Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 04-21-2019, 12:04 PM
The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,691
The infighting is a big whatever. Once it's done it's done, and when it's over only a fool would hold enough of a grudge to not support the Democratic candidate. Of course, if the Democrats actually had a legislative agenda they could stop trying to pick a star and get on with it.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #102  
Old 04-21-2019, 12:21 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
the centrists in the Democratic party are a very small, almost non-existent fraction...just like in the Republican party.

This is incorrect:

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-...oderate-party/
Quote:
Gallup found that by a fairly solid-looking 54-41 percent (with five percent expressing no opinion) of Democrats would prefer that their party move toward the middle.
But among Republicans and Repub-leaners, by an even wider 57-37 percent margin, want their party to move further to the right.

Not that you would ever guess this from who makes the most noise.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MyFootsZZZ View Post
I'm honestly thinking that Bernie might be the one that can win against Trump, like it or not.

The reason is that the established is already trying to smear him, again, and his base is wise to it. They feel slighted, and, I believe, are less willing to vote for anyone else that might win. They are going to blame Biden and Corporate Dems.

This is extortion, and perfectly illustrates why the Bernie crowd makes me so angry. Gallup shows that most Democrats (never mind the independents we need to win) prefer that the party move to the right, but the minority who feels the opposite basically threatens to blow the whole thing up if they don’t get exactly their way.
  #103  
Old 04-21-2019, 12:58 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,841
Great, just what we needed, the extreme center.

"What do we want""
"Justice and freedom!"
"When do we want it?"
"Well, pretty soon, if its not a lot of trouble.....Don't want to be all pushy, or anything..."

Passive-aggressive politics, without the aggression. Maybe if we ask real nicely, the evil men who run things will give us a turn.
  #104  
Old 04-21-2019, 01:07 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...to characterizes this as "They rarely try to get rid of a Republican" is about as disingenuous as you can get. And I have no way of independently verifying your statement either.



The progressives, by investing in a progressive future and fighting for policies that will make the world a better place, are turning the party into something more people will vote for, improving the chances of regaining the Senate and keeping the House. They are being magnanimous.

Its all about the spin.
Hardly.

Ro Khanna: Ran against Mike Honda, Democratic Party, he served in Congress from 2001 to 2017. Solid Blue District.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ran against- ten-term incumbent Congressman, Democratic Caucus Chair Joe Crowley, solid blue district.

Etc.

Progressives almost always run in solid blue districts.

Show me a couple who won in a purple or red district?

And no, more people dont vote for radicals, they vote for moderates.
  #105  
Old 04-21-2019, 01:09 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
..."they rarely try to get rid of a Republican" is not a fair characterization of "targeting safe blue districts". For a committee that was only formed in 2017 I'm not seeing the problem. If they put AOC in a purple district and she lost then she wouldn't be in the position of doing all the good she is doing at the moment. How is AOC being the only Dem politician to come close to Donald Trump in social media reach a bad thing?

Because we want someone like Trump in our Party?
  #106  
Old 04-21-2019, 01:12 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
If progressives tried to run a progressive candidate in a purple district, conservative Democrats would say, "Excellent, good job, that's where you should be running!"

FUCK NO THEY WOULDN'T.

Over and over conservative Democrats complain about purity tests and talk about how they need to be free to be conservative, so they can win in purple districts. If a progressive tries to run in a purple district, the conservatives smack them down HARD for not being realistic and for guaranteeing a GOP win....
There are no "conservative" Democrats. Conservative Democrats are centrists.


guaranteeing a GOP win- exactly.

Think about it.
  #107  
Old 04-21-2019, 01:23 PM
MyFootsZZZ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
This is incorrect:


This is extortion, and perfectly illustrates why the Bernie crowd makes me so angry. Gallup shows that most Democrats (never mind the independents we need to win) prefer that the party move to the right, but the minority who feels the opposite basically threatens to blow the whole thing up if they don’t get exactly their way.
Wow. Easy does it

I'm voting for who I think would be the best president. I voted for Hillary, and I will vote for whomever wins the primary. Don't you go making those mean faces at me.

