How are the Clinton hating dems feeling now?

The BBQ Pit
601

You see this is what irks us. We are not fucking sanguine! We want the same fucking thing that you want! We are doing what we can to try to achieve that! Our disagreement is purely tactical. As a person who is more directly affected by the hateful legislation, do you feel more strongly about this than I ever could? Undoubtedly. But strong feelings don’t change the underlying mathematics of the situation.

Monday morning quarterbacking is not helpful, but you aren’t even doing that. At least Monday morning quarterbacks have suggestions"Jackson should given the ball to Beckman more". What you are saying is “The Ravens had no plan to win. I guess unlike me, Jackson has no interest in scoring points.”

Of course refugee status for the transgendered is not sufficient, but until we can find a way to radically open the minds of 350,000 Tennessee voters (maybe 5g mind control chips in Busch beer) so they vote the bozo’s out we can’t stop the hateful legislation there. So the best we can do is to limit as much as possible its effects elsewhere where we do have power.

The one bit of hope is that some of the most hateful legislation is getting blocked by the courts. This is because despite all by the GOP to fill the judiciary with hateful fucks some of the judges are actual concerned about human rights. This was achievable in part because the Democrats held a very slim majority in the Senate, with which they could confirm sane judges.

Now if we had managed to pass the voting rights act we would be in better shape, but we couldn’t do that because although ostensably being Democrats Manchin and Sinema wouldn’t go for it. Progressives immediately called for their head, demanding that they be primaried, kicked, or whatever. The end result of such action would have been that they would have been replaced by a Republican, and the judical balwark that was mitigating some of the worst of the Republican legislation would have been knocked down. Although it might have felt cathartic do do so, tactically such a move would have been a disaster. This is where the two sides differ.

602

Your plan of shutting up anyone that disagrees with you? I hear it mostly from fascists.

See your previous statement is either you being incredibly stupid, or being incredibly dishonest. As was your statement:

That’s you, being a disingenuous piece of shit.

It’s not about civility. I don’t care about civility. Yell and scream and make your voice heard.

But you don’t have to lie. You don’t have to twist anything that anyone says into a mix of straw and bile that comes only from you. You don’t have to be a fucking piece of shit. That accomplishes nothing.

I guess, though, since you are so fucking sure that the Democratic party and those in it don’t care about you, maybe you should go try out the Republicans, see if they are more welcoming to your “civility”.

603

Anyone who claims there’s a hive mind here needs to read this fucking thread.

604
Aside (click to show/hide)

With no disrespect intended to GOP-appointed judges, who I think are people with feelings just like the rest of us, I think it would be more productive for you to think of favorable rulings on ‘human rights’ by the judiciary as legal victories due to technicalities.

Saint Augustine provides a good summary of the ancient judicial philosophy, which you may perhaps agree with: lex iniusta non est lex, unjust law is not law. The near-universal American judicial philosophy since the early nineteenth century is that for the purposes of adjudication, positive law trumps equity; the ostensible disagreement between a judge who upholds an abortion ban and a judge who would strike it down is whether the statute is repugnant to more authoritative positive law (the state or federal constitution), not equitable principles like human rights.

Until the applicable human right is actually inserted into the constitutions the judges are sworn to uphold, the way I see it every human rights victory or defeat is based on a mere technicality. This helps keep the eyes on the prize.

Examples: It is unlawful to execute convicted felons in certain situations, such as when the felon is a minor, because technically that would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. It is unlawful to deny a marriage license to a couple on the basis of their homosexual orientation because technically that would constitute unequal protection of the laws and deprivation of liberty without due process. It is unlawful to substantially burden a woman who seeks an abortion pre-viability, because technically that would constitute deprivation of liberty without due process. Scratch that, this particular anti-abortion law is technically lawful despite being a deprivation of liberty, because it satisfies due process. &etc.

~Max

605

I’m not sure if this was being sarcastic or not, but if it wasn’t then I’m really confused as to what your beef about a lack of a plan was about.

