when not only did they lack those protections but the Supreme Court also said it would be unconstitutional to grant them those protections!

The same is true for campaign finance laws. Back in the Gilded Age (a time of historic inequality), campaign finance was basically unregulated, with banks and corporations being able to donate unlimited amounts directly to candidates with no disclosure requirements whatsoever. Campaign finance restrictions came in response to progressive activism and public outrage at candidates who were more and more obviously in the pockets of big business. These institutions were not graciously given to the left to allow them to fight on an even stage - they were hard-won concessions that did not exist until the left organized and fought for them.

The left has to build - and defend - its own institutions. It can't rely on top-down structures if it wants to succeed.

Ogmius815 posted:

So you're a hysterical protectionist. Gotcha.

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

you see NAFTA killed jobs which is why job losses didn't start until GWB's inauguration

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.

^

Nevvy Z posted:

This still never happened. Stop lying about people crowsbeak you motherfucking liar.

Ogmius815 posted:

But that doesn't matter to the Bernout crew, not really. They aren't arguing in good faith. They want "their guy" to win because their guy lost last year and they want their pound of flesh as bloody vengeance. Plus compromise and pragmatism don't get them that sweet, sweet moral indignation high, which is the only reason why they're into politics.

And if all this means tanking the party and letting the fascists win, great. When you win you have to do things, you don't just get to snipe anymore, which would take all the fun out of this.

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

yes I agree there's been a longstanding misinformation campaign deflecting blame for job losses from capitalists to foreigners

Nevvy Z posted:

Citation needed you motherfucking liar.

Ogmius815 posted:

Oh man now I'm beat. I'm totally seeing with new eyes now. For sure.

Main Paineframe posted:

Fair enough, but from the way he talked about replacing Dayton with Ellison as if it represented some major change, I thought he was saying Dayton was an establishment centrist.

Lightning Knight posted:

Well, yeah. This is late stage capitalism. Marx was right, his timeline was just off.

The problem is how we survive the transition. Between global warming and the resurgence of fascism in the face of disorganized leftist and liberal opposition, I am not optimistic.

paranoid randroid posted:

im curious how yall maintain this level of mortally aggrieved outrage for so long. it must cause heartburn.

paranoid randroid posted:

whoop, "virtue signalling!" drink!

Brainiac Five posted:

You understand that Reagan and Reaganism involves destroying the social safety net and social welfare? Because if you do then you appear to be unable to say what you mean but instead wobble drunkenly around it.

Fulchrum posted:

No no, if we even think they might not constantly say that anyone making more than $20,000 a year needs to be killed, better to give that seat to the tea party, cause MAAAAAAAH PUUUUUUUUUUUUHHRRRRRRIIIIIIIITYYYYYY!

Fulchrum posted:

Yes, because you are acting like a whiny little bitch who cannot loving stand that the very clear majority of people chose someone over you, even after conceding virtually every bit of the platform, and invent a delusional boogeyman who rigged the process then throws the world's future down the toilet to punish it for daring to not agree with you.

Fulchrum posted:

And that's why Dems attempting to appeal to labor with the most respected labor secretary since FDRs as chairman is totally suicidal and shows their TRUE contempt for workers. Only Californian tech workers can ever understand that what these people truly need is wholly symbolic wins by the aforementioned tech workers.