Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 04-17-2019, 11:45 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
If there's a circular firing squad, people like Nancy Pelosi need to quit firing on the left, need to come together with us to take action. She needs to quit dividing the left by denigrating our policies as unfeasible and denigrating our politicians' wins by saying a glass of water could've won their districts.

I'm sure the denigrating you refer to was completely out of the blue, a first strike against progressives who had never had anything but kind words for her and her allies, until her shockingly unprovoked attacks. Right?

Snark aside, I do genuinely find it fascinating, the psychology of the progressive left of the party (if they are really even in the party at all, something they at least don't seem to like to admit to being if they can help it). I think they honestly don't comprehend how they come across. They swim around in cesspools like Truthout and Salon where everyone constantly sneers at mainstream Democrats. It's the water they bathe in, the air they breathe. But they don't keep it there. They come onto my Facebook page and think nothing of breezily tossing off calumnies like:

"limousine liberalism -- a dash of social enlightenment combined with a heaping helping of corporate-friendly policy and a sprinkle of austerity"

"Some of us are fed up with pretty rhetoric and calls for bipartisanship that mask the deeply pro-corporate record of a candidate who's bankrolled by special interests."

"Should I assume you're literally on the payroll of the DNC? Because that is just about the only way I can explain the level of self-delusion and blind partisanship that afflicts you."

(Note how it's taken as a given that being on the DNC's payroll would be a huge stain on someone's character, like discovering they work for one of the Koch's astroturf groups or something. If I met someone who worked for the DNC, I'd thank them for their service!)

But if I fire back at Bernie, like pointing out his and his wife's repeated lies in 2016 about his tax returns, suddenly they go into high dudgeon:

"Bernie’s the front runner with a very solid chance of winning the nomination. At some point you’ll stop doing the right’s work for them, won’t you?"

"A lifetime of progressive leadership out the window. Instead the presidency should go to the next media-hyped person who talks fast and 'looks presidential,' regardless of their actual leadership history or what they plan to do in office. Makes sense if what you’re hoping for is incremental fine-tuning of the status quo, disguised as a movement for progressive reform."

"The faux outrage over this is pathetic. You've got your tax returns now. Find another quibble to wring your hands over."

"Bernie has made good on a promise and all you can do is keep complaining and finding fault and questioning his motives. It's ridiculous. It's asinine. It does not merit a response. It is, in a word, bullshit. And if it gives Trump a second term, you will have absolutely nobody to blame but yourselves."



This is all just from today, from four different Bernhead Facebook friends. If I really dug more deeply, I could find some real gems.

The double standard used to really drive me nuts, and I had trouble understanding how seemingly intelligent people could be so lacking in self-awareness. But over time, what I have concluded--and this is what makes the left so dangerous, as Obama hinted at--is that they don't really understand this as a difference of opinion between two groups who have an uneasy coalition with each other out of necessity in our political system that doesn't tolerate third parties well. I think they see themselves as analogous to gay people who are "out and proud", and we are like repressed closeted folk who are too timid and anxiety-ridden to really let our freak flags fly, so we watch balefully from the sidelines, ashamed at our lack of courage, as the progressives strut their stuff.

Therefore, if we dare to boldly assert our confidence in mainstream Democratic leaders and policies, they are flummoxed. "WHAT?!? How could you betray progressivism this way? Do you work for the DNC or something?" It's like they just learned one of their friends is an admitted, even proud, cannibal.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #52  
Old 04-18-2019, 12:34 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
Without getting too much into my personal history, I will say that I've the mentality up close and personal. Folks that would rather go down in flames than settle for half a loaf. Spoiler alert: They usually go down in flames.

Yes, and more importantly from my perspective: they also drag those of us who are starving, and would happily take that half a loaf, down with them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
You're saying that the Democrats are the only hope for "holding shit together" to avoid (further) catastrophic consequences of Republican dysfunction, but at the same time you're resolutely keeping aloof and declaring that the Democrats are "not your party". Why is it any more excusable for you to do that than for some left-wing Democratic-Socialist type to do that?

If you think that what we need is more Democratic unity, okay then, how about you join the party and help provide some? You're allowed to leave as soon as you think the crisis is over, you know; we don't require folks to be branded on the forehead with a permanent scarlet "D" or anything.

But if your own ideologically pure political affiliation is by your own admission not providing any realistic path to electoral success, then maybe it's time to stop kibitzing from the sidelines and actually carry a little water for the only affiliation that currently does provide one.

Very fair points.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Because a large number of people purporting to be followers of Sanders, especially the loudest and most obnoxious ones, are actually in the employ of Vladimir Putin, and Sanders can therefore have no responsibility at all for what they say.

Yes, I'm sure that's true in many cases. But the ones I quoted above are all people I know personally, including someone I play poker with and someone I've known since high school.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #53  
Old 04-18-2019, 12:58 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
It seems less thin-skinned than smart to me. In this field being the second choice of many will be useful, as others drop out. Playing high road, advocating high road and fighting over ideas, rather than low ball attacks, makes you more likely to be chosen by those who have others as their current first choice when that current first choice no longer seems viable.

I'll be more impressed by calls like this from Sanders when he's trying to stop other candidates from sniping at each other. The example cited was very self-serving.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera View Post
To me the biggest turn-off to Bernie Sanders has been his followers. They seem to think that insulting and attacking every other Democrat and their supporters will gain them support. But you're not going to insult me into voting for Bernie.

