|
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 24 2017 12:32 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 12:25 Nevuk wrote:I found this humorous. Not really sure how this would even work. One Republican Iowa State Senator is so sick of liberal professors brainwashing students at local universities, he has a rather innovative approach to try to purge the school system of the overwhelming bias. State Sen. Mark Chelgren is proposing a bill that would impose an ideological litmus test of sorts, in which the university would keep tabs on individual professors’ party affiliation. He calls it an attempt to “balance” the political affiliations in faculty and staff at institutions of higher learning.
Here’s how it would basically work. The bill says:
“A person shall not be hired as a professor instructor member of the faculty at such an institution if the person’s political party affiliation on the date of hire would cause the percentage of the faculty belonging to one political party to exceed by ten percent the percentage of the faculty belonging to the other political party.”
Each year the state commissioner of elections would provide “free of charge” voter registration records for employees at each public university. The bill would prohibit universities from hiring professors that exceed the party affiliation limitations. The bill would allow teachers to register as “no party” and they would not be counted in the overall total.
“We have an awful lot of taxpayer dollars that go to support these fine universities,” Chelgren said in a recent interview. “(Students) should be able to go to their professors, ask opinions, and they should know publicly whether that professor is a Republican or Democrat or no-party affiliation, and therefore they can expect their answers to be given in as honest a way possible. But they should have the ability to ask questions of professors of different political ideologies.”
One local blogger called the bill a “soviet-style” purge.
“The most disturbing aspect of Chelgren’s legislation, however, is that it is outright fascist. Republicans haven’t even spent two full months in power at the Iowa Statehouse and they’re already trying to impose a one-party rule in the state in perpetuity. You’re a registered Democrat? You’re banned from getting a job,” said Pat Rynard with the Iowa Starting Line.
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/new-state-bill-would-purge-universities-of-liberal-professors/ Is this actually a thing, or just random crap? Sounds too stupid to be true.
people think of these kind of laws a lot. sometimes to make a point sometimes to actually try to pass it. This has 0 chance of being passed and probably won’t even be officially proposed so it’s just making a point.
|
On February 24 2017 12:25 Nevuk wrote:I found this humorous. Not really sure how this would even work. Show nested quote +One Republican Iowa State Senator is so sick of liberal professors brainwashing students at local universities, he has a rather innovative approach to try to purge the school system of the overwhelming bias. State Sen. Mark Chelgren is proposing a bill that would impose an ideological litmus test of sorts, in which the university would keep tabs on individual professors’ party affiliation. He calls it an attempt to “balance” the political affiliations in faculty and staff at institutions of higher learning.
Here’s how it would basically work. The bill says:
“A person shall not be hired as a professor instructor member of the faculty at such an institution if the person’s political party affiliation on the date of hire would cause the percentage of the faculty belonging to one political party to exceed by ten percent the percentage of the faculty belonging to the other political party.”
Each year the state commissioner of elections would provide “free of charge” voter registration records for employees at each public university. The bill would prohibit universities from hiring professors that exceed the party affiliation limitations. The bill would allow teachers to register as “no party” and they would not be counted in the overall total.
“We have an awful lot of taxpayer dollars that go to support these fine universities,” Chelgren said in a recent interview. “(Students) should be able to go to their professors, ask opinions, and they should know publicly whether that professor is a Republican or Democrat or no-party affiliation, and therefore they can expect their answers to be given in as honest a way possible. But they should have the ability to ask questions of professors of different political ideologies.”
One local blogger called the bill a “soviet-style” purge.
“The most disturbing aspect of Chelgren’s legislation, however, is that it is outright fascist. Republicans haven’t even spent two full months in power at the Iowa Statehouse and they’re already trying to impose a one-party rule in the state in perpetuity. You’re a registered Democrat? You’re banned from getting a job,” said Pat Rynard with the Iowa Starting Line.
