|
Cease to Hope posted:Definitely Congress or a governorship, not president. He's only ever held office as the mayor of a small city. Yeah, can't think of any presidents to have had so little public service.
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 11:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:It's an honest word. Also are we supposed to care that a neonazi endorsed anyone? Or is this just another example of centrists using every dirty trick and lie to prevent the Democratic Party from not being a pathetic party that only wins in wave elections? I am going to be so happy when there are no centrists left. Yeah, I'm totally sure the Dems used that deep relationship they have with the loving KKK to get Duke to endorse Ellisson. You know, for a group that can make Republicans instantly say or do literally anything, it's amazing they don't use this brain control machine to win elections. Kilroy posted:Time to start beefing up the DSA I guess - the Democratic party is lost. With Trump's Cabinet crumbling, it sure is nice if you to do everything you can to help him.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 12:46
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:i feel like this is a really harsh indictment of the left. the left is weak and directionless because the levers of power have been used to destroy all of the left's traditional institutions. What the gently caress are you talking about? Mainstream dems have never once cut ties with religious groups, it's the self described left that includes the "smash the religious lie" poo poo heads who want to just tell those believers how much smarter believing in Marx is. Crowsbeak posted:Tis better then voting for a bunch of cowards who would let Muslims go to camps because they need some sweet wall street money. 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! Crowsbeak posted:Yes Keith Elllison is a noted panderer to white supremacists. I love the logic of centrists. Its kind of why of the past five elections counting mid terms they have lost three. 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. Alter Ego posted:For the last time--Perez wouldn't even be in the race if the Obama people hadn't asked him to run out of "fear" that Keith Ellison would become chairman. Was this before or after he used Chem trails to make frogs gay? Kilroy posted:Maybe the first step to doing that is to cease the endless attempts at conciliation with a Democratic party that clearly wants them to have no influence on the platform or the party but expects their votes anyway? You're right that unions came from bottom-up organization - and they are being systematic destroyed by Democrats arm-in-arm with Republicans, from the top down. Maybe leftists don't want to be a part of that anymore and maybe the election of Perez will be just another in a long list of clear indicators that the left has no actual place in the Democratic party. Let Nancy "We Are Capitalists, Period" Pelosi and her ilk have it. Ah yes, I too remember all the Dems who have pushed through right to work legislation. Remember when Obama signed that bill into law while cackling and holding up a middle finger to a weeping white man in a construction helmet? Dems are totally the same you guys. Lightning Knight posted:Because third party organization will not make a difference in the next four years. No, it will. I'm sure if it's organised enough it can completely undermine any hope of a Dem wave and hand control to Republicans.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i'd prefer that option too. too bad establishment dems are going to stonewall any attempt at change Yes, they will cunningly undercut all these progressive ideas by....adopting all of them. It's foolproof- you stop all change by changing it to what people were demanding. It's foolproof.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:. But hten you guys are too far up your own asses to actually admit that you're idols wrecked this country and we need to appeal to the working class. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Condiv posted:if the differences between perez and ellison are entirely symbolic then certainly perez should go ahead and withdraw his candidacy, and biden shouldn't have bothered to endorse ellison. i mean, biden is already getting what he wants through ellison! Cute. No, see, being better at coordinating a large organisation is the big difference. It's essentially pragmatism vs. Symbolism Crowsbeak posted:Its a good thing that Keith Ellison isn't a tech worker from Silicon Valley then. As we can tell by the fact that he and Perez want the same thing and Ellisson isn't throwing a hissy fit and leaving the party if Perez wins. Alter Ego posted:The two are defined by their opposition. Ellison is opposed by the party faction that just pissed away the biggest gimme election in history. You mean the SEIU? And Perez is opposed by Hillary's biggest defender, so if we're playing that game...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:I don't recall the SEIU ever actively opposing Ellison, just supporting Perez--whereas many other Perez backers are behind him because they fear Ellison will unmoor the party from its ties to Third Way crap. Do you have any form or scrap of proof for this, outside of the manifesto you've scrawled on your walls in your own poo poo?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Hmmm I wonder how Chuck Schumer would do in this scenario - better stake the future of the party on popularity pissing contests instead of policies that Americans favor overwhelmingly. Gun control it is.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:As opposed to tearing down the left itself which is so institutionalized at this point that you don't even notice it. Almost as if nobody is tearing it down and it's so ineffectual and is so in love with chasing smug self satisfaction over victories that it will tear itself apart effortlessly. Like, for example, saying they will do everything they can to get Trump reelected if Dems elect one of the two identical guys up for a position.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 07:18