Before you get your knickers in a twist about Hillary and "deplorables", she wasn't trying to win their support and for the most part, those people chose to identify with the label rather than thinking "well that's not me". It was a one-off, not the constant stream of invective and personal attacks I've seen from the hard-core Bernie Bros.

Right, and furthermore that whole "deplorables" thing was misrepresented and/or misunderstood. For everyone on the Trump-supporting side to, as you say, assume she was talking about them was ignorant or unintentionally revealing about themselves. Because here's what she actually said (emphasis mine):

Quote:
I know there are only 60 days left to make our case — and don’t get complacent, don’t see the latest outrageous, offensive, inappropriate comment and think "well, he’s done this time". We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?

The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people — now how 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks — they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.

But the other basket — and I know this because I see friends from all over America here — I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas — as well as, you know, New York and California — but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

The actual point she was making was quite nearly the exact opposite of the way it was characterized. Which was REALLY frustrating.


Quote:
Originally Posted by senoy View Post
Humans are evolved to be religious. What has happened as we have secularized is that politics has become the religion of the masses with all of the objective moral certitude that that entails. The danger is that politics is not institutionalized religion which typically has the advantage of centuries of institutional inertia and tradition behind it. It swings on a dime and is allowed to tear down things that were 'gospel' a few short years ago. Rather than an institutionalized religion, the 'religion' that we follow is essentially a series of cults. There is no need for internal consistency or appeal to higher authority. The cult itself is the authority and its only goal is the destruction of the heretic. The ideals themselves are merely tools to be used to advance the cult itself and can be discarded or ignored when convenient. Ideals that were sacred a decade ago can be derided as unvirtuous now. There is no middle, nor any moderation since that denies the fundamentalism of the cult itself. The only aim is to find the next prophet and tear down anyone that stands in his or her way.

This is extremely insightful! Kudos.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
All I know, and what I suspect Obama was getting at, is that the real target of the Democratic party's marketing needs to be moderates- specifically the centrist moderates and ones who are maybe right-leaning a bit, and having a lot of party infighting over questions of ideological purity and the like is a good way to make yourselves look disunited and unorganized relative to the GOP goose-stepping along in lock-step.

Word. But every fucking time I point this out to people, the response I get is "oh well, the people you're trying to target will never vote for a Democrat anyway". I don't know if this is just ignorant (do they not realize some people really do swing back and forth, which is why we got Clinton, then Bush, then Obama, then Trump?), or defeatist (we can't win no matter what we do, so screw it: let's just let 'er rip).
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 04-18-2019 at 01:01 AM.
  #54  
Old 04-18-2019, 01:46 AM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Could be better and needs to be said louder and more often, but the rest of the article isnt good news.
Meh, I read not good news about pretty much every other Presidential candidate frequently.

I just picked the quote from that article because it was the most concise about the email that Bernie sent to his followers, requesting that they be civil.

I didn't note the controversy in the article because that's not what the quote was about, but in case anyone is interested, here's the other side:
The Crux of the Accusations Against David Sirota From the Atlantic’s Edward-Isaac Dovere is False

off-topic spoilered quote from the article

SPOILER:
Quote:
As it turns out, there are indeed serious breaches of journalistic ethics from this episode, but they are ones committed by the Atlantic and Dovere, not by Sirota. That’s because the core accusation of the Atlantic article – that Sirota “for months” had been “informally” advising the Sanders campaign as a speechwriter while pretending to be an independent reporter attacking Sanders’ opponents – is simply false. It relies on a timeline that simply never happened.

Since publication of Dovere’s bombshell, the Atlantic has tweaked and edited the story to reflect the multiple errors and denials that make it appear as though the original version contained those edits.
  #55  
Old 04-18-2019, 04:31 AM
SOJA is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Sunny Southern California
Posts: 168
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.
I've long suspected most Bernie supporters like that to be mentally challenged in some form or fashion.

Last edited by SOJA; 04-18-2019 at 04:31 AM.
  #56  
Old 04-18-2019, 05:37 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,529
The vapid squabbling here, among intelligent people all committed to the overthrow of the Trump regime, has strengthened my fears: Trump will probably win re-election.
I am now rooting for a severe financial crisis as the best remaining hope for America.

SPOILER:
Since the election of 1892, when ex-President Cleveland defeated Benjamin Harrison, there has been a total of one (1) time that a party was thrown out of the White House after only 4 years.

That one instance was in the 1980 election, when the country was reeling from the Iran hostage crisis and stagflation; and huge interest rate hikes had just plunged the country into recession. Carter was defeated by the very popular Ronald Reagan. There is no man of Reagan-like charisma warming up in the Democrat's bullpen.
  #57  
Old 04-18-2019, 05:46 AM
Scumpup is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
SlackerInc, do you have any evidence that those "plenty of Bernie Sanders followers" are progressives, liberals, Democrats, or followers of Bernie Sanders? We should hold politicians responsible for what they say and do, not what is said or done by those who purport to follow them.
Does that include Trump?
  #58  
Old 04-18-2019, 05:20 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 84,707
Yes, that includes Trump. Trump is not responsible for what his followers do. They are responsible for what they do, and he is responsible for what he does. They are also partly responsible for what he does, because they gave him the power to do it, and he is partly responsible for what he tells them to do.