Bernie will support the next candidate if it's not him.

Jesus. Half of these kids wouldn't even be motivated to vote in the first place if it weren't for him.
  #108  
Old 04-21-2019, 01:33 PM
MyFootsZZZ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,731
I just want to say two things.

This isn't the 90's any more. I think, no matter what, there are going to be growing pains no matter what. But I think we need to reassess certain things that Bernie addresses.

There will still be checks and balances.
  #109  
Old 04-21-2019, 02:02 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 11,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Great, just what we needed, the extreme center.

"What do we want""
"Justice and freedom!"
"When do we want it?"
"Well, pretty soon, if its not a lot of trouble.....Don't want to be all pushy, or anything..."

Passive-aggressive politics, without the aggression. Maybe if we ask real nicely, the evil men who run things will give us a turn.

This is what the left believes, because they cannot conceive (as Obama noted) that anyone might have a different conception of what “justice and freedom” mean.
  #110  
Old 04-21-2019, 03:14 PM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,841
Ooh. Snap.
  #111  
Old 04-21-2019, 03:54 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Hardly.
...hardly what?

Quote:
Ro Khanna: Ran against Mike Honda, Democratic Party, he served in Congress from 2001 to 2017. Solid Blue District.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ran against- ten-term incumbent Congressman, Democratic Caucus Chair Joe Crowley, solid blue district.
I'm...not seeing the problem?

Quote:
Progressives almost always run in solid blue districts.
When you say "Progressives almost always run in solid blue districts" what you actually meant to say was "Justice Democrats ran in solid blue districts in 2017?"

Because once again its all about the spin. And you've been spinning this like a top.

Quote:
Show me a couple who won in a purple or red district?
I don't need too. I haven't claimed that they have.

Quote:
And no, more people dont vote for radicals, they vote for moderates.
Which is why Khanna and Ocasio-Cortez both lost. Obviously.

Quote:
Because we want someone like Trump in our Party?
If you don't want someone like Trump in the party then don't vote for anyone like Trump. But having a strong social media reach is not like having Trump in the party. It isn't even in the same ballpark. Or the same planet.
  #112  
Old 04-21-2019, 04:53 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post



I'm...not seeing the problem?

...

Which is why Khanna and Ocasio-Cortez both lost. Obviously.

..
No, you're not. Obviously. Apparently have a handful of progressives in Congress is better than having the Dems win both houses of Congress.


There were in districts so blue the Dems could have put forwards Bozo the clown. Who is dead.
  #113  
Old 04-21-2019, 05:07 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No, you're not. Obviously. Apparently have a handful of progressives in Congress is better than having the Dems win both houses of Congress.
...did having a handful of progressives in Congress stop the Dems from winning the House? If Joe Crowley had won, if Mike Honda had run uncontested, would the Dems have won the Senate? Can you quantify this somehow?

Quote:
There were in districts so blue the Dems could have put forwards Bozo the clown. Who is dead.
So they were the perfect districts for the Justice Democrats to begin their strategy of "electing better Democrats." The people of New York's 14th congressional district didn't vote for Bozo the clown. They didn't vote for Joe Crowley. The people voted for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She was the first to challenge Crowley since 2004. She beat him fair and square. I'm not seeing the problem. You haven't explained what the problem is. Whats the problem?
  #114  
Old 04-21-2019, 05:15 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...did having a handful of progressives in Congress stop the Dems from winning the House? If Joe Crowley had won, if Mike Honda had run uncontested, would the Dems have won the Senate? Can you quantify this somehow?