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:enjoy your political party Yeah, human rights, the environment, the concept of democracy itself, all of that needs to take a back seat to screaming "gently caress YOU, DAD!".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
Unlike the absolutely magnificent accomplishments of the 50 or so Socialist, Greens or "pure leftist" parties in those areas. The single solitary environmental accomplishment the Greens have ever managed is getting Bush elected.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it is dems fault. they had an easy election and they flubbed it hard with an unlikeable candidate who apparently can't figure out how to campaign. trump is an incompetent boob and his presidency so far has made that drat obvious, but the dems couldn't pull out a win against him even though he was their favored candidate. it's dems job to convince people to vote for them, and they absolutely refuse to do that and instead rely on party loyalty to win them election.the dems need to stop being just the lesser evil and actually appeal to someone other than wall street. In case you hadn't noticed, EVERY party tried and failed to stop Trump. The difference with the Republicans was that the FBI and Russia didn't help, and that he didn't win against Cruz by a lovely technicality, he won by a large margin. The Little Kielbasa posted:Hard to see that given the AFL-CIO's Ellison endorsement. That came before Perez entered the race. Condiv posted:voting is not a duty at all. that's why it's legal to not bother voting. the longer you keep pretending that people are obligated to vote for your party, instead of trying to convince them to vote for your party, the more support the dems will bleed. hth It's amazing how according to the numbers, zero Republicans agree with this sentiment. Almost like not thinking of a vote as something you have to purity test endlessly and instead just do, gives them what they want. What an amazing concept. Unless what you want is purity and no amount of political gains on earth will ever mean as much to you as that feeling of smug self satisfaction. Raskolnikov38 posted:*loses 900+ seats* *loses 900 seats* See, I shouldn't feel any obligation to vote at all. Crowsbeak posted:Yeah he should not have run on reforming it at all. Also bipartisan support doesn't mean it was good for America as 2008 showed. Clinton let the left down then expected fealty. Not going to happen. Best of all despite the support we showed her and him at the booth she lost. So now we can rightfully blame them. So you mean in the same way they were right to blame the failure of the left in the 80s?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:They were not right to blame us at all. Carter ran as a moderate and lost to Reagan. Mondale could only promise higher taxes. While Dukakis could only promis a balanced budget. Also now explain what your thoughts about properly regulating and cutting down the banks are. Also if you keep pushing poo poo candidates you will lose. Just like you did in the 80s but that's liberal centricism for you. Ah, I see, NEVER, EVER your fault and you can always say that you should take some blame. What a kooky coincidence, and not a complete delusion. Kilroy posted:You seem to be conflating a person who has voted Democratic and is angry that they keep losing, with someone who doesn't vote, or doesn't vote Democratic, and is nonetheless angry that they're losing. You seem unable to accept that people to the left of you want the Democrats to win elections and that moving to the left is part of the strategy to do that. Instead, for you it is a given that moving to the left will lose elections, so the only reason anyone could support it is out of a desire for ideological purity over and above results. In fact it is precisely that "ideological purity" (as you would call it) that we believe is a means to win more elections. And that is why the candidate with the most progressive platform in us history won. Oh wait. Little monkey wrench in your theory.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Really? Why did higher minimum wage referendums pass Show me one referendum that passed while including an explicit raising of taxes. Fiction posted:the evidence is the electoral success of an idiot with no plans and the abject electoral failure of this very type of tightrope politics that Clinton was attempting to turn into a wave. "This very type of tightrope politics" was Hillary going further left than anyone before.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
