|
Helsing posted:No. I said, and would continue to say, that if you think the current team of Democrats in the White House have done a bad job of running the party then you should be skeptical of candidates they endorse for the DNC. Why should this override the candidate's stated beliefs and actions?
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
Helsing posted:I wouldn't say it should override everything they've done, skepticism doesn't necessarily mean total opposition, it just means you should be wary of why this candidate is getting the endorsements they are getting. In this case I think he's essentially the anyone-but-Ellison candidate and that elements of the democratic party who are resistant to giving ground to progressives are endorsing him for that reason. 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".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
Condiv posted:supporting the TPP isn't progressive So the sole litmus test should be: do they support trade deals y/n?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Condiv posted: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 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
Condiv posted:1) making false attacks against a primary candidate sucks, and i think he's not trustworthy because of it 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. 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. 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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
Condiv posted: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 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. 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. Agnosticnixie posted:The only idiots are the people who think oligarch money is a gift rather than an investment to ensure that the party remains a watchdog of capital. Money doesn't allow people to mind-control you, moron. Actually, the really rich don't like free trade as such, preferring trade rigged in their favor. It's academics who push for free trade as such.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 03:13
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Good thing there are no other ways to manipulate things and people besides physical coercion and telepathy. The whole reason taking money is considered corrupting is because of the sense of reciprocity, which is not inevitable, and the worry of losing further money, which is an asinine thing to consider because it ignores why businesses donate money to politicians in the first place. OK, well, if we want to play semantics games, I'll say that you're committing a foul by using hazy definitions that are whatever you want them to be to win the argument, which is against the rules and disqualifies you from speaking for the next three turns.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
NNick posted:The DNC is not a policy position, but one of power. Perez doesn't "come from the Clinton wing of the party" any more than Ellison does. Both are firmly on the left wing of the Democratic establishment. Neither will give the Bernie-Or-Busters what they want.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
The Little Kielbasa posted:Is "maybe a guy who thought it was a good idea to run Hillary Rodham Clinton as our 2016 presidential candidate isn't the best choice to run our political party" an illegitimate chain of reasoning? On the other hand, should the Democratic party be run by morons who don't understand how political primaries work?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
The Little Kielbasa posted:Do you have any evidence that Ellison (or Buttigieg or any of the other candidates running for chair) don't understand how primaries work? Not talking about Ellison, I'm talking about you. You are saying that Perez should be locked out of the candidacy, because you don't understand how political primaries work. That is, we should orient the leadership of the Democratic party around you and people like you, who know very little about anything. Why is this considered a winning strategy?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
I like that the Democratic party now has to, at a point where it needs money more than ever, support itself entirely on the backs of the poor. Possibly unions too.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
The Little Kielbasa posted:Please tell me how primaries work in a way that explains why Perez backing HRC was not, as it appears to us mortals, a mistake but rather a brilliant move worthy of Augustus Caesar quote:Is "maybe a guy who thought it was a good idea to run Hillary Rodham Clinton as our 2016 presidential candidate isn't the best choice to run our political party" an illegitimate chain of reasoning? The only way for you to say this while understanding how the US Democratic Party selects presidential candidates is if you were to conclude that the party leadership should have resisted the will of the Democratic Party membership and rigged the primaries for Bernie, or if you were to conclude that Hillary Rodham Clinton should have uniquely been banned from running as a candidate in the primaries for the 2016 presidential candidate nomination. Both of those things would mean that you should still be locked out of any power within the Democratic Party, as you are announcing your intent to abuse that power and hijack democratic decision-making in favor of a oligarchic tyranny. Alternatively, you don't know poo poo about poo poo but want to trumpet how much you hate that uppity HRC. Your choice.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Reminder: the primaries literally had a built-in method for ignoring the will of the party voters, they were called "superdelegates" and all they loudly announced that they were going to vote for Clinton right out of the gate. I'm sure this didn't effect Sanders turnout at all, though. Neither did the AP calling the race for Clinton the day before the California primary because of those superdelegates. And yet the margin of victory for Clinton was greater than the total number of superdelegates, which was not true in 2008. It's far more reasonable, without resorting to the inane argument that there was this silent majority of Bernie voters who would have voted if not for the rascally superdelegates and the criminal Associated Press, to say that the 2008 primary was rigged for Obama than that 2016 was rigged for Hillary. Neither one is reasonable in absolute terms, either.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