So they were the perfect districts for the Justice Democrats to begin their strategy of "electing better Democrats." The people of New York's 14th congressional district didn't vote for Bozo the clown. They didn't vote for Joe Crowley. The people voted for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She was the first to challenge Crowley since 2004. She beat him fair and square. I'm not seeing the problem. You haven't explained what the problem is. Whats the problem?

If the Party had more money to spend on the Senate races....


Better?


I have explained several times. Wasting time & energy in infighting among Dems rather than beatings Republicans.
  #115  
Old 04-21-2019, 05:30 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
If the Party had more money to spend on the Senate races....
...can you quantify this? How much more money would there have been to spend, when would that money have been available and would it have made a difference?

Quote:
Better?
Nope.

Quote:
I have explained several times. Wasting time & energy in infighting among Dems rather than beatings Republicans.
I don't think the process of choosing the best candidate to represent a district is a waste of time and energy. And I don't think the primary process is correctly characterized as "infighting." This is all entirely normal. The people of the 17th were given a choice and they made a choice. Whats the problem with that?

Its all about the spin with you. I'm still not seeing the problem.
  #116  
Old 04-21-2019, 05:52 PM
MyFootsZZZ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I have explained several times. Wasting time & energy in infighting among Dems rather than beatings Republicans.
I'm all for beating republicans. I'm not Bernie Or Bust. But I honestly don't think old school Democrats are doing themselves any favors when they act as if they are entitled to the gig.

Having secret meetings about what to do about his candidacy, getting people to wage a campaign against him. The knowledge of the DNC trying to tip the scale.. even if it came from the Ruskies, they got caught. People don't trust the establishment, they don't trust the media.

This is having the opposite effect than intended.

As it stands, Bernie has the best chance at beating Trump in my opinion.

Last edited by MyFootsZZZ; 04-21-2019 at 05:53 PM.
  #117  
Old 04-23-2019, 01:07 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Sanders followers are accusing Biden of being a creepy pedophile.

We need to keep this Issue based and Sanders needs to keep a leash on his supporters.

All he needs to do is make a public statement to that effect.
Cite?
  #118  
Old 04-23-2019, 01:14 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Trivia Question: What do Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin have in common?

Answer: Had the votes for Jill Stein all gone to Hillary, these three states would have gone for Hillary, who would have then become the 45th President of the U.S.A. (OTOH, Trump would have won New Mexico, Colorado, Maine, New Hampshire, Minnesota and Nevada (and PA, MI, WI back again) if he had the Gary Johnson votes.)



Or just the name of the URL! Thanks to CarnalK's post, I clicked to the article. Shameful.



I'm also afraid of Trump re-election. You're one of the good ones, XT. It's a shame that the dinbats who voted for Stein and Brnie Brats who didn't bother to vote at all are humored while you, a Hillary voter, are criticized.
What the fuck are you even talking about? Offhand I can think of one regular poster here who supported Bernie in the primaries and then voted Stein or didn't vote in the general, and he gets all kinds of shit for it (as he should).
  #119  
Old 04-23-2019, 01:17 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
According to your own quotes of stuff you're complaining about from your Facebook friends, what they're calling mainstream Democrats is "corporate-friendly" and "pro-corporate" and "bankrolled by special interests" and so forth. That can be quite truly said of many politicians (including numerous Democratic ones) without implying that they're anywhere close to Trump-family levels of corruption.



As I pointed out to XT, the problem with your fretting about the "purity brigade" is chiefly the double standard you apply to it. You don't want left-liberals to criticize mainstream Democrats but you as a mainstream Democrat are fine with constantly complaining about left-liberals.