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/new-state-bill-would-purge-universities-of-liberal-professors/
Top 10 dumbest things I have literally every read. My god. Im fine with him passing it if we 1. Start testing the intelligence of all congressmen and 2. They are forced to have the logos of any company or group that donated to them permanently embroidered on their suit.
|
On February 24 2017 12:32 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 12:25 Nevuk wrote:I found this humorous. Not really sure how this would even work. One Republican Iowa State Senator is so sick of liberal professors brainwashing students at local universities, he has a rather innovative approach to try to purge the school system of the overwhelming bias. State Sen. Mark Chelgren is proposing a bill that would impose an ideological litmus test of sorts, in which the university would keep tabs on individual professors’ party affiliation. He calls it an attempt to “balance” the political affiliations in faculty and staff at institutions of higher learning.
Here’s how it would basically work. The bill says:
“A person shall not be hired as a professor instructor member of the faculty at such an institution if the person’s political party affiliation on the date of hire would cause the percentage of the faculty belonging to one political party to exceed by ten percent the percentage of the faculty belonging to the other political party.”
Each year the state commissioner of elections would provide “free of charge” voter registration records for employees at each public university. The bill would prohibit universities from hiring professors that exceed the party affiliation limitations. The bill would allow teachers to register as “no party” and they would not be counted in the overall total.
“We have an awful lot of taxpayer dollars that go to support these fine universities,” Chelgren said in a recent interview. “(Students) should be able to go to their professors, ask opinions, and they should know publicly whether that professor is a Republican or Democrat or no-party affiliation, and therefore they can expect their answers to be given in as honest a way possible. But they should have the ability to ask questions of professors of different political ideologies.”
One local blogger called the bill a “soviet-style” purge.
“The most disturbing aspect of Chelgren’s legislation, however, is that it is outright fascist. Republicans haven’t even spent two full months in power at the Iowa Statehouse and they’re already trying to impose a one-party rule in the state in perpetuity. You’re a registered Democrat? You’re banned from getting a job,” said Pat Rynard with the Iowa Starting Line.
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/new-state-bill-would-purge-universities-of-liberal-professors/ Is this actually a thing, or just random crap? Sounds too stupid to be true.
It's been proposed by a state legislator (governs Iowa directly, about 3 million people). Whether or not it passes is an unknown. Also, whether or not it survives a challenge by the judicial branch is very doubtful (political orientation is usually viewed as free speech, and withholding federal funds from someone purely due to their political views is probably illegal ).
On February 24 2017 12:27 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 12:11 Nevuk wrote:
If Tom Perez becomes DNC chair, I will be convinced that the democrats are trying to run Hillary in 2020. What, specifically, do you not like about Tom Perez' record?
It's more who he's associated with than his specific record that bothers me, actually. He's endorsed by all the people in the party who failed. Failed is a large word, I know. Obama accomplished a lot, but most of his accomplishments are about to be demolished
I just want Hillary to go away so right wing people will stop linking nonsensical articles amongst themselves and others like this nonsense (dated today, apparently) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4251046/Illegal-Clinton-fundraiser-tape-fearing-life.html to redirect attention from things that actually matter.
|
even if hillary goes away, right wing crazies will still link nonsensical articles, they'll just be different articles.
redirection away from things that actually matter will always happen and be prominent, until humanity improves/changes.
|
On February 24 2017 12:40 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 12:27 kwizach wrote:On February 24 2017 12:11 Nevuk wrote:
If Tom Perez becomes DNC chair, I will be convinced that the democrats are trying to run Hillary in 2020. What, specifically, do you not like about Tom Perez' record? It's more who he's associated with than his specific record that bothers me, actually. He's endorsed by all the people in the party who failed. Failed is a large word, I know. Obama accomplished a lot, but most of his accomplishments are about to be demolished I just want Hillary to go away so right wing people will stop linking nonsensical articles amongst themselves and others like this nonsense (dated today, apparently) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4251046/Illegal-Clinton-fundraiser-tape-fearing-life.html to redirect attention from things that actually matter.
So basically you have zero grievances with Perez except that he hasn't been endorsed by Sanders. Thanks.
|
On February 24 2017 13:00 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 12:40 Nevuk wrote:On February 24 2017 12:27 kwizach wrote:On February 24 2017 12:11 Nevuk wrote:
If Tom Perez becomes DNC chair, I will be convinced that the democrats are trying to run Hillary in 2020. What, specifically, do you not like about Tom Perez' record? It's more who he's associated with than his specific record that bothers me, actually. He's endorsed by all the people in the party who failed. Failed is a large word, I know. Obama accomplished a lot, but most of his accomplishments are about to be demolished I just want Hillary to go away so right wing people will stop linking nonsensical articles amongst themselves and others like this nonsense (dated today, apparently) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4251046/Illegal-Clinton-fundraiser-tape-fearing-life.html to redirect attention from things that actually matter. So basically you have zero grievances with Perez except that he hasn't been endorsed by Sanders. Thanks.