If you see Sanders telling his followers to attack O'Rourke, then I'll agree that Sanders is responsible for that.
  #59  
Old 04-18-2019, 05:50 PM
Reindeer Flotilla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
The vapid squabbling here, among intelligent people all committed to the overthrow of the Trump regime, has strengthened my fears: Trump will probably win re-election.
I am now rooting for a severe financial crisis as the best remaining hope for America.
I see a lot of people putting a concerted effort at researching the report and putting together arguments against a few Trump supporters who are trying to deflect away from its contents.

If you consider that "vapid squabbling", that's your right - but declaring a false equivalency between the two sides by implying both-sides-are-equally-to-blame is part of the mindset that's lending credibility to Trump that's not deserved. That's what will get him reelected.
  #60  
Old 04-18-2019, 07:52 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I'm sure the denigrating you refer to was completely out of the blue, a first strike against progressives who had never had anything but kind words for her and her allies, until her shockingly unprovoked attacks. Right?
Oh my god. Do you really think that "BUT HE STARTED IT FIRST!!!!" is an effective rhetorical technique?
Quote:
They come onto my Facebook page and think nothing of breezily tossing off calumnies like:

"limousine liberalism -- a dash of social enlightenment combined with a heaping helping of corporate-friendly policy and a sprinkle of austerity"
The problem with your using personal anecdotes of your associates insulting your political position is that I can't respond appropriately in this forum. So I'll just say that your experience is not necessarily the norm, or even relevant, and leave it there.
  #61  
Old 04-19-2019, 10:10 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,259
The purity brigade that constantly calls mainstream Democrats "corrupt" needs to read the Mueller report and get a clue. THAT is what corruption looks like.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #62  
Old 04-19-2019, 10:53 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
The purity brigade that constantly calls mainstream Democrats "corrupt" needs to read the Mueller report and get a clue. THAT is what corruption looks like.
That, and nothing else.
  #63  
Old 04-19-2019, 11:04 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,259
Nothing significant, or worth worrying/complaining about, by comparison. Not while that other corruption is in the Oval Office and needs to be ejected toute de suite.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #64  
Old 04-19-2019, 11:04 AM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
The purity brigade that constantly calls mainstream Democrats "corrupt"
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
But if I fire back at Bernie, like pointing out his and his wife's repeated lies in 2016 about his tax returns
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.
  #65  
Old 04-19-2019, 11:06 AM
MortSahlFan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: US
Posts: 402
Obama was a poseur, and another right-winger like Clinton who duped millions.
  #66  
Old 04-19-2019, 11:46 AM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by MortSahlFan View Post
Obama was a poseur, and another right-winger like Clinton who duped millions.
While I don't disagree that Obama was far more centrist and "machine"-compatible than the "socialist" caricature of him hyped by the right-wing media, I think it's undeniable that he was in many ways better for progressives than a McCain/Palin administration would have been, or even than a Hillary Clinton administration would have been.

(There, SlackerInc, you see how easy it is?)
  #67  
Old 04-19-2019, 11:48 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Nothing significant, or worth worrying/complaining about, by comparison.
Similarly, it's okay if I punch a little old lady in the face because it's "nothing significant, or worth worrying/complaining about, by comparison" to Charles Manson.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 04-19-2019 at 11:50 AM.
  #68  
Old 04-19-2019, 06:15 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Can't blame you for that, but ISTM that you are engaging here in the same type of counterproductive "purity" obsession that you complain of in progressives.

You're saying that the Democrats are the only hope for "holding shit together" to avoid (further) catastrophic consequences of Republican dysfunction, but at the same time you're resolutely keeping aloof and declaring that the Democrats are "not your party". Why is it any more excusable for you to do that than for some left-wing Democratic-Socialist type to do that?

If you think that what we need is more Democratic unity, okay then, how about you join the party and help provide some? You're allowed to leave as soon as you think the crisis is over, you know; we don't require folks to be branded on the forehead with a permanent scarlet "D" or anything.

But if your own ideologically pure political affiliation is by your own admission not providing any realistic path to electoral success, then maybe it's time to stop kibitzing from the sidelines and actually carry a little water for the only affiliation that currently does provide one.
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.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #69  
Old 04-19-2019, 06:26 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
You don't want left-liberals to criticize mainstream Democrats but you as a mainstream Democrat are fine with constantly complaining about left-liberals.
...the weird thing is that the "left-liberals", the progressive block that includes AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, are all lock-stock in step with each other. They all support the same policies, they all actively and loudly support each other, signal boost each other, openly display solidarity. They support abortion rights, trans rights, they support "socialised" healthcare, they supporting people in jobs that are disappearing like coal-mining and finding them a place in the new-green economy.

They are united in message. They also acknowledge that things like "The New Green Deal" aren't going to happen overnight. They haven't formed "circular firing squads" and even when given the cold-shoulder by the likes of Pelosi they haven't fired back.

"Progressive purity" isn't the problem. Its "uninspired centerism." We all know what AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib stand for. But apart from Warren (and I'm growing increasingly convinced that the progressives will gather around and support Warren, not Bernie) the rest are a mish-mash of people "saying the things that they think the voters want to hear."