If you want more party unity and less infighting, try practicing phrases like "I see your point but..." and "I don't think Politician X is perfect but I think s/he would be a more realistic option for actually being able to implement some of these changes" and "While I admire [some particular lefty position] of Politician Y, I don't think s/he would be a successful candidate overall" and so on and so forth. If you don't want the emotional temperature to be so high in intra-party discussions, stop having meltdowns all over the place about how terrible the other folks are being.
Thank you, Kimstu. Not for the first time, you have made the same point I made in the post I deleted, except without all the profanity and capital letters.
  #120  
Old 04-23-2019, 01:23 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
I wasn't going to really comment on this, as there didn't seem much point, but as my name has been dragged in again, I figured...what the hell. So, your suggestion is I (me, XT ) should join the Democratic party and work from within to change them to be more in line with what I think they should do? I should, what? Act as a mediator between the establishment, the liberals and the progressives as...what? None of the above? And they will, of course, listen to me and take my suggestions as serious as, oh...say you have? And others on this message board?



I'm sorry, but that is just so funny that I broke up laughing when I read it. It's the trite sort of platitudes adults often tell kids. Except I'm not a kid. I vote Democrat both in my state house positions and, of course, for president, but there is no place for me in their (your presumably) party. The Democrats want me every bit as little as the Republicans do, and for much the same reason...I don't fit in. And me joining would be like me trying to hold the tides back. So, I have to hope YOU folks can hold your shit together long enough to unseat Trump at least. I have zero ability to affect that. I can only try and vote for whoever gets the nomination and hope the Dems, for once, can not snatch defeat from the slavering jaws of victory...again.
OK, getting off topic here, but if you consistently vote Democrat, then you're pretty much a Democrat according to any reasonable definition*. I don't see what you're gaining by refusing to participate in the primaries of the only party you'd consider voting for, but you do you. It doesn't matter how little "the Democrats" might "want" you, they can't stop you from registering Dem and voting for the candidate of your choice.

*on a related note, if you are a United States Senator and have been a member of the Senate Democratic Caucus for a quarter century, you are also a Democrat, full stop.
  #121  
Old 04-23-2019, 01:44 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,271
Just one more respectful question, trying to understand XT's point of view:

Assume that, as the Democratic primary in your State nears, the field has narrowed to two candidates. You believe that one would have a far better chance than the other of beating Trump. The laws in your State allow you to vote in the Democratic primary without having to register as a Democrat. Do you participate in the primary in order to maximize the chance of Trump losing, or not, and why?

Hell, imagine that Trump and Mitt Romney are running neck-and-neck in the Republican race, and you likewise have the option of voting in the Republican primary. Would you do so?
  #122  
Old 04-23-2019, 01:56 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
If the Party had more money to spend on the Senate races....


Better?


I have explained several times. Wasting time & energy in infighting among Dems rather than beatings Republicans.
So, if all the money that was donated to AOC had been sent to, say, Claire McCaskill, instead, things might have been different? Well, AOC supporters aren't going to give that money to Claire McCaskill if they're not giving it to AOC. They might donate it to refugee aid or spend it on weed, but I guarantee you donating to corporate-backed politicians isn't on their list of discretionary spending options. So that's not any net loss of money for moderate Senate campaigns. And I'm not going to look it up right now, but I'm guessing AOC's primary campaign budget was insignificant relative to any establishment Senate campaign.

So, yep, still not seeing your point about how replacing lame Democrats with good ones hurts the Democratic Party.
  #123  
Old 04-23-2019, 01:59 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,271
And, getting to the OP:

I have tremendous respect for Obama, but his legacy was severely marred by his support for the Democratic establishment's efforts to anoint Clinton as the nominee long before voting began. That...didn't work out well.
  #124  
Old 04-23-2019, 02:02 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Oh, I see plenty of Bernie Sanders followers with their knives out for Beto. They accuse him of being in the pocket of Big Oil, even though he constantly talks about getting off fossil fuels within the next ten years.
How much money has Beto taken from oil companies? (Serious question, I have no idea). If it's a nontrivial amount, that's a legitimate criticism, regardless of what he might "constantly talk" about.
  #125  
Old 04-23-2019, 02:11 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Bernie Sanders himself attacked ThinkProgress the other day for reasons that seemed pretty trivial to me.
Seems like a reasonable thing to point out, yet thin-skinned Bernie called it a bad-faith smear.
Well, did he consistently use "millionaires and billionaires" in his stump speeches before he himself was outed as a millionaire, and then switched to consistently using only "billionaires"? If so, that's a reasonable thing to point out, maybe, if you have a deadline and no real news to write about.