How many said the words "X% tax increase to pay for it"? Americans are pro these things right up to the second you mention that someone has to pay for it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Minimum wage and union rights cost taxes? Also if you say you'll go after the financiers people support you. They get hit with the " all prices will go up by $X" talking points, so to voters, yes. It's utterly, utterly irrelevant how full of poo poo the argument is as the right has demonstrated that voters will lap up their lies eagerly. And no they don't! They never once join with you for "go after the bankers", because the exact same "class warfare" line gets trotted out every. Single. Time. And Americans remember they are temporarily embarrassed millionaire's who will totally strike it rich this time, and punish the Dems for going after financiers. Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Feb 18, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:So, the Crowsbeak plan is to avoid any actual work, but instead to get up on a big stage and blather some semi-coherent nonsense. Just, you know, yell about how the current system is bad and then you'll completely circumvent all the people who think it's bad because of government regulations or the possibility of suing for malpractice. And of course, when your system fails to control costs because anyone with any knowledge of healthcare is going to be expelled from the party like your cohort Dr. Fishopolis keeps suggesting and so it's just a single-payer system of insurance that ignores pharmaceutical costs (or implements half-assed measures) and totally ignores the role healthcare providers have played in spiraling costs, then nobody will be disillusioned with it, unlike with PPACA. And this whole thing will be immune to right-wing propaganda efforts. Uh huh. To be fair, getting up on a stage, blathering incoherently, circumventing all roadblocks and claiming success even when it fails has been Trump's entire strategy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:welp maybe the party should have thrown us a goddamn bone earlier if they didn't want this to happen You mean like, say, conceding the entire goddamn platform last year? Are you ever going to abandon this persecution complex? Or is it going to still be you inventing a boogeyman to explain a lack of popular support for your ideas and demanding sacrifices as payment for your schizophrenic illusions of being slighted? Cause you like the ideas, so obviously America wants these ideas so much and the mean old dems just want to stop you because they're mean, and hate apple pie, ice cream and puppies. Raskolnikov38 posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSMGrKSUgj4 You know, if you want to be treated like adults, maybe don't go into apoplectic fits of rage whenever someone treats you like an adult and thinks you can handle the truth.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Because [insert socialist purity group #254 here] is healthy and active and gonna make huge gains in 2018 guys, this is the time! They just doubled in size today, and if qe get two more members well have doubled again. If that rate keep a up we'll totally get a seat somewhere in 2018!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Platform doesn't mean poo poo it's who us pushing it and how authentic they are. It's almost like a left right political scale is utterly, utterly irrelevant and it's solely about charisma. But if that were true you'd have things like insisting the guy who talked about how there is no liberal America or conservative America was totally a Marx quoting revolutionary trying to smash the capitalist system. And if that were the case there would be no point in the slightest in dems ever making a single concession to the nebulously associated and self defined left since they are just looking for a cult of personality to attach themselves to, and treating them like they have coherent ideological requests is just stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Wait, the New Hampshire party head dropped out? Was it cause of Ellisson backroom dealing? Or did he simply realise it's cause he had Buckleys?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
You mean the ones Republican lawmakers gutted and suffered no consequences for whatsoever, rather than wasting any time trying to fight them?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
I'm just discussing it from the attitude displayed not the actual outcome. They didn't even bother with the job creators class warfare horseshit, they just directly overrode the voters and figured they wouldn't see any repercussions. Whether that's true or not, the point was that they didn't bother to use the talking points to suppress these initiatives so I don't see what's it's proving other than the only way to get these passed in red states is for Republicans to do nothing to try and rework the messaging on it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
What I'm saying is that social issues are the way Dems get elected in order to get economic issues passed, since that's the area that Republicans lose messaging wars, and the people saying Dems need to dump identity politics to try and capitalise on all the no really it's totally there love America has for higher taxes and more regulation are idiots.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
It'd still be useful to use it to kneecap your opponents.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
And again, winning while your opponent cheats does not mean their cheating did not help, just that you should have won by far far more far sooner.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
The lesson everyone needs to learn from 2016 is that yes, voters really are that stupid. Plan accordingly. Look forward to the 2021 inauguration of President Keys Waved in Front of our Faces, who is still objectively more qualified than Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