There is no magic formula on how to win in 2020 and anyone pretending that they've got one doesn't know what they are talking about. What we do know though is this: the Dems are going into the next election with "one arm tied around their backs." They are fighting voter suppression, the power of the Presidential propaganda machine, they will be taking on a group that has no qualms with getting help from a foreign power, that will do whatever it takes to hold onto power.

The only way for the Dems to win is to get people out to vote. And to do that I think they need to (at least in part) stop rejecting the passion, and embrace it. Look at stuff like this. As ridiculous as it sounds one of the places the "battle for hearts and minds" will take place is going to be on twitter. Nobody on the Dems side come close to AOC's level of engagement, and only AOC comes close to rivaling Trump on the platform.

Rejecting AOC and the "progressive-liberals" is playing purity politics. I think Obama was the best President America has ever had. But he's wrong here. And the OP is wrong as well.
  #70  
Old 04-19-2019, 06:30 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...the weird thing is that the "left-liberals", the progressive block that includes AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, are all lock-stock in step with each other. They all support the same policies, they all actively and loudly support each other, signal boost each other, openly display solidarity. They support abortion rights, trans rights, they support "socialised" healthcare, they supporting people in jobs that are disappearing like coal-mining and finding them a place in the new-green economy.

They are united in message. They also acknowledge that things like "The New Green Deal" aren't going to happen overnight. They haven't formed "circular firing squads" and even when given the cold-shoulder by the likes of Pelosi they haven't fired back.

"Progressive purity" isn't the problem. Its "uninspired centerism." We all know what AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib stand for. But apart from Warren (and I'm growing increasingly convinced that the progressives will gather around and support Warren, not Bernie) the rest are a mish-mash of people "saying the things that they think the voters want to hear."

There is no magic formula on how to win in 2020 and anyone pretending that they've got one doesn't know what they are talking about. What we do know though is this: the Dems are going into the next election with "one arm tied around their backs." They are fighting voter suppression, the power of the Presidential propaganda machine, they will be taking on a group that has no qualms with getting help from a foreign power, that will do whatever it takes to hold onto power.

The only way for the Dems to win is to get people out to vote. And to do that I think they need to (at least in part) stop rejecting the passion, and embrace it. Look at stuff like this. As ridiculous as it sounds one of the places the "battle for hearts and minds" will take place is going to be on twitter. Nobody on the Dems side come close to AOC's level of engagement, and only AOC comes close to rivaling Trump on the platform.

Rejecting AOC and the "progressive-liberals" is playing purity politics. I think Obama was the best President America has ever had. But he's wrong here. And the OP is wrong as well.
And, contrary to what some seem to think, I'd be fine with that...IF, in fact, the Dems rally around Warren or whoever. But will they? Or will they just have a heated, but generally positive tussle, and the winner takes all? I'm good with that, too. But if they split, well, that's where I get a bit scared over the outcome. I'm fine if Warren gets the nod, if she really has the popular support and can really, genuinely beat Trump.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #71  
Old 04-19-2019, 06:58 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
And, contrary to what some seem to think, I'd be fine with that...IF, in fact, the Dems rally around Warren or whoever. But will they? Or will they just have a heated, but generally positive tussle, and the winner takes all? I'm good with that, too. But if they split, well, that's where I get a bit scared over the outcome. I'm fine if Warren gets the nod, if she really has the popular support and can really, genuinely beat Trump.
...this thread isn't about "who the Dems rally around" though. Its about the "liberal-left." So if you ask the question will AOC use the power of her twitter account to support whichever candidate wins the nomination I would say abso-fucking-lutely. And so will the rest of the "liberal-left." The "liberal-left" are united.

They absolutely understand what is at stake because unlike some others in the party they have both lived and are living with the consequences of the actions of the Trump administration. They understand what will happen if Trump gets re-elected. This isn't a game for them. They are dealing with the racism, the bigotry, the targeted harassment. They are seeing what is happening to their constituents. They aren't going to fuck this up for the sake of "purity".

The "liberal-left" are not the problem. If there is a split: it will not be a split caused by AOC, Ilhan Omar, or Rashida Tlaib. Don't confuse what is happening now with what will happen after the Dems have selected a candidate. They should be fighting for the candidate that they think would be the best for president right now. There should be robust debate.
  #72  
Old 04-19-2019, 07:09 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...this thread isn't about "who the Dems rally around" though. Its about the "liberal-left." So if you ask the question will AOC use the power of her twitter account to support whichever candidate wins the nomination I would say abso-fucking-lutely. And so will the rest of the "liberal-left." The "liberal-left" are united.

They absolutely understand what is at stake because unlike some others in the party they have both lived and are living with the consequences of the actions of the Trump administration. They understand what will happen if Trump gets re-elected. This isn't a game for them. They are dealing with the racism, the bigotry, the targeted harassment. They are seeing what is happening to their constituents. They aren't going to fuck this up for the sake of "purity".

