|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 18 2017 01:02 PhoenixVoid wrote:Not sure who to believe right now given that Sean Spicer denied they were going to implement such a policy. I mean it is Spicer, but I'd be careful with jumping the gun on this one.
Mobilizing state National Guard for law enforcement efforts would be an amazing over reach, even for this White House. There are Republican Governors that would lose their mind.
|
On February 18 2017 01:03 kwizach wrote:Much of the case against Perez coming from certain posters here seems to boil down to "well Sanders endorsed Ellison and not him". Perez has a fantastic record when it comes to defending both workers' rights and civil rights, and is an extremely skillful administrator and policy strategist. The idea that he isn't a progressive and that electing him would be like "giving the finger to the progressive wing" is utter rubbish.
Bruh, I'm not even making a case against Perez as a candidate to do the job. Like I said, he could do the same things as vice chair. What I'm talking about is perception. A lesson you should be intimately familiar with at this point is that perception dictates political reality. It doesn't matter if Perez is better suited for the titled role, there is nothing to be gained by giving him that title, but plenty to lose.
It only serves as an act of dominance. Which I can assure you will have no benefit for the party's chances in 18 or 20.
|
On February 18 2017 00:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 00:51 ticklishmusic wrote:
if the bernie folks can be persuasive enough to get ellison elected then good for them. but if their chosen candidate isnt picked and they sit out the process and continue to let the country get further screwed by republicans, then that's their choice too.
Bernie folks aren't in for the R v D games. If that's the only way the Democrats can operate they're going to continue to lose. They are going to have to present a message that doesn't center around things like "stopping Republicans". If Trump manages to make it 4 years, the "But we have to stop Trump" argument is going to fall even flatter than it did in 16. Not to mention, if he doesn't, I guarantee you that Democrats lose the messaging fight and the majority ends up giving Republicans credit for stopping Trump if it comes to that.
it's not about opposing republicans for the sake of opposing republicans. it's about opposing their incredibly regressive agenda, which should be pretty fucking obvious.
if people are gonna be dense or just-not-inspired and continue to vote against (or just not vote for) their interests, then at a certain point it's not my problem. sure dems have messaging problems, but you can't pin the blame solely on them.
|
On February 18 2017 01:11 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 00:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2017 00:51 ticklishmusic wrote:
if the bernie folks can be persuasive enough to get ellison elected then good for them. but if their chosen candidate isnt picked and they sit out the process and continue to let the country get further screwed by republicans, then that's their choice too.
Bernie folks aren't in for the R v D games. If that's the only way the Democrats can operate they're going to continue to lose. They are going to have to present a message that doesn't center around things like "stopping Republicans". If Trump manages to make it 4 years, the "But we have to stop Trump" argument is going to fall even flatter than it did in 16. Not to mention, if he doesn't, I guarantee you that Democrats lose the messaging fight and the majority ends up giving Republicans credit for stopping Trump if it comes to that. it's not about opposing republicans for the sake of opposing republicans. it's about opposing their incredibly regressive agenda, which should be pretty fucking obvious. if people are gonna be dense or just-not-inspired and continue to vote against (or just not vote for) their interests, then at a certain point it's not my problem. sure dems have messaging problems, but you can't pin the blame solely on them.
I don't see how it could not be your problem, unless you're not really opposed to the Republican agenda?
Losing is still losing, doesn't matter if you were right.
EDIT: I don't think you're getting the point that "stopping the Republican's regressive agenda" isn't going to be enough. Democrats are going to have to bring their own positive vision of the future or just keep losing.
|
i don't think you get it. the dems have a positive vision for america, and a PART of that is stopping trump. it's like walking before running, step 1 comes before step 2, etc.
feel free to continue to blame the dems. we (because you've claimed numerous times you aren't one) will keep trying to make things better, with or without you. if you continue to sit out, then that's your prerogative, but the abdication of responsibility by your wing is absurd.
|
On February 18 2017 01:29 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't think you get it. the dems have a positive vision for america, and a PART of that is stopping trump. it's like walking before running, step 1 comes before step 2, etc.
feel free to continue to blame the dems. we (because you've claimed numerous times you aren't one) will keep trying to make things better, with or without you. if you continue to sit out, then that's your prerogative, but the abdication of responsibility by your wing is absurd.
You can try to scare, shame, lie us into submission, but it's not going to happen. America is leaving both parties, being obstinate about that reality isn't going to change it.
Democrats will keep losing and Americans will look elsewhere for solutions.