Of course the Democrats plan is to do what Max suggested. That’s been the plan for the last 130+ years. I assumed that you knew that, but thought that simply doing basic boring electioneering was insufficient.

The point I was making is that Republicans owning the senate would result in more decisions like this one and fewer decisions like this one.

606

I didn’t say you were. I said k9 was, because he’s more interested in taking cheap shots at “Bernie Bros” than dealing with the crisis in LGBT rights that’s unfolding in this country right now.

I don’t know a lot about sports, but is it really “Monday morning quarterbacking,” to point out that one team doesn’t seem to be playing the game? I may not know how to run a play, which is why I’m not on the field, but I can still tell when the people who are on the field are just standing around with their thumbs up their ass.

Giving trans people refugee status would actually be fantastic. Not sufficient, sure, but it would be a huge, concrete step in helping people directly affected by Republican bigotry. Way more than just telling them, “Move,” which is not helpful in any capacity.

A couple members of the progressive caucus (naturally) have actually introduced federal legislation to protect trans rights. I doubt it will succeed in the current Congress, but at least they’re trying. What are the centrists Dems doing?

And I guess, from your post, that we’re just not bothering to try to win elections in Tennessee anymore? I confess I don’t have a magic bullet solution for solving that, but I’m still allowed to ask about it, right?

Did “progressives” do that? Or did a lot of people on the left do that, and you’re singling out progressive voices for condemnation?

No, that was completely sincere. A freshman Civics lecture about how elections work was exactly the information I needed. I could not think of a more useful or relevant contribution Max could have made to this thread.

607

Well, that’s only partly true, isn’t it? You don’t care about civility when it involves you being a giant, unbearable douche, but you sure do holler when someone treats you like the asshole you are.

Me thinking that your “support” isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit isn’t a lie, you tremendous dingleberry.

608

We are, as per Max’s post. We are doing everything we can to try to get as much electoral power as possible so that we can enact a progressive agenda. Saying we are standing around doing nothing suggests there are things that you know that we should be doing but aren’t.

We should try, but we are unlikely to succeed despite our best efforts. So saying that the fact we haven’t succeeded, proves we aren’t trying is disingenuous.

Perhaps not, progressive is a bit ill-defined and I may have been incorrect in assigning labels. It seemed to me at the time that the people who were calling for Manchin’s head were the same who were condemning the lack luster results of the establishment party and wanting new leadership who would act more aggressively, a view which I associate with progressive wing of the party.

609

…the Democrats don’t have a plan.

610

…the mere existence of Democrats like Eric Adams seems to suggest you “aren’t doing everything you can” to get as much " electoral power as possible so that we can enact a progressive agenda."

Because the Democrats have both the Governorship and the Mayor, and they are using that power to not enact a progressive agenda. The Governor keeps trying to get rid of bail reform and get dodgy judges appointed while the Mayor wants to defund libraries and social services and has just given the NYPD a big pay rise that is backdated to 2017.

The progressive Democrats are clearly trying to enact a progressive agenda. The rest of them? Not so much.

611

If you’re talking about statehouse politics, pretty much. That is something the Democratic national party really needs step up, in my opinion. It’s a case of the national party not allocating resources and in turn, the local parties not drumming up enough awareness. But obviously Tennessee isn’t going to turn blue in 2024. Long term investments require long term thinking and long periods of time with no payoff, including courting blue dog Democrats and historically apathetic voters that may balk at progressive measures, much to the chagrin of progressives like BanquetBear who impatiently demand protection of human rights as if it were the immediate priority. (And yes, that is a satire of the political state of the nation.)

With the DLCC still vastly under-resourced compared to their Democratic counterparts for Congress—it had gotten no money from the DNC by the September before last year’s election—Polizzi said the group has to be strategic about where it invests.

[…]

Last year, many Republican candidates for local office ran without opposition in Tennessee, Litman [co-founder of the progressive candidate recruitment organization Run For Something] said.