Or has he always used the terms interchangeably, and they just cherry-picked some videos to take a cheap shot by implying that he had shifted? If so, that's a bad-faith smear.

I will note, per your linked article, that Sanders' outrage was at least not entirely self-serving:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernie Sanders
“I and other Democratic candidates are running campaigns based on principles and ideas and not engaging in mudslinging or personal attacks on each other,” he wrote. “Meanwhile, the Center for American Progress is using its resources to smear Senator Booker, Senator Warren and myself, among others. This is hardly the way to build unity, or to win the general election.”
  #126  
Old 04-23-2019, 02:39 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 6,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
How much money has Beto taken from oil companies?
Zero. At least knowingly. Unless he's willing to go to prison.

There were some complaints last year that workers in the industry were the largest source of donations, but it's the largest industry in Texas, so that will be true for pretty much any candidate in Texas.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 04-23-2019 at 02:43 AM.
  #127  
Old 04-23-2019, 02:57 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,271
You are under the impression that it is illegal for corporations to donate to political candidates? That is not my understanding. Please explain.
  #128  
Old 04-23-2019, 06:39 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 9,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
You are under the impression that it is illegal for corporations to donate to political candidates? That is not my understanding. Please explain.
I think he's saying that unless he took some secret cash and didn't report it - that would be illegal.
  #129  
Old 04-23-2019, 09:10 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
So, if all the money that was donated to AOC had been sent to, say, Claire McCaskill, instead, things might have been different? Well, AOC supporters aren't going to give that money to Claire McCaskill if they're not giving it to AOC. They might donate it to refugee aid or spend it on weed, but I guarantee you donating to corporate-backed politicians isn't on their list of discretionary spending options. So that's not any net loss of money for moderate Senate campaigns. And I'm not going to look it up right now, but I'm guessing AOC's primary campaign budget was insignificant relative to any establishment Senate campaign.

So, yep, still not seeing your point about how replacing lame Democrats with good ones hurts the Democratic Party.
How about her opponent?

See, I dont see those as "lame" nor the progressives as "good".
  #130  
Old 04-23-2019, 09:13 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
How much money has Beto taken from oil companies? (Serious question, I have no idea). If it's a nontrivial amount, that's a legitimate criticism, regardless of what he might "constantly talk" about.
Why is it a legitimate criticism? Do GOP voters obsess over this? I haven't seen it.

What you seem to be saying is that if Dem candidates hobble themselves by not accepting donations, so that they lose, that's a Good Thing.

It's not a legitimate criticism, it's a fucking Purity Test. Which we have to stop.
  #131  
Old 04-23-2019, 09:49 AM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
It's not a legitimate criticism, it's a fucking Purity Test. Which we have to stop.
The Democrats are simply following the lead set by Libertarians. Winning elections doesn't matter. Enacting any of the party policies or reforms doesn't matter. What matters is being seen as the ideologically purest. Discussions among Democrats right now strongly remind me of the infighting among Libertarians a couple decades ago as they spiraled into complete irrelevance.
  #132  
Old 04-23-2019, 10:22 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Why is it a legitimate criticism? Do GOP voters obsess over this? I haven't seen it.

What you seem to be saying is that if Dem candidates hobble themselves by not accepting donations, so that they lose, that's a Good Thing.