The "liberal-left" are not the problem. If there is a split: it will not be a split caused by AOC, Ilhan Omar, or Rashida Tlaib. Don't confuse what is happening now with what will happen after the Dems have selected a candidate. They should be fighting for the candidate that they think would be the best for president right now. There should be robust debate.
Well, I agree. So there! I never said not to have a robust debate. And if whoever gets the nod gets the bulk of the Dems to rally around them, then that's all I ask. Doesn't seem, to me at least, to be too much to ask in this crucial election.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #73  
Old 04-19-2019, 07:12 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Well, I agree. So there!
...unacceptable! We must have more robust debate!!! (Or not )
  #74  
Old 04-19-2019, 07:13 PM
Covfefe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: 100 miles N. of Chicago
Posts: 1,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...this thread isn't about "who the Dems rally around" though. Its about the "liberal-left." So if you ask the question will AOC use the power of her twitter account to support whichever candidate wins the nomination I would say abso-fucking-lutely. And so will the rest of the "liberal-left." The "liberal-left" are united.

They absolutely understand what is at stake because unlike some others in the party they have both lived and are living with the consequences of the actions of the Trump administration. They understand what will happen if Trump gets re-elected. This isn't a game for them. They are dealing with the racism, the bigotry, the targeted harassment. They are seeing what is happening to their constituents. They aren't going to fuck this up for the sake of "purity".

The "liberal-left" are not the problem. If there is a split: it will not be a split caused by AOC, Ilhan Omar, or Rashida Tlaib. Don't confuse what is happening now with what will happen after the Dems have selected a candidate. They should be fighting for the candidate that they think would be the best for president right now. There should be robust debate.
Getting Trump out of office isn't their only goal. They also want to have as many progressives challenging incumbents in Democratic primaries as they can. They will support the eventual nominee, however there are clues it's possible they may have rancorous disagreement with that nominee pertaining to that. https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...7#post21565927
  #75  
Old 04-19-2019, 07:15 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by Covfefe View Post
Getting Trump out of office isn't their only goal. They also want to have as many progressives challenging incumbents in Democratic primaries as they can.
...whats wrong with that?
  #76  
Old 04-19-2019, 07:52 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...whats wrong with that?
Because it wastes Democratic money and energy on infighting, instead of getting the GOP out of congress and the white house.

The Progressives" mostly challenge long term loyal democrats in safe districts. They rarely try to get rid of a Republican.
  #77  
Old 04-19-2019, 08:12 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Because it wastes Democratic money and energy on infighting, instead of getting the GOP out of congress and the white house.
...this is an example of "narrative framing." I can play that game as well. It isn't "wasting money." Its "investing" in a progressive future. Isn't "infighting." Its "robust debate."

Quote:
The Progressives" mostly challenge long term loyal democrats in safe districts.
Sounds like a smart strategy (if true). If the people in those districts prefer the "long term loyal democrats" then the "long term loyal democrats" will win. But if not, then whats the problem again?

Quote:
They rarely try to get rid of a Republican.
I have no idea what this means. But if you want to provide examples of the "progressives" not trying to get rid of Republicans, please feel free to share.
  #78  
Old 04-19-2019, 08:41 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
So, your suggestion is I [...] should join the Democratic party and work from within to change them to be more in line with what I think they should do?
You don't even have to work to change them, just work to support them. You are of course free to stop supporting them any time you stop feeling that it's crucial for them to win.

Quote:
Originally Posted by XT
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.
Well, I can certainly see why no viable political party would want you as a member, as your attitude towards even the viable political party whose success you claim to desire is this odd combination of demanding desperation and apathetic contempt.
  #79  
Old 04-20-2019, 10:41 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
You don't even have to work to change them, just work to support them. You are of course free to stop supporting them any time you stop feeling that it's crucial for them to win.


Well, I can certainly see why no viable political party would want you as a member, as your attitude towards even the viable political party whose success you claim to desire is this odd combination of demanding desperation and apathetic contempt.
Naw, you actually don't see...you haven't a clue. You are like the jock telling the nerd kid who weighs 90 lbs that to stop the other jocks from bullying them he just needs to join the football team and everything will be peachy. YOU fit in because your politics coincides with theirs. Me? I don't fit in anywhere and have ZERO chance of changing a fucking thing. This isn't 'apathetic contempt', if freaking a realistic view of the situation.

And I'm not demanding a thing from them except that they don't tear themselves apart. Apparently, to you, that's too much to demand. Which doesn't bode well for the future, I'd say, since you do fit in so well.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #80  
Old 04-20-2019, 12:11 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
You are like the jock telling the nerd kid who weighs 90 lbs that to stop the other jocks from bullying them he just needs to join the football team and everything will be peachy.
No, because I'm not actually interested in whether the Democratic "jocks" are bullying the "nerd kid" you in this analogy, or how you may wish the jocks would change to promote your nerd-kid priorities. I don't particularly care how you feel about the Democratic Party's positions or vice versa.

I'm just pointing out that if you sincerely want the football team to win, you should do what you can to support their efforts. Instead of merely bitching from the sidelines about how you can't stand them, while simultaneously proclaiming how crucial it is that they win the game and how much you'll despise them if they fail to win the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by XT
And I'm not demanding a thing from them except that they don't tear themselves apart.
Well, it's pretty arrogant for you as a loudly declared non-supporter of the Democratic Party to think you're entitled to "demand" any particular actions from them.

You can wish that they don't tear themselves apart, of course. But if you're getting self-righteously up in their faces and finger-wagging at them about your "demand" that they deploy a winning strategy, then your refusal to support their efforts just makes you look like a whiny kibitzer.

