|
Cease to Hope posted:I like Ellison better than Perez because he's a more effective and experienced organizer, but I don't see how Perez is meaningfully tainted by association with Obama or Clinton. He hasn't been part of Clinton's poorly-run campaigns, he favors the same sort of decentralized volunteer-led politics that Ellison (and Sanders) do, and he's not indebted to Clinton for his political career to date. I understand that he's not The Sanders Faction Candidate, and I don't like the DNC defeating Ellison just to symbolically punch left. There's no point to his campaign.
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 12:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 15:21 |
|
|
This is a poor move by the Democratic Party, and the arguments defending the Democrats here are not good. The fundamental issues here go beyond whether Ellison and Perez are both 'progressives'. And they go beyond whether 'the left' has enough power versus 'the center'. The fundamental problem with the Democratic Party is not where the party falls on a scale of 'progressive' versus 'centrist', it is whether the party is adequately representing the interests of its voting base. It is not just about the things you ostensibly support, but how you choose to wield power when you obtain it, how you choose to respond to situations. Political ideology (left, center) is a distraction here. The majority of the things 'the left' wants are not 'leftist' by any stretch of the imagination. They are not things that you have to be a 'leftist' to support, they are things that many/most people would support. The failure of the Democratic Party to do these things is why they shed voters and are unable to lose elections. It is not because people are comparing the Democrats' platform to some policy list they support, and choosing not to vote because the Democrats aren't giving them exactly what they want. It's people not voting because the Democrats are not doing the bare minimum to be a proper party for the average person. You don't have to be 'a leftist' or a 'democratic socialist' or a 'communist', for example, to support protecting American families from predatory and downright criminal business practices by banks and mortgage companies. This is not leftism, it is basic rule of law. What did the Democrats do about this? The Atlantic posted:Nothing is sadder than a man who disclaims his power to preserve his reputation. The presidency is subject to countless veto points and constraints, but the foreclosure disaster was unique; Congress had already given the incoming president the authority to act. What did Tom Perez, progressive, do about this? quote:The SCRA is rarely used for jail time, and other parts of the government were more well-suited for pursuing criminal charges against bank executives. Yet the foreclosure crisis, with the ensuing mortgage documentation fraud, was also unprecedented. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency documented 1,622 SCRA violations, including over 1,000 completed foreclosures of active duty troops. When your voters' lives worsen under your watch, when your voters feel as if they are getting nothing from you, they are not going to turn out and vote for you. Democrats have to grasp with their failures. Perez, as part of Obama's administration, is a part of those failures. These are failures. Failures of political strategy, failures of thought, failures. They are not 'different ideologies' or 'being more of a centrist': there is no massive American constituency that supports banks defrauding them. Tom Perez is DNC Chair because Barack Obama and people affiliated to him pushed for him to run, supported him, and asked DNC people to vote for Perez. Barack Obama and the people affiliated with him held the executive for eight years, are responsible for a large number of political and social failures, the Democratic Party saw massive losses under their 'leadership', and they now handed over the presidency to Donald Trump, an incompetent buffoun. These people are responsible for more bad than good, and yet they still hold enough sway to actively control the direction of this political party. It's not good. Obama should step aside, as one of the people partly responsible for these failures. On all evidence, these people have not done a good enough job to get elected and be respected and have a strong coalition of supporters. They just haven't. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 12:18 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2017 12:09
|
|
|
There's some leaked emails of Perez to Podesta; they're not super interesting, but this in particular jumped to me as precisely the reason why we should be wary of this guy:quote:Nevada is an opportunity to fight back on so many levels. First, the current storyline is that she does not connect well with young voters. Given that Nevada is far more demographically representative of America, I am confident that HRC can do well with all African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans (dont forget the sizeable population of Asian Americans in Nevada, including Filipinos.). Emmy and the team have a good plan to attract all minority voters. When we do well there, then the narrative changes from Bernie kicks rear end among young voters to Bernie does well only among young white liberals-- that is a different story and a perfect lead in to South Carolina, where once again, we can work to attract young voters of color. So I think Nevada is a real opportunity , and I would strongly urge HRC to get out there within a couple days of NH. He was quite wrong in his assessment here and is more concerned with 'changing the narrative' even when that narrative doesn't resemble reality.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2017 12:28
|
|
|