Eh, while it would help, it's not the only reason. Ellison does have a lot of problems himself, but I do agree more strongly with his political views as well. I liked what I heard of the Indiana mayor more than either Perez or Ellison, but I really doubt they have the support to actually win.
Personally, I want the democrats to come out in favor of a public option. Is it realistic they could pass currently? No. But they should at least try. In my opinion the drain on employers paying for medical benefits is one of the largest issues in the american economy today.
On February 24 2017 12:43 zlefin wrote:
even if hillary goes away, right wing crazies will still link nonsensical articles, they'll just be different articles.
redirection away from things that actually matter will always happen and be prominent, until humanity improves/changes.
While this is definitely true, if I never hear the name Vince Foster uttered in a conspiratorial tone again it will be far too soon.
|
On February 24 2017 13:10 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 13:00 kwizach wrote:On February 24 2017 12:40 Nevuk wrote:On February 24 2017 12:27 kwizach wrote:On February 24 2017 12:11 Nevuk wrote:
If Tom Perez becomes DNC chair, I will be convinced that the democrats are trying to run Hillary in 2020. What, specifically, do you not like about Tom Perez' record? It's more who he's associated with than his specific record that bothers me, actually. He's endorsed by all the people in the party who failed. Failed is a large word, I know. Obama accomplished a lot, but most of his accomplishments are about to be demolished I just want Hillary to go away so right wing people will stop linking nonsensical articles amongst themselves and others like this nonsense (dated today, apparently) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4251046/Illegal-Clinton-fundraiser-tape-fearing-life.html to redirect attention from things that actually matter. So basically you have zero grievances with Perez except that he hasn't been endorsed by Sanders. Thanks. Eh, while it would help, it's not the only reason. Ellison does have a lot of problems himself, but I do agree more strongly with his political views as well. I liked what I heard of the Indiana mayor more than either Perez or Ellison, but I really doubt they have the support to actually win.
I have no problem with you preferring Ellison or Buttigieg over Perez. What I do have a problem with is ridiculously over-the-top and caricatural comments like "if Tom Perez becomes DNC chair, I will be convinced that the democrats are trying to run Hillary in 2020", where someone with a stellar record of defending civil rights and workers' rights gets smeared nonsensically because he wasn't endorsed by Sanders.
|
The whole Ellison vs Perez thing isn't even that contentious on the ground. All the interviews I'm reading seem friendly and that they are all trying work to oppose Trump. The drama being created is purely online and among supporters.
|
On February 24 2017 12:27 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 12:11 Nevuk wrote:
If Tom Perez becomes DNC chair, I will be convinced that the democrats are trying to run Hillary in 2020. What, specifically, do you not like about Tom Perez' record?
This question succinctly encapsulates why Perez may win and why Democrats will lose (even if they pick up some seats).
In the grand philosophical sense the answer to the question matters, but in the political reality of the US it's almost worthless.
On February 24 2017 13:00 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 12:40 Nevuk wrote:On February 24 2017 12:27 kwizach wrote:On February 24 2017 12:11 Nevuk wrote:
If Tom Perez becomes DNC chair, I will be convinced that the democrats are trying to run Hillary in 2020. What, specifically, do you not like about Tom Perez' record? It's more who he's associated with than his specific record that bothers me, actually. He's endorsed by all the people in the party who failed. Failed is a large word, I know. Obama accomplished a lot, but most of his accomplishments are about to be demolished I just want Hillary to go away so right wing people will stop linking nonsensical articles amongst themselves and others like this nonsense (dated today, apparently) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4251046/Illegal-Clinton-fundraiser-tape-fearing-life.html to redirect attention from things that actually matter. So basically you have zero grievances with Perez except that he hasn't been endorsed by Sanders. Thanks.
This response is equally impressive on similar merits.