As I said, the root of the problem in your argument is the double standard you're applying. You kvetch about how certain factions of the Democrats are being too divisive and destroying party unity rather than putting aside their ideological differences to work together. But at the same time, you're ostentatiously displaying your own ideological differences with the Democrats and angsting about how you "don't fit in anywhere", poor misunderstood loner that you are.

Hey, you are entirely free to have yourself an ideological-purity pity party all day long if you want, and so are the hardcore progressives and Bernie-bros and whoever. But if you then go around castigating Democrats for being too fixated on ideological purity, you just seem hypocritical. The fact that you've declared your willingness (along with your loudly expressed reluctance) to "hold your nose" and cast your statistically negligible vote for a Democratic candidate in a general election doesn't really do much to mitigate that hypocrite look you've got going on.
  #81  
Old 04-20-2019, 02:20 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
No, because I'm not actually interested in whether the Democratic "jocks" are bullying the "nerd kid" you in this analogy, or how you may wish the jocks would change to promote your nerd-kid priorities. I don't particularly care how you feel about the Democratic Party's positions or vice versa.

I'm just pointing out that if you sincerely want the football team to win, you should do what you can to support their efforts. Instead of merely bitching from the sidelines about how you can't stand them, while simultaneously proclaiming how crucial it is that they win the game and how much you'll despise them if they fail to win the game.


Well, it's pretty arrogant for you as a loudly declared non-supporter of the Democratic Party to think you're entitled to "demand" any particular actions from them.

You can wish that they don't tear themselves apart, of course. But if you're getting self-righteously up in their faces and finger-wagging at them about your "demand" that they deploy a winning strategy, then your refusal to support their efforts just makes you look like a whiny kibitzer.

As I said, the root of the problem in your argument is the double standard you're applying. You kvetch about how certain factions of the Democrats are being too divisive and destroying party unity rather than putting aside their ideological differences to work together. But at the same time, you're ostentatiously displaying your own ideological differences with the Democrats and angsting about how you "don't fit in anywhere", poor misunderstood loner that you are.

Hey, you are entirely free to have yourself an ideological-purity pity party all day long if you want, and so are the hardcore progressives and Bernie-bros and whoever. But if you then go around castigating Democrats for being too fixated on ideological purity, you just seem hypocritical. The fact that you've declared your willingness (along with your loudly expressed reluctance) to "hold your nose" and cast your statistically negligible vote for a Democratic candidate in a general election doesn't really do much to mitigate that hypocrite look you've got going on.
So, obviously a huge disconnect. I, frankly, can't even put this post into the context of what I said. So, help me out here (anyone else who wants to play along, feel free as well). How do you get a double standard? I'm not asking the Republicans to keep it together...hell, for all their faults, that's one that they actually seem to be able to do. I'm not asking YOUR party to not have .a vigorous debate, either. I'm just asking that they not tear themselves apart. That doesn't seem, to me, to be asking for 'ideological-purity' nor a 'pity party'...if fucking seems, to me anyway, a reasonable request (obviously not, and I suspect this is the root of the disconnect). My ideology IS different than yours, or that of the mainstream of the Democrats, certainly to that of the progressives. So, that's reality. I don't fit in. I will never fit in. This isn't because I'm a 'poor misunderstood loner', it's because my political ideology is centrist and the centrists in the Democratic party are a very small, almost non-existent fraction...just like in the Republican party. Establishment liberals are the majority, with the progressives and left wing times making up the rest by and large, while on the other side it's the Tea Party idiots, the social conservatives, right winger types and some economic and dinosaur conservatives for flavor. Joining either would be futile...I know this, for a fact, because I was in the Republican party when I was a kid and in the Democratic party when I was in my 40s, and there was no place for me then, let alone now, as there is zero chance I could sway anyone to my positions on, well, anything. Ever. I'm not asking for pity for that...it is what it is. The people I most connect with in either party are those who are able and ready to reach across the isle to work with the other party on, well, anything. And they don't seem to be the most prized or cherished in either party, getting hit from both sides, and seem to be dwindling in numbers on both sides.

So, I'm not seeing the hypocrisy (that is a huge wtf right there), not seeing your trying to paint what I'm saying as asking for 'ideological-purity' or even asking for pity. To me, you seem to be running some sort of tape recorder against points not raised by me to defend some obscure position you have that I don't get, or giving me empty platitudes that are worthless to me in the real world. Let me be clear here...I don't give a flying fuck who your party nominates. That's entirely up to your party. I have zero say in that, not being a Democrat. Further, I have no intention of ever being a Democrat (or a Republican), as there is no place in either party for me except on the very fringe being ignored or even bashed...fuck, I can get that right from where I am, I don't have to join anything. I don't give a flying fuck for your internal squabbles, for the civil war that seems to be happening between progressives and establishment liberals. Whatever...it's your party. All I'm asking is that you guys don't split the vote and allow Trump to get another term. It would also be nice if you guys could hold onto your gains in the House and perhaps expand on them, but at this rate I'd settle for Trump being out. This doesn't seem unreasonable of me to ask or wish for (wish, after your posts, seems the best case to me at this point).
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #82  
Old 04-20-2019, 03:22 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...