If all Democrats have is "stopping Republicans is step one" then they aren't going anywhere.
|
|
|
On February 18 2017 01:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 01:29 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't think you get it. the dems have a positive vision for america, and a PART of that is stopping trump. it's like walking before running, step 1 comes before step 2, etc.
feel free to continue to blame the dems. we (because you've claimed numerous times you aren't one) will keep trying to make things better, with or without you. if you continue to sit out, then that's your prerogative, but the abdication of responsibility by your wing is absurd. You can try to scare, shame, lie us into submission, but it's not going to happen. America is leaving both parties, being obstinate about that reality isn't going to change it. Democrats will keep losing and Americans will look elsewhere for solutions.
It kind of seems like you're also trying to scare and shame people center-left Democrats into submission. "Our road or the high road" is exactly what you're upset they did to progressives.
|
On February 18 2017 01:34 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 01:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2017 01:29 ticklishmusic wrote:
i don't think you get it. the dems have a positive vision for america, and a PART of that is stopping trump. it's like walking before running, step 1 comes before step 2, etc.
feel free to continue to blame the dems. we (because you've claimed numerous times you aren't one) will keep trying to make things better, with or without you. if you continue to sit out, then that's your prerogative, but the abdication of responsibility by your wing is absurd. You can try to scare, shame, lie us into submission, but it's not going to happen. America is leaving both parties, being obstinate about that reality isn't going to change it. Democrats will keep losing and Americans will look elsewhere for solutions. It kind of seems like you're also trying to scare and shame people center-left Democrats into submission. "Our road or the high road" is exactly what you're upset they did to progressives.
Well from one perspective it's a good strategy, Hillary folks have already shown that they can cast aside their ideals for dreams of victory ("who cares if she does every dirty campaign finance trick in the book, we can't unilaterally disarm" for example). If winning is so important to them, this should be a relatively small sacrifice.
|
On February 18 2017 01:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 01:03 kwizach wrote:Much of the case against Perez coming from certain posters here seems to boil down to "well Sanders endorsed Ellison and not him". Perez has a fantastic record when it comes to defending both workers' rights and civil rights, and is an extremely skillful administrator and policy strategist. The idea that he isn't a progressive and that electing him would be like "giving the finger to the progressive wing" is utter rubbish. Bruh, I'm not even making a case against Perez as a candidate to do the job. Like I said, he could do the same things as vice chair. What I'm talking about is perception. A lesson you should be intimately familiar with at this point is that perception dictates political reality. It doesn't matter if Perez is better suited for the titled role, there is nothing to be gained by giving him that title, but plenty to lose. It only serves as an act of dominance. Which I can assure you will have no benefit for the party's chances in 18 or 20.
No, the "perception" argument is the one you fall back to once your actual comments against Perez are addressed. Like I said, the idea that electing Perez "serves only as a finger to the progressive wing and basically lays without a rational explanation" is utter rubbish, given Perez' qualities and record, just like your comment that "it's the Obama voters that are thoroughly unimpressed with the former labor secretary's work in the rust belt" -- I'm eagerly waiting to see on what evidence and polls that comment is based on. You're not lamenting the erroneous perceptions of Perez found among some Bernie or Busters, you're actively perpetuating them.
If this was only a matter of perception as opposed to what the candidates actually bring to the job, then you should precisely be telling people to change their perception of Perez, seeing as he's a great champion of workers' rights and civil rights. You should also be denouncing Sanders' toxic rhetoric about Perez. Yet you're obviously not doing that, because the reason you're supporting Ellison and not Perez does not boil down to "perception".
|
Kwiz, I think you hugely underestimate how many people will lose hope in a party that chooses Perez. Not only does it defy Bernie, but it also signals doubling down on a losing strategy.
|
Bernie is just too damn old. If the democrats want reform, take someone younger. Where the fuck was "national" bernie during the bush years? That would have been his time.
|
Maybe he was off being his old Bernie self but fewer people listened to what he had to say?