You have the head in the sand political awareness, the "he's a progressive even if Sanders doesn't endorse him", and the unprovoked superiority snark as if he was the target of either of the previous posts.
To put it plainly, it doesn't matter what Perez is (I'm not interested in actually pointing out where we disagree on his positions), it matters what people perceive. Democrats won't just lose the people they already lost (and cost Hillary the election for about a week until Democrats went with full RUSSIA!) they will lose even more people who held their nose to vote Hillary to stop Trump, but won't be fooled like that again.
But you know, double down with this "you Bernie folks are just like Trump supporters! You don't know what's good for you! Just shut up and love Democrats!" Should work out great.
On February 24 2017 13:48 Plansix wrote:
The whole Ellison vs Perez thing isn't even that contentious on the ground. All the interviews I'm reading seem friendly and that they are all trying work to oppose Trump. The drama being created is purely online and among supporters.
It's mostly the groups Hillary lost in the primary. For obvious reasons the vast majority of Millennials are the ones that won't be in a party with Perez as chair.
And again this is a mostly ceremonial position, so that Perez's advocates should be able to recognize that they have far more to gain by just not forcing him into the title. Like fuck. If you can't give us Ellison, who had to water himself down and weather dumbass anti-Semitic charges among other stuff, in a position that will only have superficial influence, while he openly says Perez will be able to do anything he would have done as chair... It not only shows the party STILL doesn't get it AT ALL, but they are still terrible at faking it.
|
I'm more of a single issue person. If Perez endorsed a public healthcare option, I would be for him. I've honestly not heard a full throated endorsement of it by Ellison either, which is somewhat worrying to me. I don't even have an objection to corporations having influence on the party. I have an objection to corporations in industries which shouldn't be entirely private in the first place having influence. If something is essential for a person to be an effective, working member of society then it should be accessible to all members of society. There are more things that fit this category than just healthcare, but healthcare is one of the most essential things and that our society treats it as a luxury is absurd. If the business model of health insurance companies could not accommodate the existence of a public option, then they should not be a business.
|
On February 24 2017 13:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 12:27 kwizach wrote:On February 24 2017 12:11 Nevuk wrote:
If Tom Perez becomes DNC chair, I will be convinced that the democrats are trying to run Hillary in 2020. What, specifically, do you not like about Tom Perez' record? This question succinctly encapsulates why Perez may win and why Democrats will lose (even if they pick up some seats). In the grand philosophical sense the answer to the question matters, but in the political reality of the US it's almost worthless.
I am reacting to Nevuk's specific comments on Perez and a 2020 Clinton candidacy. The answer matters to my exchange with Nevuk -- I am not discussing how some other Sanders supporters see Perez and the political implications of their perceptions, I am asking Nevuk about his specific position.
On February 24 2017 13:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 13:00 kwizach wrote:On February 24 2017 12:40 Nevuk wrote:On February 24 2017 12:27 kwizach wrote:On February 24 2017 12:11 Nevuk wrote:
If Tom Perez becomes DNC chair, I will be convinced that the democrats are trying to run Hillary in 2020. What, specifically, do you not like about Tom Perez' record? It's more who he's associated with than his specific record that bothers me, actually. He's endorsed by all the people in the party who failed. Failed is a large word, I know. Obama accomplished a lot, but most of his accomplishments are about to be demolished I just want Hillary to go away so right wing people will stop linking nonsensical articles amongst themselves and others like this nonsense (dated today, apparently) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4251046/Illegal-Clinton-fundraiser-tape-fearing-life.html to redirect attention from things that actually matter. So basically you have zero grievances with Perez except that he hasn't been endorsed by Sanders. Thanks. This response is equally impressive on similar merits. You have the head in the sand political awareness, the "he's a progressive even if Sanders doesn't endorse him", and the unprovoked superiority snark as if he was the target of either of the previous posts. To put it plainly, it doesn't matter what Perez is (I'm not interested in actually pointing out where we disagree on his positions), it matters what people perceive. Democrats won't just lose the people they already lost (and cost Hillary the election for about a week until Democrats went with full RUSSIA!) they will lose even more people who held their nose to vote Hillary to stop Trump, but won't be fooled like that again. But you know, double down with this "you Bernie folks are just like Trump supporters! You don't know what's good for you! Just shut up and love Democrats!" Should work out great.