It's not a legitimate criticism, it's a fucking Purity Test. Which we have to stop.
Getting big corporate money out of elections and climate change are notable Democratic positions. Taking money from Big Oil is at least symbolically saying, you don't really care much about those issues. When important votes come up, a representative's campaign funding is often scrutinized. Why is it a purity test to do it before they get elected?
  #133  
Old 04-23-2019, 11:19 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Getting big corporate money out of elections and climate change are notable Democratic positions. Taking money from Big Oil is at least symbolically saying, you don't really care much about those issues. When important votes come up, a representative's campaign funding is often scrutinized. Why is it a purity test to do it before they get elected?
Why? Look, Big Oil may be a big job producer in your state. They often also do alternate clean energy.


https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/...le-energy.aspx

So, do we not support Green Energy? What's wrong with Big Oil when they want to start divesting fossil fuels and slowly making their way into renewables?

So taking money from Big Oil can mean you are into Green Energy.


Sure, if half their campaign funds come from a Big Oil, maybe we need to take a look.

But if Mobil (example) is one of many moderate contributors, then there's nothing wrong.

And sure it would be nice to get big corporate money out of elections, but we can't hobble ourselves when the GOP is face deep in the trough.

Last edited by DrDeth; 04-23-2019 at 11:21 AM.
  #134  
Old 04-23-2019, 11:37 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,477
It's not unreasonable for you to take that position. I'm not sure it's fair for you to declare that ok, half his campaign funding from oil would require a look but anything below that is a purity test.
  #135  
Old 04-23-2019, 12:00 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It's not unreasonable for you to take that position. I'm not sure it's fair for you to declare that ok, half his campaign funding from oil would require a look but anything below that is a purity test.
Ok, but let's not make one modest donation a No-Go. Let's turn this into a real issue, not a Purity test.

Hey Candidate xxx gets a $% or how many $tens of thousands from this industry is one thing, but XXX is a tool of Big Oil because he got $500 check once is just a purity test.

So, just saying "They accuse Beto of being in the pocket of Big Oil,..." is bogus. Lets see some real numbers. Crappy accusations with no real numbers behind them are bogus.
  #136  
Old 04-23-2019, 12:02 PM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
And I'm not going to look it up right now, but I'm guessing AOC's primary campaign budget was insignificant relative to any establishment Senate campaign.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
How about her opponent?

See, I dont see those as "lame" nor the progressives as "good".
AOC spent $300K* in contrast to Joe Crowley's $3.3M.

TYT video at minute 3.

*I've also heard $330K before the last weeks, in other reports.
  #137  
Old 04-23-2019, 12:38 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heffalump and Roo View Post
AOC spent $300K* in contrast to Joe Crowley's $3.3M.

TYT video at minute 3.

*I've also heard $330K before the last weeks, in other reports.
Exactly. So couldnt part of that $3Million be better spent?
  #138  
Old 04-23-2019, 12:43 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 34,113
There will always be progressives trying to push the center of the party left. And there will always be moderates trying to push it back towards the center. And everyone in between will be trying to push it towards their specific level of progressiveness. None of this is new, and none of it is terrible. All this discussion and even disagreement is good for the party IMO, in general -- which doesn't mean that you can't point to a specific race and say "this is or is not the right district to push the progressive alternative". Feel free to do that, but it's pointless to try and advocate that very progressive folks stop trying to make the party more progressive.
  #139  
Old 04-23-2019, 01:01 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Ok, but let's not make one modest donation a No-Go. Let's turn this into a real issue, not a Purity test.

Hey Candidate xxx gets a $% or how many $tens of thousands from this industry is one thing, but XXX is a tool of Big Oil because he got $500 check once is just a purity test.

So, just saying "They accuse Beto of being in the pocket of Big Oil,..." is bogus. Lets see some real numbers. Crappy accusations with no real numbers behind them are bogus.
You're the one who is claiming people are saying that. Do you have a cite of anyone saying so? If they are doing so without providing supporting evidence, that would reflect badly on whoever these unknown people are. Alternately, since you appear to know for certain that Beto's support from the oil industry was limited to one $500 check, could you link to a cite for that claim? Or are you just doing your usual thing of making up strawmen and flailing at them?