~Max

612

…LOL.

Its entirely possible to have multiple priorities. And for me, I kinda see preventing genocide to be right up there in the “maybe we should do something about it” column.

613

I am retired from arguing with people who say things like this, but for what it’s worth for your own personal edification, I vote for Democrats entirely because, and only to the extent that, people like Miller and other people who exist in my head and aren’t you would be harmed if I didn’t.

Naturally, as you people love to remind me, that is the case in most elections, so it is what it is. But it brings me great pleasure to imagine a day when I don’t have to do that, because I have other options, and people like you who have been talking like this through crisis after crisis have the opportunity to well and truly get fucked. I absolutely will give up on all of your causes because of your tantrums and I will love doing it. Just so you know.

614

Well, Max’s post wasn’t a plan. “First, you run in the primary. THEN you run in the general!” isn’t a plan, it’s the basic order of operations for how elections work in this country, and is literally not new information to a single person in this thread.

I’m not clear who you mean to include by “we” when you say “we’re accumulating political power to enact a progressive agenda.” If you mean, “Progressive democrats,” sure, no argument. If you mean, “The Democratic party as a whole,” well, no - centrist democrats are accumulating political power to enact a centrist agenda. Hillary Clinton - while absolutely preferable to a Republican candidate on every possible metric - was never going to enact a progressive agenda, and every person for the last six years that suggested maybe running a more progressive candidate might have gotten us more votes, has been mocked and insulted.

So the assertion that the Democratic party as a whole is pursuing a progressive agenda is questionable to me, unless you’re also claiming that either centrist Dems are lying about being centrist, and are just waiting to get into power to enact their true agenda, or that the centrist portion of the Democratic party is in retreat and the progressive faction is now ascendant. Which would seem to justify the complaints of those “Clinton hating dems” the OP of this thread was all worked up about.

I agree we should try, but are we? When Justin Jones runs for a higher office than Tennessee house rep, will the party support him? Or are they going to drop him in favor of more “'electable” candidates, and give up on making any progress in Tennessee for yet another election cycle?

Based on past party performance, I know where I’m placing my bet. And I’m not saying that we haven’t tried because we haven’t won, I’m saying we haven’t tried because time after time, the national Democratic party leaves progressive candidates in close races hanging, and direct funds that might have flipped a district to the coffers of another corporatist dem.

615

Is this a semantic issue? She described herself as a progressive and centrist. You don’t think Clinton’s platform had progressive elements? Some of her positions struck me as progressive, such as the campaign finance reform, universal preschool, and a renewed federal assault weapon ban. The reason she wasn’t going to enact any of those things is because she didn’t have the votes in Congress, a fault shared with every other potential Presidential candidate in that election.

~Max

616

See, this is what I don’t get. What is it that makes you fabricate things? It’s not that you are treating me like an asshole, it’s that you are lying.

When you say,

You are completely making my position up out of whole cloth. You are not telling the truth. I have said nothing that would indicate that that is my position, you have simply decided it is, and berated me for it. When I ask why you do this, you double down with more vitriol.

The only thing I have done is to disagree about the electability of Sanders. For that sin, you have slandered me with vile insults, none of which remotely reflect reality.

Be angry, be as angry as you want to be. But direct your anger against the people who are trying to remove your rights, I don’t understand your need to direct at those on your side.

You saying that is the lie I am talking about is another lie on your part.

And you do need my support, and the support of millions of people like me. We live in a democracy, where in order to get legislation passed to protect civil rights, we need to elect people into office that will support them. If you reject my support, you also reject the support of millions of others, and without it, you will lose.

I honestly don’t get where this hostility comes from, I’ve done nothing towards you, I’ve not insulted you unprovoked, I’m not anywhere near “sanguine” about you and others losing civil rights. You’ve just lashed out and attached those accusations to me, and then treated me as though they were justified. I really don’t get how you think they are.