|
On February 18 2017 01:37 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 01:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2017 01:03 kwizach wrote:Much of the case against Perez coming from certain posters here seems to boil down to "well Sanders endorsed Ellison and not him". Perez has a fantastic record when it comes to defending both workers' rights and civil rights, and is an extremely skillful administrator and policy strategist. The idea that he isn't a progressive and that electing him would be like "giving the finger to the progressive wing" is utter rubbish. Bruh, I'm not even making a case against Perez as a candidate to do the job. Like I said, he could do the same things as vice chair. What I'm talking about is perception. A lesson you should be intimately familiar with at this point is that perception dictates political reality. It doesn't matter if Perez is better suited for the titled role, there is nothing to be gained by giving him that title, but plenty to lose. It only serves as an act of dominance. Which I can assure you will have no benefit for the party's chances in 18 or 20. No, the "perception" argument is the one you fall back to once your actual comments against Perez are addressed. Like I said, the idea that electing Perez "serves only as a finger to the progressive wing and basically lays without a rational explanation" is utter rubbish, given Perez' qualities and record, just like your comment that "it's the Obama voters that are thoroughly unimpressed with the former labor secretary's work in the rust belt" -- I'm eagerly waiting to see on what evidence and polls that comment is based on. You're not lamenting the erroneous perceptions of Perez found among some Bernie or Busters, you're actively perpetuating them. If this was only a matter of perception as opposed to what the candidates actually bring to the job, then you should precisely be telling people to change their perception of Perez, seeing as he's a great champion of workers' rights and civil rights. You should also be denouncing Sanders' toxic rhetoric about Perez. Yet you're obviously not doing that, because the reason you're supporting Ellison and not Perez does not boil down to "perception".
lol. We disagree. I'm not really supporting Ellison, I think he understands what the Democratic party did wrong better than the people Perez represents, but the job is basically fundraising and being a figurehead. But this term it's perceived as much more than that. I think both Perez and Ellison have significant shortcomings, but that's not what I'm pointing out. I'm pointing out that there's nothing Perez can do as Chair that he can't do from vice-chair and that regardless if I spent every breath I took trying to disabuse people of the perception that he's giving the finger to the progressive wing (whether I agree with it or not) it's not going to change.
This argument itself is further evidence of how stupid of a fight this is in the first place.
EDIT: Maybe it would make more sense this way, finish this sentence:
Perez must be the chair of the Democratic party instead of Ellison because....
|
On February 18 2017 01:43 Velr wrote:
Bernie is just too damn old. If the democrats want reform, take someone younger. Where the fuck was "national" bernie during the bush years? That would have been his time.
Isn't that where people like Warren, Ellison and others along those lines come in?
On February 18 2017 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 01:37 kwizach wrote:On February 18 2017 01:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2017 01:03 kwizach wrote:Much of the case against Perez coming from certain posters here seems to boil down to "well Sanders endorsed Ellison and not him". Perez has a fantastic record when it comes to defending both workers' rights and civil rights, and is an extremely skillful administrator and policy strategist. The idea that he isn't a progressive and that electing him would be like "giving the finger to the progressive wing" is utter rubbish. Bruh, I'm not even making a case against Perez as a candidate to do the job. Like I said, he could do the same things as vice chair. What I'm talking about is perception. A lesson you should be intimately familiar with at this point is that perception dictates political reality. It doesn't matter if Perez is better suited for the titled role, there is nothing to be gained by giving him that title, but plenty to lose. It only serves as an act of dominance. Which I can assure you will have no benefit for the party's chances in 18 or 20. No, the "perception" argument is the one you fall back to once your actual comments against Perez are addressed. Like I said, the idea that electing Perez "serves only as a finger to the progressive wing and basically lays without a rational explanation" is utter rubbish, given Perez' qualities and record, just like your comment that "it's the Obama voters that are thoroughly unimpressed with the former labor secretary's work in the rust belt" -- I'm eagerly waiting to see on what evidence and polls that comment is based on. You're not lamenting the erroneous perceptions of Perez found among some Bernie or Busters, you're actively perpetuating them. If this was only a matter of perception as opposed to what the candidates actually bring to the job, then you should precisely be telling people to change their perception of Perez, seeing as he's a great champion of workers' rights and civil rights. You should also be denouncing Sanders' toxic rhetoric about Perez. Yet you're obviously not doing that, because the reason you're supporting Ellison and not Perez does not boil down to "perception". lol. We disagree. I'm not really supporting Ellison, I think he understands what the Democratic party did wrong better than the people Perez represents, but the job is basically fundraising and being a figurehead. But this term it's perceived as much more than that. I think both Perez and Ellison have significant shortcomings, but that's not what I'm pointing out. I'm pointing out that there's nothing Perez can do as Chair that he can't do from vice-chair and that regardless if I spent every breath I took trying to disabuse people of the perception that he's giving the finger to the progressive wing (whether I agree with it or not) it's not going to change. This argument itself is further evidence of how stupid of a fight this is in the first place.