I have no idea what this means. But if you want to provide examples of the "progressives" not trying to get rid of Republicans, please feel free to share.
They dont run against a GOP in a purple district.

The progressives , by wasting Dem money fighting Dem vs Dem are hurting our chances of regaining the Senate and keeping the House. They are being very selfish.
  #83  
Old 04-20-2019, 04:52 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
They dont run against a GOP in a purple district.
...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.

Quote:
The progressives , by wasting Dem money fighting Dem vs Dem are hurting our chances of regaining the Senate and keeping the House. They are being very selfish.
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.
  #84  
Old 04-20-2019, 05:39 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
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.
Justice Democrats have pretty explicitly targeted safe blue districts. It's an obvious realpolitik strategy. If they attempt to put an AOC type in a purple district she will most likely lose.
Politico article:
Quote:
Justice Democrats, which orchestrated Ocasio-Cortez’s long-shot bid last year against the fourth-ranking House Democrat, Joe Crowley, hopes to replicate its success in blue districts across the country.
[...]
While its target list looks haphazard and its ideological yardstick difficult to gauge, Justice Democrats' overarching goal has remained the same: To root out long-time pols who embody the big-tent Democratic Party and replace them with more Ocasio-Cortezes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear
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.
Your spin is obviously wrong though. Most Americans and even most Democrats are simply not even close to the progressive level of the justice Democrats.

Last edited by CarnalK; 04-20-2019 at 05:41 PM.
  #85  
Old 04-20-2019, 06:02 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Justice Democrats have pretty explicitly targeted safe blue districts. It's an obvious realpolitik strategy. If they attempt to put an AOC type in a purple district she will most likely lose.
Politico article:
..."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?

Quote:
Your spin is obviously wrong though.
Except that it isn't.

Quote:
Most Americans and even most Democrats are simply not even close to the progressive level of the justice Democrats.
An unsupported assertion that is irrelevant to what I said.
  #86  
Old 04-20-2019, 06:59 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
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".
It's fair. Their objective is to change the Dem caucus, not grow it. This is a stated aim



Quote:
An unsupported assertion that is irrelevant to what I said.
It is quite obviously relevant. So obviously relevant that your denial of its relevance makes me disinclined to bother citing it for you.
  #87  
Old 04-20-2019, 07:24 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
It's fair. Their objective is to change the Dem caucus, not grow it. This is a stated aim
..."changing the Dem caucus" is unfairly characterized as "they rarely try to get rid of a Republican."

Quote:
It is quite obviously relevant. So obviously relevant that your denial of its relevance makes me disinclined to bother citing it for you.
Still irrelevant. And I doubt you would have provided a cite anyway.
  #88  
Old 04-20-2019, 07:31 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,294
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.

So progressives run in solid blue districts, and conservative Democrats STILL give them shit for it.

Progressives can't win for losing, when it comes to what the conservatives will say about them. The only winning strategy is not to worry about conservatives Dems concern-trolling them.
  #89  
Old 04-20-2019, 07:36 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
..."changing the Dem caucus" is unfairly characterized as "they rarely try to get rid of a Republican."
Well, it would have been more fair to describe it as "they don't go after Republicans, only impure Dems."


And yeah, you can continue under an apparent delusion that Justice Dems are mainstream because I'm not doing your homework for you.
  #90  
Old 04-20-2019, 07:44 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
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.

So progressives run in solid blue districts, and conservative Democrats STILL give them shit for it.

Progressives can't win for losing, when it comes to what the conservatives will say about them. The only winning strategy is not to worry about conservatives Dems concern-trolling them.
From the same politico article I linked above:
Quote:
But if Justice Democrats follows through on going after Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.) — one of their prospective targets — it would be for entirely different reasons. Rice is a progressive. She has voted with Trump just 28 percent of the time and cosponsored legislation to slash fossil fuel dependence. She is popular in her district. But Justice Democrats still has her in its sights.
[...]
“On paper [Crowley] was left of center of the party,” said Shahid. “It’s important to leave room for districts like that where there’s a long-time incumbent who kind of has a machine and voters want a change and it’s hard to notice that on paper, which is why it’s hard describing what our criteria are.”

Shahid confirmed that Justice Democrats is keeping a close eye on Rice’s district, taking cues from the small, grass-roots contingent and polling released by progressive activist Sean McElwee of Data for Progress
So they have a strong purity pony drive. It's not just "conservative Democrats". They want radicals in every blue district.

Last edited by CarnalK; 04-20-2019 at 07:46 PM.
  #91  
Old 04-20-2019, 07:46 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Well, it would have been more fair to describe it as "they don't go after Republicans, only impure Dems."
...so yes, it is unfair. Concession accepted.

Quote:
And yeah, you can continue under an apparent delusion that Justice Dems are mainstream because I'm not doing your homework for you.
I've never made a claim that "Justice Dems are mainstream". The comment you quoted was much more nuanced than that. If you are unable to parse that nuance that isn't my fault, and it doesn't make your comment relevant to what I said.

And I've never asked you to do my "homework" for me. I stated that your assertion was unsupported, then when you said that you weren't going to provide a cite for it I told you that I didn't think you were going to provide a cite for you anyway. So please, by all means, continue not doing what I never asked you to do.
  #92  
Old 04-20-2019, 08:06 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...so yes, it is unfair. Concession accepted.
Huh. I thought English was your first language.
  #93  
Old 04-20-2019, 08:25 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,437
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Huh. I thought English was your first language.
...wow.