You're caricaturing the discussion. Again, I was asking Nevuk about his specific views of Perez in order to clarify if there was anything about Perez himself that he disliked. Yet if you want to broaden the discussion, I'll argue that:
1. You're vastly overestimating how many of the "millenials" who'll be voting in 2018 and 2020 care about whether Perez or Ellison end up as DNC chair.
2. Perceptions are not static. Perez would be a great DNC chair, and would undoubtedly work with Ellison going forward. While some people may be uninformed today about Perez' record, that doesn't mean their perceptions of him won't improve over time.
3. The perceptions of Perez that lead some people to declare they won't vote for Democrats in 2018 and 2020 if he's chair are so ridiculously unjustified with regards to his record that you should already be joining me in discussing it to clarify that he's an honest, dedicated, progressive and capable public servant. That's one way of changing perceptions -- by getting people out of their echo chamber.
4. Nobody is telling you to "shut up and love Democrats" -- please stop playing the victim. Discussing and defending Perez' record is not akin to telling you to shut up. Perhaps you should try to stop shutting down debates by smugly declaring that nobody "gets it" except those who bow down to the perceptions of Perez held by a tiny fraction of the electorate -- as if nobody had any agency.
|
On February 24 2017 13:37 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 13:10 Nevuk wrote:On February 24 2017 13:00 kwizach wrote:On February 24 2017 12:40 Nevuk wrote:On February 24 2017 12:27 kwizach wrote:On February 24 2017 12:11 Nevuk wrote:
If Tom Perez becomes DNC chair, I will be convinced that the democrats are trying to run Hillary in 2020. What, specifically, do you not like about Tom Perez' record? It's more who he's associated with than his specific record that bothers me, actually. He's endorsed by all the people in the party who failed. Failed is a large word, I know. Obama accomplished a lot, but most of his accomplishments are about to be demolished I just want Hillary to go away so right wing people will stop linking nonsensical articles amongst themselves and others like this nonsense (dated today, apparently) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4251046/Illegal-Clinton-fundraiser-tape-fearing-life.html to redirect attention from things that actually matter. So basically you have zero grievances with Perez except that he hasn't been endorsed by Sanders. Thanks. Eh, while it would help, it's not the only reason. Ellison does have a lot of problems himself, but I do agree more strongly with his political views as well. I liked what I heard of the Indiana mayor more than either Perez or Ellison, but I really doubt they have the support to actually win. I have no problem with you preferring Ellison or Buttigieg over Perez. What I do have a problem with is ridiculously over-the-top and caricatural comments like "if Tom Perez becomes DNC chair, I will be convinced that the democrats are trying to run Hillary in 2020", where someone with a stellar record of defending civil rights and workers' rights gets smeared nonsensically because he wasn't endorsed by Sanders.
It seems we are, in many ways, in a post-fact world where the actual record of the candidates is irrelevant to the public perception, because the public is too lazy or stupid to actually look at their records. I can't exactly excuse myself from this criticism – I haven't looked much at their records either – but my reaction is to think "I'm not informed enough about these candidates to have a preference between them." But the narrative being sold by everyone from GH to Donald Trump is that the Democrats lost in 2016 because they didn't "get it," and those same Democrats that still don't "get it" are backing Perez. Ellison is someone who "gets it," and he's backed by people that "get it," so if the Democrats don't pick him, they're doubling down on not "getting it" and they deserve to lose for the rest of eternity.
What's that narrative based on? I seldom see actual facts presented backing it up. From what little I've gathered about these candidates, none of them are particularly "establishment." Perez' experience is with labor, right? Isn't the WWC what everybody says the Democrats forgot about in 2016? Wouldn't someone with expertise in labor be well-positioned to correct that error? It seems like even if we buy that the DNC lost 2016 because they were a bunch of old establishment fuddy-duddies who didn't "get it," it's perfectly conceivable that none of the candidates are really in line with those fuddy-duddies because anybody with an internet connection has read by now how those fuddy-duddies lost the election, and none of them are interested in repeating that experience.