Last edited by Thing Fish; 04-23-2019 at 01:04 PM.
  #140  
Old 04-23-2019, 01:06 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Exactly. So couldnt part of that $3Million be better spent?
Yes, you're right. Crowley absolutely should have resolved to run a fair campaign by spending no more than his opponent, and donate the rest of his campaign fund to Democrats running in purple seats. Shame on him for not doing so.
  #141  
Old 04-23-2019, 01:09 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
The Democrats are simply following the lead set by Libertarians. Winning elections doesn't matter. Enacting any of the party policies or reforms doesn't matter. What matters is being seen as the ideologically purest. Discussions among Democrats right now strongly remind me of the infighting among Libertarians a couple decades ago as they spiraled into complete irrelevance.
The Libertarians couldn't "spiral into complete irrelevance", because they started there and never left.
  #142  
Old 04-23-2019, 01:19 PM
Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
The Libertarians couldn't "spiral into complete irrelevance", because they started there and never left.
Before they decided to concentrate on who was most ideologically pure, they might have become to the Republicans as the Progressives now are to the Democrats. All that took hind tit to ideological purity and they are now a joke.
  #143  
Old 04-23-2019, 01:32 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,271
If they weren't ideological purists, they wouldn't have formed a third party in the first place. They would have gone the route of Rand Paul and Bill Weld and , like, actually won some nonzero number of elections.
  #144  
Old 04-23-2019, 02:15 PM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Exactly. So couldnt part of that $3Million be better spent?
No. Joe Crowley didn't spend any of that money to fend off AOC. He didn't think she had a chance to win (not many in the media did) until it was too late. He spent the money to get more name recognition to get more funds because he wanted to gain Steny Hoyer's seat. He was number 4 in the House. He wanted to be number 2. You could tell he didn't think she had a chance of winning because in his debate with her, he tried to get her to support him.

Crowley got his campaign money in large part from real estate developers, financial institution executives and insurance executives. This is his campaign contribution breakdown from Opensecrets.org.

He then used that money to vote for the interests of people close to him and his donors and against the interests of the majority of his constituents who were mostly poor people from the Bronx and Queens.

Quote:
Joe Crowley has faced years of headlines charging that he engages in nepotism and unethical political patronage.

How People Close to Joe Crowley Have Gotten Rich While the Queens Boss Has Risen in Congress


If he hadn't voted in the interests of the local big institutions, they would not have contributed to him, so the $3M wouldn't have existed as campaign contributions for anyone else.

People in AOC's NY district knew this, which is why they voted for an unknown challenger with no political experience.

You seem to be suggesting that once an incumbent wins, they should never be challenged, leaving the incumbent free to never be held accountable for their voting record. That doesn't sound very democratic.
  #145  
Old 04-23-2019, 03:29 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
You're the one who is claiming people are saying that. Do you have a cite of anyone saying so? If they are doing so without providing supporting evidence, that would reflect badly on whoever these unknown people are. Alternately, since you appear to know for certain that Beto's support from the oil industry was limited to one $500 check, could you link to a cite for that claim? Or are you just doing your usual thing of making up strawmen and flailing at them?


Thing Fish
How much money has Beto taken from oil companies? (Serious question, I have no idea). If it's a nontrivial amount, that's a legitimate criticism, regardless of what he might "constantly talk" about.

I was responding to you, originally. So, yes, even if it is a non-trivial amount it is not a legitimate criticism, it is a Purity test.

Those were examples, we are talking a hypothetical, arent we?
  #146  
Old 04-23-2019, 04:15 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 17,750
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tooth View Post
The infighting is a big whatever. Once it's done it's done, and when it's over only a fool would hold enough of a grudge to not support the Democratic candidate. Of course, if the Democrats actually had a legislative agenda they could stop trying to pick a star and get on with it.
But that's the point- without a legislative agenda or even coherent message, there's nothing for Democratic politicians to really do BUT infight.