Okay, won't be replying to you again in this thread.
  #94  
Old 04-20-2019, 08:44 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
From the same politico article I linked above:

So they have a strong purity pony drive. It's not just "conservative Democrats". They want radicals in every blue district.
So tell us: under what circumstances may progressive Democrats campaign aggressively for representation with your approval?
  #95  
Old 04-20-2019, 09:06 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
So tell us: under what circumstances may progressive Democrats campaign aggressively for representation with your approval?
I think we'd both agree that my approval is meaningless. I don't think I've actually mentioned any disapproval in any case. I'm merely, imho, correcting the record. A political insurgency can be rather expected to work this way. The party politics/primaries are way easier to hijack.
  #96  
Old 04-20-2019, 09:40 PM
MyFootsZZZ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,753
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.

Perhaps someone besides Biden will start to gain momentum. But as it is.. and I honestly wish it wasn't this way even though I'm a little a Bernie fan.

Last edited by MyFootsZZZ; 04-20-2019 at 09:43 PM.
  #97  
Old 04-20-2019, 09:50 PM
MyFootsZZZ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,753
*I meant to say I'm a big Bernie fan. Sorry, it's 420 and I'm celebrating.

But I wish things weren't this contentious.
  #98  
Old 04-20-2019, 10:08 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
I'm not asking YOUR party to not have .a vigorous debate, either. I'm just asking that they not tear themselves apart. [...]

My ideology IS different than yours, or that of the mainstream of the Democrats, certainly to that of the progressives. So, that's reality. I don't fit in. I will never fit in. [...]

I was in the Republican party when I was a kid and in the Democratic party when I was in my 40s, and there was no place for me then, let alone now, as there is zero chance I could sway anyone to my positions on, well, anything. Ever.

I don't give a flying fuck who your party nominates. That's entirely up to your party. I have zero say in that, not being a Democrat. Further, I have no intention of ever being a Democrat [...] I don't give a flying fuck for your internal squabbles [...] Whatever...it's your party.
This right here is the double standard, where you (a) berate Democrats of different ideological stripes for letting their differences keep them from working together for Democratic victories. And (b) at the same time keep beating your drum about your ideological differences from the Democrats, and how because of those differences you are steadfastly determined never to work together with Democrats for Democratic victories.

Yup, hypocritical freeloading kibitzer all the way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by XT
All I'm asking is that you guys don't split the vote and allow Trump to get another term. It would also be nice if you guys could hold onto your gains in the House and perhaps expand on them, but at this rate I'd settle for Trump being out. This doesn't seem unreasonable of me to ask or wish for
No? Do you really not see how arrogant it is for you to go through this long spiel about how you are completely alienated from the Democratic Party and take no interest in its decisions and don't support its efforts in any way, and then have the nerve to talk about what you're "asking" the Democrats to do?

What would you think of, say, a self-proclaimed non-combatant in a war who announced to one of the armies, "Hey, it's really important for you guys to win and I hope you will be less shit at winning than you usually are, because it will be a disaster if the other army wins. However, I won't join you or help pay for your support or do anything to help your efforts. Because I don't align with you and don't care what you choose to do and there's no place for me among you and I don't really give a shit what happens to your organization. All I'm asking is that you win this war against the other army, if you can manage to be somewhat less shit at winning, for once. That doesn't seem unreasonable for me to ask."

Oh well, then, sure thing, sweetie, anything for you, of course. Thanks so much for your support.

Last edited by Kimstu; 04-20-2019 at 10:10 PM.
  #99  
Old 04-20-2019, 10:34 PM
Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 13,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
This right here is the double standard, where you (a) berate Democrats of different ideological stripes for letting their differences keep them from working together for Democratic victories. And (b) at the same time keep beating your drum about your ideological differences from the Democrats, and how because of those differences you are steadfastly determined never to work together with Democrats for Democratic victories.

Yup, hypocritical freeloading kibitzer all the way.


No? Do you really not see how arrogant it is for you to go through this long spiel about how you are completely alienated from the Democratic Party and take no interest in its decisions and don't support its efforts in any way, and then have the nerve to talk about what you're "asking" the Democrats to do?

What would you think of, say, a self-proclaimed non-combatant in a war who announced to one of the armies, "Hey, it's really important for you guys to win and I hope you will be less shit at winning than you usually are, because it will be a disaster if the other army wins. However, I won't join you or help pay for your support or do anything to help your efforts. Because I don't align with you and don't care what you choose to do and there's no place for me among you and I don't really give a shit what happens to your organization. All I'm asking is that you win this war against the other army, if you can manage to be somewhat less shit at winning, for once. That doesn't seem unreasonable for me to ask."

Oh well, then, sure thing, sweetie, anything for you, of course. Thanks so much for your support.
*like*
  #100  
Old 04-21-2019, 11:27 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Well, it's pretty arrogant for you as a loudly declared non-supporter of the Democratic Party to think you're entitled to "demand" any particular actions from them.

I couldn’t agree more. Yet the left wing does EXACTLY this, constantly!!
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 08:18 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