The French Communist Party, which distinguishes between party leadership and lay membership similarly to how the superdelegate system does, is counter-revolutionary. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:turns out elections are actually determined by live human voters, not money, as HRC found out last november You need money to pay human workers. Can't rely on volunteer labor indefinitely, not just for the moral reasons, but for the simple pragmatic reason that people need to loving eat you loving moron.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:trump had basically no ground game and he won In order to do things like a 50-state strategy, you need people on the ground doing things like sparking turnout. In order to counter voter suppression efforts, you need people on the ground driving buses and getting people registered and explaining that they won't get in trouble if they vote with no ID. In order to serve disenfranchised groups and get them to turn out, you need people on the ground. In order to engage in the kind of machine politics you'd probably need to increase turnout substantially, you need people on the ground. In order to engage in local politics, you need loving people on the loving ground to find the loving candidates you need to run against the loving republican dogcatcher that runs unopposed. Fuckface. EDIT: Also, 3 million more people voted for Hillary Clinton, and you masturbating to the thought of her being thrown in a woodchipper won't change that. Nor will, before you start, busting out Jacobin spank banks about how reality doesn't matter.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 05:44
|
|
|
NNick posted:Perez was routinely mentioned as on the short list for VP. He was in Obama's cabinet, and endorsed by major donors who accused Ellison of being an anti-Semite. Nobody said they were the same person, so I don't know why you quoted me while raving to thin air about how Obama's foul neoliberal essence has coagulated in the body of all his cabinet members, just like how Frances Perkins and Harry S Truman were politically identical back under FDR.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
NNick posted:I don't know if you are missing the point on purpose. Ellison and Perez are both establishment Democrats from the left wing of the establishment, based on their relationship with the party and their expressed political opinions. Obsession with the prospect of Clintobaman fluoride corrupting the precious bodily fluids of one and not the other privileges personal associations over political beliefs, and transposing this onto political beliefs privileges stupidity and ignorance over knowledge.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Fiction posted:I grasp it well. I'm saying I and people like me trust Ellison more than Perez to play the game in a way that actually reflects how voters feel, and not how Haim Saban feels. Haim Saban doesn't vote?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:His single issue and the fact he has millions shouldn't overwhelm the voice of thousands of others . 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.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Fiction posted:Hey, as an anti-Zionist Jew, go gently caress yourself for this argument. Many of us are very unhappy with the stranglehold that wealthy people have on Democratic politics and it has nothing to do with being Jewish or unmanly or something insane like that. I'm sorry you're unaware that there are more rich people than financiers and entertainment industry people, and that they donate money and shape politics via their wealth-generated power, such that you merely run up against antisemitic stereotyping due to your fetishization of loving ConAgra and GE and Lockheed Martin as more innocent than the guy who brought over Power Rangers. I hope you become smarter and less ignorant in the future, such that you can successfully criticize the role of wealth in American politics.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Haim Saban personally condemned Ellison, something ConAgra and GE executives did not. A shame people extended that to "Saban is a fake American and the most relevant example of wealth corrupting politics", then.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Periodiko posted:No one said this, either. There's this little concept called "implications". When you set a dividing line between "voters" and "Haim Saban", you are implying the latter is not a legitimate member of American society. When you insist Saban is just an example and so there's nothing sketchy about constant references to him, you are implying he is the most relevant example. I hope this lesson in high-school English has illuminated you.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Fiction posted:He is the most relevant example of a donor getting too big for his britches and trying to strongarm the party into doing what he wants in the election this thread is about. Hope this helps. Would you, perhaps, describe him as "uppity"?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Fiction posted:Nah I'd describe him as one of the only donors who in broad daylight tried to smear one of his political opponents as an anti-Semite (despite the fact that many Jews are backing him) because he wouldn't give Israel the tongue-bath that's apparently required to become a Democrat. Ah, so he's deceitful, possibly even congenitally a liar, given that he attempted to claim someone was antisemitic when Jewish people liked them, since as we all loving know antisemitism is defined as "Jewish people disliking you," you schmuck. I do like the vast Zionist conspiracy implied by this belief of yours, where no Zionist actually conflates support for Palestine with antisemitism, but it's all a malicious web of slanders.