And that's the problem as I see it- on one side, you have an organized, if rather harsh and heartless party with a clear agenda and goals, and on the other, you have a considerably more shambolic party without a clear goal, and whose main pastime seems to be grumping about Trump, and trying to prove to each other why THEIR pet agenda is the best.

If people are on the fence, some proportion of them are going to vote for the party that looks the best prepared to govern.
  #147  
Old 04-23-2019, 04:30 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
And that's the problem as I see it- on one side, you have an organized, if rather harsh and heartless party with a clear agenda and goals, and on the other, you have a considerably more shambolic party without a clear goal, and whose main pastime seems to be grumping about Trump, and trying to prove to each other why THEIR pet agenda is the best.

If people are on the fence, some proportion of them are going to vote for the party that looks the best prepared to govern.
ISTM that this is a political cliche left over from a very different era. Like the political cliche that "Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility".

Yeah, these were slogans that came across to many voters as reasonably plausible at some point, even if they were never anywhere near as true as their proponents liked to claim, but they bear no relation to today's reality. In what way could you possibly describe the Trump Administration as being, or even looking, "the best prepared to govern"?
  #148  
Old 04-23-2019, 04:38 PM
Pleonast's Avatar
Pleonast is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Los 'Kamala'ngeles
Posts: 7,155
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
And that's the problem as I see it- on one side, you have an organized, if rather harsh and heartless party with a clear agenda and goals, and on the other, you have a considerably more shambolic party without a clear goal, and whose main pastime seems to be grumping about Trump, and trying to prove to each other why THEIR pet agenda is the best.
The previous Congress, the Republicans did basically nothing beyond a tax reduction to the rich to be paid for by our children. They failed to do anything about trade or healthcare or any other agenda because they couldn't agree to anything among themselves when they were in the majority. That is what an incompetent party incapable of governing looks like.

The Democrats in the current House have been passing bills doing exactly what they ran on. Their agenda is clear. And unlike the Republicans who fell apart when they had both houses and presidency, the Democrats will actually pass their agenda when they regain the presidency and the Senate. And the Republicans are going to tell their constituents exactly that: Democrats are going to enact their agenda when elected.
  #149  
Old 04-23-2019, 05:04 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Thing Fish
How much money has Beto taken from oil companies? (Serious question, I have no idea). If it's a nontrivial amount, that's a legitimate criticism, regardless of what he might "constantly talk" about.

I was responding to you, originally. So, yes, even if it is a non-trivial amount it is not a legitimate criticism, it is a Purity test.

Those were examples, we are talking a hypothetical, arent we?
So you're now contradicting what you said a few hours ago, that above some undefined arbitrary amount it would be a legitimate criticism?OK...

So why, when I asked you how much Beto had taken from oil companies, didn't you answer the question, or say you didn't know? Instead you started talking about how he shouldn't be rejected based on some hypothetical $500 standard, which nobody in this thread had mentioned before you brought it up. You accuse unnamed "Bernie Bros" of making baseless accusations against Beto, but can't even quote a single example of such accusations when asked to do so.
  #150  
Old 04-23-2019, 05:11 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Why is it a legitimate criticism? Do GOP voters obsess over this? I haven't seen it.

What you seem to be saying is that if Dem candidates hobble themselves by not accepting donations, so that they lose, that's a Good Thing.

It's not a legitimate criticism, it's a fucking Purity Test. Which we have to stop.
So how would you feel about a Democratic candidate taking money from, say, the Russian government? We know GOP voters don't seem to have a problem with that sort of thing...does that make it OK as far as you're concerned?

Oil companies have spent billions of dollars obfuscating the science on climate change, sacrificing the future of our world for their short-term profits. They are as much the enemy of the American people as Putin or ISIS are.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017