One of the lines of attack against the democrats is how they are paid for by Wall St and serve those interests (among other groups from the donor class). In that respect the fundraising style of the party is pretty important for the years ahead. If you want to both draw new people in and fire up the more progressive/socialist people grassroots fundraising is an important part of that.
|
On February 18 2017 01:40 Mohdoo wrote:
Kwiz, I think you hugely underestimate how many people will lose hope in a party that chooses Perez. Not only does it defy Bernie, but it also signals doubling down on a losing strategy.
I guess that might be true. But I also feel like Ellison was anointed by Bernie and I have not seen a lot of arguments why he is the guy for the job over anyone else. The democrats need to win large sections of the county back.
|
On February 18 2017 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 01:37 kwizach wrote:On February 18 2017 01:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2017 01:03 kwizach wrote:Much of the case against Perez coming from certain posters here seems to boil down to "well Sanders endorsed Ellison and not him". Perez has a fantastic record when it comes to defending both workers' rights and civil rights, and is an extremely skillful administrator and policy strategist. The idea that he isn't a progressive and that electing him would be like "giving the finger to the progressive wing" is utter rubbish. Bruh, I'm not even making a case against Perez as a candidate to do the job. Like I said, he could do the same things as vice chair. What I'm talking about is perception. A lesson you should be intimately familiar with at this point is that perception dictates political reality. It doesn't matter if Perez is better suited for the titled role, there is nothing to be gained by giving him that title, but plenty to lose. It only serves as an act of dominance. Which I can assure you will have no benefit for the party's chances in 18 or 20. No, the "perception" argument is the one you fall back to once your actual comments against Perez are addressed. Like I said, the idea that electing Perez "serves only as a finger to the progressive wing and basically lays without a rational explanation" is utter rubbish, given Perez' qualities and record, just like your comment that "it's the Obama voters that are thoroughly unimpressed with the former labor secretary's work in the rust belt" -- I'm eagerly waiting to see on what evidence and polls that comment is based on. You're not lamenting the erroneous perceptions of Perez found among some Bernie or Busters, you're actively perpetuating them. If this was only a matter of perception as opposed to what the candidates actually bring to the job, then you should precisely be telling people to change their perception of Perez, seeing as he's a great champion of workers' rights and civil rights. You should also be denouncing Sanders' toxic rhetoric about Perez. Yet you're obviously not doing that, because the reason you're supporting Ellison and not Perez does not boil down to "perception". lol. We disagree. I'm not really supporting Ellison, I think he understands what the Democratic party did wrong better than the people Perez represents, but the job is basically fundraising and being a figurehead. But this term it's perceived as much more than that. I think both Perez and Ellison have significant shortcomings, but that's not what I'm pointing out. I'm pointing out that there's nothing Perez can do as Chair that he can't do from vice-chair and that regardless if I spent every breath I took trying to disabuse people of the perception that he's giving the finger to the progressive wing (whether I agree with it or not) it's not going to change. This argument itself is further evidence of how stupid of a fight this is in the first place. EDIT: Maybe it would make more sense this way, finish this sentence: Perez must be the chair of the Democratic party instead of Ellison because....
now you're contradicting yourself. earlier you said perez has pretty much all the right ideas and ellison is purely symbolic. but now ellison is the one with his finger on the pulse of america.
i don't think anyone said perez MUST be chair. like i said, i'm about 55/45. i just find it ridiculous that ellison being what you've acknowledged is a largely symbolic chair matters to other people so much that they would abandon what is their best chance to move in the direction of their vision for america.
i'm laying out the facts as i see them. it's not coercion or anything like that, but to call it that seems rather defensive.
if people are going to look "somewhere else" that isnt the dems to find solutions, then i wish them the best of luck. until then i will stick with the group that brought us social safety nets and civil rights.
|
Haven't been following the DNC chair issues much, as I don't have to make a decision on the matter myself not much need to.
but it does remind me of the issue that as private organizations, the dem party gets to make up its own mind on the matter through soem process (which i'm not familiar with), despite the fact that it will have real effects on the future governance of the country.
I just wonder if the parties should be subject to some of the oversight rules of government agencies, given how intertwined they are with the governance of the country.
|
On February 18 2017 01:47 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 01:43 Velr wrote:
Bernie is just too damn old. If the democrats want reform, take someone younger. Where the fuck was "national" bernie during the bush years? That would have been his time. Isn't that where people like Warren, Ellison and others along those lines come in? t.