But if you view everything in a populist/establishment dichotomy, you have to find a way to impose those labels on the current race. That means you have to figure out which one is establishment, and which one is populist, so people just look at the endorsements and decide from that. Biden, Obama, etc. endorsed Perez? Oh, he's establishment then. Sanders endorsed Ellison? Oh, okay, he's the populist that "gets it." Given the lack of nuance people have applied to explaining the 2016 election, it's not surprising that a similar lack of nuance is being applied to how the DNC should adjust.
GH's point (if I understand it correctly) is that it doesn't matter if everybody's an idiot for thinking Perez is an establishment fuddy-duddy, because even if they're wrong, they'll still perceive his victory as the DNC sticking its head in the sand. Then the GHs of the world will continue with their protest votes because they insist the Democrats haven't learned their lesson yet, the Trumps of the world will keep riding this situation to electoral victories, and the GHs will turn around each time and say "See Democrats? You clearly didn't learn your lesson, because you lost again." It's a vicious cycle, a self-fulfilling prophesy, but the only way the Democrats can break it is to completely cave to what these people want. If the Democrats unanimously crowned Bernie Sanders the Honorable King of Democrats tomorrow, and in every action imitated the Sanders campaign, at least nobody could accuse them of disregarding Sanders voters. Then when they lost the next election the Clinton supporters could come out of the woodwork with "I told you so's" about how Sanders voters are wingnuts and their message lacks the broad appeal to win general elections.
Of course in either of these scenarios they lose elections. As far as I can tell the only way for them to win elections is to break this narrative. As long as they allow their candidates' qualifications to become completely sidelined by some variant of an us vs. them narrative, it won't matter who they run against someone, it will just matter who convinces more people their side is the "us" and the other side is the "them." Trump, for all his faults, is really good at that sort of thing. When you get down to actual facts – the kind that take careful, time-consuming research – he fails.
|
On February 24 2017 13:58 Nevuk wrote:
I'm more of a single issue person. If Perez endorsed a public healthcare option, I would be for him. I've honestly not heard a full throated endorsement of it by Ellison either, which is somewhat worrying to me. I don't even have an objection to corporations having influence on the party. I have an objection to corporations in industries which shouldn't be entirely private in the first place having influence. If something is essential for a person to be an effective, working member of society then it should be accessible to all members of society. There are more things that fit this category than just healthcare, but healthcare is one of the most essential things and that our society treats it as a luxury is absurd. If the business model of health insurance companies could not accommodate the existence of a public option, then they should not be a business.
so as a single issue public option voter can you back up why you prefer the public option in particular as a good way to improve healthcare in the united states compared to a various other systems in places like switzerland, germany, the netherlands, the UK, australia, singapore, taiwan, or even ones proposed by various healthcare groups? and how would you implement a public option given the existing healthcare infrastructure that we have?
|
On February 24 2017 14:34 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 13:37 kwizach wrote:On February 24 2017 13:10 Nevuk wrote:On February 24 2017 13:00 kwizach wrote:On February 24 2017 12:40 Nevuk wrote:On February 24 2017 12:27 kwizach wrote:On February 24 2017 12:11 Nevuk wrote:
If Tom Perez becomes DNC chair, I will be convinced that the democrats are trying to run Hillary in 2020. What, specifically, do you not like about Tom Perez' record? It's more who he's associated with than his specific record that bothers me, actually. He's endorsed by all the people in the party who failed. Failed is a large word, I know. Obama accomplished a lot, but most of his accomplishments are about to be demolished I just want Hillary to go away so right wing people will stop linking nonsensical articles amongst themselves and others like this nonsense (dated today, apparently) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4251046/Illegal-Clinton-fundraiser-tape-fearing-life.html to redirect attention from things that actually matter. So basically you have zero grievances with Perez except that he hasn't been endorsed by Sanders. Thanks. Eh, while it would help, it's not the only reason. Ellison does have a lot of problems himself, but I do agree more strongly with his political views as well. I liked what I heard of the Indiana mayor more than either Perez or Ellison, but I really doubt they have the support to actually win. I have no problem with you preferring Ellison or Buttigieg over Perez. What I do have a problem with is ridiculously over-the-top and caricatural comments like "if Tom Perez becomes DNC chair, I will be convinced that the democrats are trying to run Hillary in 2020", where someone with a stellar record of defending civil rights and