He predicted that Clinton would win some states, which is not that difficult. His overall assessment and perspective of things is flawed. He talks about fixing a 'narrative' of Clinton being bad with young voters as if that's just some tall tale and not a cold hard fact that carried onto the general election. He talks of painting Sanders' support as being one from 'young white liberals' which seriously misses the point of the political moment that America was living in 2016 and continues to live to this day. It is essentially the same flawed argument that Clinton and her supporters used during the primaries and the general to explain why she was the good candidate. And considering Clinton didn't even do well with minorities in the general, it's a real missing-forest-for-trees thing.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
People do stay in America (or other countries) illegally; or against the immigration laws of that country. It really doesn't matter what other word you use to describe this: it will carry a negative connotation soon enough. It is easy for anti-immigration sentiment in America to rise, and less so for pro-immigration sentiment, because people who are against immigration actually have a semi-coherent political framework by which they explain their anti-immigration position. It is a real political/social argument. A bad, factually incorrect one, sure, but it is an argument. It has bad guys, good guys, people who benefit politically, people who don't, a mechanism that explains it, etc. Liberals, comparatively speaking, don't have a political/social argument. Just a vague, apolitical "compassion", idiotic claims that "immigrants are good for capitalism!", and downright piety/hostility. Wow, how convincing. *Trump wins election*
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
stone cold posted:How about these are actual human loving lives at stake and maybe deporting 11 million people is not just inhumane, it's a logistical loving nightmare? I don't really understand why you're simultaneously throwing 'true leftist' and 'centrist nonsense' at my direction, but regardless, it is clear you did not understand my point. I just told you that liberals have no political argument for what exactly it is that they envision immigration in America as except vague 'compassion'. You respond with the same thing, and add "it's a logistical loving nightmare". "It's a logistical nightmare" is not a coherent political vision for what immigrants mean to the United States. It is not a credible political argument. No minds will ever be changed by claming "well it's just difficult". Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. I mean, what does that even mean. So if the logistics of deporting all these people became easy, then it would not be as bad to deport them? No one here is 'rallying' for Spencer you hysterical idiot, anymore that anyone is rallying to Trump by pointing out that maybe his rallies actually were more effective than Hillary's events. The Democratic Party just tried to win an election under the notions of "decency" and "compassion" in lieu of more concrete politics. It failed catastrophically. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 12:57 on Feb 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 12:44
|
|
|
"let's keep taxpaying people who commit crimes at a lower rate than the genuine populace". There's a ton of assumptions here that anyone could rightfully dispute. Why "taxpaying"? Why 'a lower rate'? For that matter, why are you complaining that people use the word 'illegal' and then describe others as "the genuine populace", as if immigrants are not genuine or something? How do we "keep" them? "Keep" them from what or where? Any system, any political vision that relies on millions of people coming here through any means and remaining in a legal limbo where their permanence in the United States depends on the whims of whoever currently occupies the Executive is completely broken and useless.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:As president, Hillary has a five-point plan to meet these challenges An underrated part of Clinton's failure is that even her policies don't actually sound exciting or good. The 100-day-jobs thing is insanely boring. It's just a list of things that she would allegedly invest in. Even if people love hearing there'll be jobs, it doesn't sound particularly convincing or appealing (this is because Democrats hardly believe in this poo poo). And broadly speaking, no one is against jobs in these industries, anyway. The debt-free college thing isn't bad, but 'refinancing your loans' is too vague for anyone to really be excited about. The thing about companies is largely uninspiring and not very different than what Trump was saying anyway. The part about the corporations paying their fair share is boring; it also mentions fighting for "The Buffet Rule ", which most people reading that will have no idea what it even means. The meeting the challenges families face is also incredibly boring, although it's probably the best part: guaranteed pay leave is concrete enough to be appealing. Besides the fact that a lot of this stuff is actually boring, vague, and not even necessarily good, the language itself is way too positive and passive. It says the political system "is doing too little to help working Americans", "the economic system "encourages short-term profits over long-term investment", and workplace policies "don't meet the needs of American families because they're outdated". That TPP "doesn't meet a high enough bar". The companies need to pay their "fair" share. It's so passive. It's like they're talking about a machine that needs some oil or some poo poo. There is no legitimate attempt to actually position themselves against concrete agents and be open about the fact that there are actual forces to fight against. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 11:46 on Mar 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 15:21 |
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Here is the thing. Sanders is so concerned about pushing his economic message that he ignores that diversity is about accepting people even if they don't share his agenda 100 percent. Sanders correctly understands that there is a difference between not sharing an agenda 100% and being actively against it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2017 11:50
|
|