Yes, they should.
But look at GH, he only wants his personal messiah. As a Dem I would hope that Trump and the Reps actually get something done so the rural people truely feel what they voted for...
Obama was a chance for a generational mix up, didn't happen. Now there is trump that feels more and more senile and there was hillary that feinted, while barack is waterskiing AFTER his 8 years.
|
On February 18 2017 01:56 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 01:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2017 01:37 kwizach wrote:On February 18 2017 01:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 18 2017 01:03 kwizach wrote:Much of the case against Perez coming from certain posters here seems to boil down to "well Sanders endorsed Ellison and not him". Perez has a fantastic record when it comes to defending both workers' rights and civil rights, and is an extremely skillful administrator and policy strategist. The idea that he isn't a progressive and that electing him would be like "giving the finger to the progressive wing" is utter rubbish. Bruh, I'm not even making a case against Perez as a candidate to do the job. Like I said, he could do the same things as vice chair. What I'm talking about is perception. A lesson you should be intimately familiar with at this point is that perception dictates political reality. It doesn't matter if Perez is better suited for the titled role, there is nothing to be gained by giving him that title, but plenty to lose. It only serves as an act of dominance. Which I can assure you will have no benefit for the party's chances in 18 or 20. No, the "perception" argument is the one you fall back to once your actual comments against Perez are addressed. Like I said, the idea that electing Perez "serves only as a finger to the progressive wing and basically lays without a rational explanation" is utter rubbish, given Perez' qualities and record, just like your comment that "it's the Obama voters that are thoroughly unimpressed with the former labor secretary's work in the rust belt" -- I'm eagerly waiting to see on what evidence and polls that comment is based on. You're not lamenting the erroneous perceptions of Perez found among some Bernie or Busters, you're actively perpetuating them. If this was only a matter of perception as opposed to what the candidates actually bring to the job, then you should precisely be telling people to change their perception of Perez, seeing as he's a great champion of workers' rights and civil rights. You should also be denouncing Sanders' toxic rhetoric about Perez. Yet you're obviously not doing that, because the reason you're supporting Ellison and not Perez does not boil down to "perception". lol. We disagree. I'm not really supporting Ellison, I think he understands what the Democratic party did wrong better than the people Perez represents, but the job is basically fundraising and being a figurehead. But this term it's perceived as much more than that. I think both Perez and Ellison have significant shortcomings, but that's not what I'm pointing out. I'm pointing out that there's nothing Perez can do as Chair that he can't do from vice-chair and that regardless if I spent every breath I took trying to disabuse people of the perception that he's giving the finger to the progressive wing (whether I agree with it or not) it's not going to change. This argument itself is further evidence of how stupid of a fight this is in the first place. EDIT: Maybe it would make more sense this way, finish this sentence: Perez must be the chair of the Democratic party instead of Ellison because.... now you're contradicting yourself. earlier you said perez has pretty much all the right ideas and ellison is purely symbolic. but now ellison is the one with his finger on the pulse of america. i don't think anyone said perez MUST be chair. like i said, i'm about 55/45. i'm just pointing out i find it ridiculous that ellison being what you've acknowledged is a largely symbolic chair matters to other people so much that they would abandon what is their best chance to move in the direction of their vision for america.
I think you might want to reread what I've said?
Why I said "must" is because it's not going to make a significant difference to what the DNC does one way or the other (unless they aren't being honest about their intentions). But it will make a gigantic difference in perception rightly or not. Lamenting that people make choices based off of incomplete information isn't going to make the phenomena go away, this "deal with the hand your dealt' stuff comes right out of Hillary's playbook so I don't quite understand why the same folks are so oppositional to it.
On February 18 2017 02:02 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2017 01:47 Logo wrote:On February 18 2017 01:43 Velr wrote:
Bernie is just too damn old. If the democrats want reform, take someone younger. Where the fuck was "national" bernie during the bush years? That would have been his time. Isn't that where people like Warren, Ellison and others along those lines come in? t. Yes, they should. But look at GH, he only wants his personal messiah. As a Dem I would hope that Trump and the Reps actually get something done so the rural people truely feel what they voted for...
lol I'd be thrilled if Bernie didn't have to run, and Hillary folks are the ones who called their candidate "goddess" Bernie is just palatable. This kind of taunting is silly.
Nina Turner would be my favorite when it comes to vision of a future, but I don't know if she can get the credentials I would like to see before 2020, though the American public clearly has lower standards than myself in that regard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