workers' rights gets smeared nonsensically because he wasn't endorsed by Sanders. It seems we are, in many ways, in a post-fact world where the actual record of the candidates is irrelevant to the public perception, because the public is too lazy or stupid to actually look at their records. I can't exactly excuse myself from this criticism – I haven't looked much at their records either – but my reaction is to think "I'm not informed enough about these candidates to have a preference between them." But the narrative being sold by everyone from GH to Donald Trump is that the Democrats lost in 2016 because they didn't "get it," and those same Democrats that still don't "get it" are backing Perez. Ellison is someone who "gets it," and he's backed by people that "get it," so if the Democrats don't pick him, they're doubling down on not "getting it" and they deserve to lose for the rest of eternity. What's that narrative based on? I seldom see actual facts presented backing it up. From what little I've gathered about these candidates, none of them are particularly "establishment." Perez' experience is with labor, right? Isn't the WWC what everybody says the Democrats forgot about in 2016? Wouldn't someone with expertise in labor be well-positioned to correct that error? It seems like even if we buy that the DNC lost 2016 because they were a bunch of old establishment fuddy-duddies who didn't "get it," it's perfectly conceivable that none of the candidates are really in line with those fuddy-duddies because anybody with an internet connection has read by now how those fuddy-duddies lost the election, and none of them are interested in repeating that experience. But if you view everything in a populist/establishment dichotomy, you have to find a way to impose those labels on the current race. That means you have to figure out which one is establishment, and which one is populist, so people just look at the endorsements and decide from that. Biden, Obama, etc. endorsed Perez? Oh, he's establishment then. Sanders endorsed Ellison? Oh, okay, he's the populist that "gets it." Given the lack of nuance people have applied to explaining the 2016 election, it's not surprising that a similar lack of nuance is being applied to how the DNC should adjust. GH's point (if I understand it correctly) is that it doesn't matter if everybody's an idiot for thinking Perez is an establishment fuddy-duddy, because even if they're wrong, they'll still perceive his victory as the DNC sticking its head in the sand. Then the GHs of the world will continue with their protest votes because they insist the Democrats haven't learned their lesson yet, the Trumps of the world will keep riding this situation to electoral victories, and the GHs will turn around each time and say "See Democrats? You clearly didn't learn your lesson, because you lost again." It's a vicious cycle, a self-fulfilling prophesy, but the only way the Democrats can break it is to completely cave to what these people want. If the Democrats unanimously crowned Bernie Sanders the Honorable King of Democrats tomorrow, and in every action imitated the Sanders campaign, at least nobody could accuse them of disregarding Sanders voters. Then when they lost the next election the Clinton supporters could come out of the woodwork with "I told you so's" about how Sanders voters are wingnuts and their message lacks the broad appeal to win general elections. Of course in either of these scenarios they lose elections. As far as I can tell the only way for them to win elections is to break this narrative. As long as they allow their candidates' qualifications to become completely sidelined by some variant of an us vs. them narrative, it won't matter who they run against someone, it will just matter who convinces more people their side is the "us" and the other side is the "them." Trump, for all his faults, is really good at that sort of thing. When you get down to actual facts – the kind that take careful, time-consuming research – he fails.
I mostly think you at least get the political reality. The bold part is wrong, I don't like Perez for a lot of reasons one just from last night was his piss poor response to the question about TPP.
He could have either stuck by the administration's/his position on TPP or he could have said he was wrong to support it. Instead, he tried to split the baby and blame his position on the administration basically calling himself out as dishonest and throwing the administration under the bus at the same time.
Now I don't like his vocal support of TPP, but that's not even the point, he took a softball about the TPP and managed to botch it so bad he made both himself and the administration look bad.
Both Ellison and Perez basically said they would "publicly be neutral" while Ellison openly said that he would privately try to discourage primaries of Democrats like Claire McCaskill or Joe Manchin (Trump's most reliable Democrat supporter). That's the essence of "not getting it". That's why this whole thing is so ridiculous, Ellison has been increasingly aligning himself with the acceptable (within the DNC) views, alienating the more stubborn left wing Democrats. The left wing of the Democratic party is trying just to settle for someone who at least pays them convincing lip service, even if he's mostly caved on the most contentious stuff, and Democrats are like "but look at his resume, Perez is the best candidate". Like holy crap, how can people still not see this?