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Brainiac Five, how do you feel about the ADL accusing Ellison of anti-Semitism? Do you feel that Ellison did indeed invoke "the specter of age-old stereotypes about Jewish control of our government"? I support Ellison, so your gotcha is really loving bizarre. It's almost as if, like the ADL, you conflate criticism with hatred.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:I am highlighting the similarities between an argument you clearly reject and your own accusations. Nobody's pulling Haim Saban out of the air; he decided to involve himself in the race. Which of course justifies everything up to and including Crowsbeak's verbal vomit. Involve yourself in politics and you are no longer a real American.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
Fiction posted:Huh? I'm just saying prominent conservative Democrats who support Israel love to trot out accusations of anti-Semitism when it comes to critics of Israel despite the fact that the Jewish population in America is increasingly at odds with that viewpoint. So you defend yourself from charges of being a conspiracy theorist by insisting you believe politicians should simply transmit the will of the volk. Uh huh. Fiction posted:"Involving yourself in politics" is not the same as "using your ill-gotten riches to unduly influence politics in your favor," which is where 99% of political activity actually stems from in America. It's not unique to Haim Saban but he got himself involved very publicly in away that many people have had enough of. Weird how this disproportionately focuses on entertainment and banking, and not, say, the auto industry asking for Japan to be denounced as a currency manipulator and forced into opening up their markets, as Rep. Sander Levin made a statement about just this week.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Fiction posted:OK first of all how the gently caress are American Jews "the volk." What the gently caress is wrong with you. You're the one insisting that these statements are illegitimate because Jewish people in America are less supportive of Zionism now, which implies that the ideal state of politicians is as a passive, soulless entity without thoughts or beliefs of their own, merely reciting what the people believe. Sander Levin is a Democratic Representative from Michigan. Please don't open your mouth without knowing what you're talking about ever again. Cease to Hope posted:Haim Saban directly intervened in this election, while auto industry executives did not. You don't actually know that. You assume that we would hear about it, rather than it happening via private conversations and backdoor meetings. At least Saban made his accusations public.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:How dare you not manufacture imaginary meetings to support my argument, sir! How dare you! The automotive industry of course has no influence on politics, unlike the rootless cosmopolitans of the entertainment industry.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
It's honestly shocking me how you all are falling all over yourselves to insist Haim Saban is the greatest manipulator in American politics and other industries are basically innocent. Are you doing this out of knee-jerk reaction? I really, really hope so.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:On the contrary, people in this thread are assuming it's happening. You were the one who came storming in, insisting that using Saban as an example of large-dollar donors exerting their influence was anti-Semitic. You just said that it wasn't happening. That only Saban had interfered. Lie more convincingly. After that lie I guess you must be lying about what I said, not simply mistaken. How pitiful!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Fiction posted:Maybe I mentioned Saban because he directly, publicly intervened in this race and is thus a good example to point to? That would be a non-insane interpretation of my post. This doesn't address most of the criticisms I have made, bucko. Your insistence on your own purity and innocence is a major fault you and many others apparently feel the need to show off as much as possible.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:I just said only Saban intervened directly. Nobody can name specific donors who intervened indirectly for obvious reasons. Now we're getting into pedantry, where you try to defend the implicit claim that Saban is more egregious than the auto industry by insisting connotations don't exist. Does this sound convincing to you?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
Sorry maple grampy was less popular than that uppity ballbuster Hollary Klointon and you've invented a fantasy of betrayal to use as a litmus test. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
I enjoy how the Bernie or Bust people are dumb enough to think that open white supremacy and misogyny makes you a bad candidate in American politics. We definitely should let you all have control of anything more important than a model train set.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Fiction posted:Is there a typo in this post? Also being an open white supremacist is a bad thing which is why she should never have been considered for nomination. So do you vary up your Clinton snuff fantasies, or are they fairly consistent?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Donald Trump is not running for the DNC chair. Papering over the inane proxy war won't make it go away.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 22:35 |
|
|
ISeeCuckedPeople posted:The Clintonites in this thread do not realize that no matter how much they defend Perez politics is 90% perception. It doesn't matter if Peres IS no different from Ellison. What matters is that people perceive him to be so. Well poo poo, why have policy at all if reality don't matter.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2017 20:52
|
|