What is it that you want me to do? In a democracy, you have to accept that sometimes you lose, and you have to regroup and prepare to fight another day. That’s just the reality of the situation. The only alternative is violence, I assume you do not want me to not accept the outcome of elections and go and storm the Tennessee capital? So, what else is there?

So, if I parse this correctly, you are saying that you would vote to harm me if it didn’t harm Miller and others that exist in your head?

Ah, yes, so you do want to harm me for the sin of disagreeing about Sander’s electability. I’m not the one having tantrums. I’m not the one screaming about how things aren’t getting done, I’m not the one who is lying about the positions of other posters. Seriously, point to what you call a “tantrum” on my part, please.

Okay, so I am for increased civil rights, universal healthcare, gun control, universal post secondary education, increased minimum wage, increased worker protections, a robust safety net, preferably a full UBI, environmental protections, and CO2 reduction to name a few policies I support off the top of my head.

Let me know which one of those you will love throwing under the bus in order to punish me for disagreeing with you on the electability of Sanders.

617

Me having a low opinion of you as a person isn’t lying. It’s just me reacting to the sort of person you present yourself as.

Really? How would that work? Are you king of the douchebags, and will command your people to turn their back on me if I risk your ire?

I want you to shut up and go away. I thought I’d made that apparent by now.

618

You have repeatedly accused others of being disingenuous and misrepresenting the subject of the argument, but you’re framing this about something that has nothing to do with the problem. Bernie Sanders’ electability is not the problem.

The problem is that there is a constant two-step being danced when it comes to “progressive Democrats.” If we’re talking about something that has not yet been tested, every Democrat is a progressive, because it’s just a box you check and say “I am for this.” But if we’re talking about something in the past, anyone who wanted Democrats to do anything more progressive is an idealistic moron who doesn’t know how government works.

It happens over and over again. Before an election? Pack the courts, reform the courts, defund, nuke the filibuster, prosecute people, get aggressive on this policy and that policy, it has to happen, the gloves are off, we’re the most progressive party there’s ever been. After a Democrat wins the election and is not aggressive on those things? Hey man, what did you want them to do? What are you, stupid? Never heard of laws and courts? It’s just an article of faith that the way they do it is the best way. They’re being progressive by definition, they just are.

There are actual conservative Democrats actively working against bread and butter liberal ideals, and they have to be catered to because that’s how government works. When progressives want to dig their heels in, they are children, traitors, “tankies,” terrorists. “The Democrats” are per se good guys, so if you don’t think it’s good for “the Democrats” do whatever they’re ultimately going to do, that makes you a bad guy.

Like I said, I’m not interested in arguing about whether it’s true or not. It just keeps happening. Before something comes to a head, you’ll say you’re all civil rights crusaders and as progressive as you possibly can be. Same side, guys! After things come to a head, you’ll just say that whatever was accomplished was the most progressive possible outcome, and if anybody wants anything more, they’ll simply have to vote more for the people who accomplished it. There is never a time when those claims that the party is so progressive can ever be tested.

You can hop in a time machine and see it right here. We are now in the “talking about it after it happened” phase. What was the answer to my question in November? What’s the answer to my question now? Were the progressives wrong?

619

Yes, because they promised to

‘Moderates’ who made equally empty progressive promises were also wrong to do so. The wrongful act is making promises that are not within your power to carry out in the first place. I wrote so much at the time.

A politician who promises to (or decides to) vote against things they actually support that would benefit their constituents, until other demands are met (as seen on the Republican side esp. wrt budget) is in the wrong if such demands do not justify losing the things voted against. Don’t play chicken unless you’re prepared to go all the way. That’s going to be a judgement call but it doesn’t change before versus retrospectively. If making a stand on the BBB bill wasn’t worth losing both the BBB and the infrastructure bill, it wasn’t worth making that stand, IMO.

~Max

620

If I gave you the impression I was asking whether you personally could find anything wrong with anything the progressive caucus did in their lives, I’m sorry for misleading you.