Hang on, isn't the election Wednesday? I thought we were finally done with this goddamn festering infighting and could finally present a unified front.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:What have people like Reid, Pelosi, and Feinstein given us? I'm sick of being governed by ancient wrinkled Methuselahs (obviously Reid is gone, but I have a political memory longer than a goldfish's) who will scold us for not building sufficient political capital in the face of goddamn fascism. Where the hell are the Gen X, where the hell are the Millennial politicians who will actually fight to improve the lives of all Americans instead of burning endless political capital on incrementalism? Why are they being locked out of the party? Gen xers had Reagan squatting on their political revelatory period like a toad. Most of the ones with political ambition became Republicans and wear the exact same poo poo eating grin on their faces 24/7.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 09:05
|
|
|
You mean the only charismatic young and widely liked Dem out there? I mean you can try and primary the guy who ran into burning houses to rescue his constituents, or maybe you could try and beat Republicans.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yeah only the most blatantly pro wallstreet/pro police state dems want Rahm Emmanuel to have any more elected positions. Also preventing more Liberman's is easy. We don't back people in blue states that are in anyway neocons. Also for those wondering why I want to get rid of Corey. Well him getting forced out would be a pretty humiliating for the Centrists. Because gently caress accomplishing anything, gently caress preventing Republicans destroying the world, the number one priority is getting that pound of flesh.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Can the people saying that the number one enemy is Corey Booker at least call themselves the Peoples Front of the Democrats?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well as this elections showed. Going with you guys doesn't actually do any of those things. Also, yes we'll take a pound of flesh off of people like you who literally say that we should never attempt to run on any economic changes. Then claim we can somehow win on unspecified social issues. A huh. Wanna reveal how infighting and bloodletting and not beating loving Republicans gets us economic change?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
You are never going to even attempt to get over Sanders losing to Hillary fair and square, are you? Also, jog my memory, the challengers Bernie endorsed, how many beat Republicans? Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Feb 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Still not going to explain how social policies are the only thing dems need to win? You claimed you had some surefire ones that were better then pro worker policies that pass in red states. I am starting to wonder if its just smoke and mirrors. Also I don't answer your questions until you answer mine. Not that I expect you to do. Protecting gay marriage, trans equality, abortion rights, opposing police brutality. The things that won the North Carolina governorship. Now once again, name the Bernie backed challengers who beat the Republican incumbents in 2016. Come On, show these unstoppable True Leftist dems who easily smashed Republicans.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
emdash posted:why would there have been a lot of those in 2016 you doofus There was a yearlong primary. You think that this happened in a vacuum? And what exactly do you call an OWS law professor named Zephyr Rain who was the first candidate that Bernie endorsed, other than a Bernie endorsed candidate?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Yeah, find out. Not just tell them "the reason you aren't voting is insufficient purity in Dems, and cause of Joe Manchin and Corey Booker".
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
So that's your way of saying you aren't a leftist dem? Or is this you sticking like glue to a no true Scotsman, saying that anyone who doesn't run on full communism now isn't really fighting for better worker rights and better healthcare. And BTW, since Perez is probably the number one fighter for worker rights in America today and you keep instinctively fighting him, you wanna walk the hypocrisy back? And trans rights did motivate people to the polls. North. Carolina. Governorship. The whole thing was a proxy on HB2.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 23:30
|
|
|
Also, Tammy Baldwin was a loving Incumbent and Maggie Hansan is a beloved ex governor who won by less than a percentage point. How in the gently caress does either represent either the supressed left that the Establishment has opposed, or this unstoppable wave of support for pure leftists?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 22:30 |
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Well when you want something done its best to have unity in the party. What doesn't help unity is when you have people in safe seats not showing unity. So they must be given the choice to either change. Or leave. Hey can you also explain how putting pressure on a elected representative through grass roots means is bad? Because it's not loving grass roots. Booker, Manchin and Heitkamp all have high approval ratings in their constituency. You want Dems to mount a campaign to depose them against the will of their voters just cause you hate that anyone disagrees with you. And unity means you stop loving attacking people on your side. Honestly, you're almost as bad as Trump "We must come together and have unity, we're going to love each other. Except for anyone who disagrees with me who are the enemy of the American people."
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 00:02
|
|