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.
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.
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.
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?)
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.
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 :p) 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.
…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.
…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.
…unacceptable! We must have more robust debate!!! (Or not 
)
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/showthread.php?p=21565927#post21565927
…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.
…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.”
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?
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.
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.
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.