EDIT: But lets be real, the DNC isn't neutral, they're already helping McCaskill fund-raise and you can be sure they wouldn't offer the same to a challenger in the primary. The DNC isn't neutral and they'd have a better chance just stopping with the "it's our job to be neutral" and just cut straight to the "we'll pick and choose which Democrats we want to win primaries based on our discretion" and just try to sell that straight up. Instead of lying to us, then saying the opposite in the same breath and pretending like we didn't hear the second part.
On February 24 2017 14:39 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 13:58 Nevuk wrote:
I'm more of a single issue person. If Perez endorsed a public healthcare option, I would be for him. I've honestly not heard a full throated endorsement of it by Ellison either, which is somewhat worrying to me. I don't even have an objection to corporations having influence on the party. I have an objection to corporations in industries which shouldn't be entirely private in the first place having influence. If something is essential for a person to be an effective, working member of society then it should be accessible to all members of society. There are more things that fit this category than just healthcare, but healthcare is one of the most essential things and that our society treats it as a luxury is absurd. If the business model of health insurance companies could not accommodate the existence of a public option, then they should not be a business. so as a single issue public option voter can you back up why you prefer the public option in particular as a good way to improve healthcare in the united states compared to a various other systems in places like switzerland, germany, the netherlands, the UK, australia, singapore, taiwan, or even ones proposed by various healthcare groups? and how would you implement a public option given the existing healthcare infrastructure that we have?
Democrats need to take a page from Republicans and worry about the how later, win the house, senate, and presidency running on bringing medicare for all period. Of course they should actually have a plan (basically boils down to removing the age cap on medicare and deciding how to pay for it, probably trade premiums for taxes) when they actually win. The private market wouldn't disappear overnight, it would just be focused on people who pay the tax and still have money left over to pay a premium for premium health service (nicer buildings and furnishings, prestigious doctors, etc...)
Democrats are repeating old mistakes if they try to hash out the details of medicare for all (negotiating with themselves) before they even have a path to being able to make it happen.
You want them to lose, have a discussion about the best way to bring about medicare-for-all, you want to win and actually get it, hammer into people's head that the reason they put off going to the doctor, the reason their uncle/father/mother/aunt/etc... died from that totally treatable condition is because they couldn't afford insurance and couldn't afford to wait in the ER for hours only to not receive any helpful treatment. And the only reason we haven't joined the rest of the "first world" in guaranteeing healthcare as a right is the damn Republicans.
What's sad is that I don't actually support doing that, but that's the only way Democrats are going to win, and here I am having to make the case to them about how it's unfortunate that they don't like it (like Hillary's campaign finance was for me and others) but it's something you're going to have to accept if you want to win.
In the most reductive terms I can think of, Democrats are playing chicken with Millennials who are at the "Give me a Democratic party worth a damn or give me death" stage. Without getting into the merit of their position, the reality is that they don't know how bad "bad" can be and they are still in the invincible stage, Democrats will lose this game. It's time for them to be the bigger person and accept the superficial defeat.
Or just act like the off duty cop that tried to murder a kid and tell everyone that he feared for his life because you didn't want to look like you lost the confrontation.
|
Confused about the bold part. Are you not figuring that if the Democrats don't get their shit together you'll continue to protest vote, even against an opponent as awful as Trump? It'd be bizarre for you to change your mind on the "lesser of two evils" argument now; if ever there was a case for it, it was 2016. And you yourself seem to be suggesting that the Democrats are going to lose if they don't give in to the left wingers that refuse to consolidate support behind Democrats even in the current nightmare. From context it sounds like you think the bolded part indicates that I think you don't have any substantive reasons you dislike Perez, which I certainly didn't mean to imply. While I do suspect that a majority of the people who would feel betrayed by Democrats if they chose Perez are even less informed on his qualifications than I am, I would bet that you specifically know a fair amount about both Perez and Ellison (maybe not all the lesser candidates like Buttigieg, but who could blame you for not bothering with all of them).
|
On February 24 2017 17:10 ChristianS wrote:
Confused about the bold part. Are you not figuring that if the Democrats don't get their shit together you'll continue to protest vote, even against an opponent as awful as Trump? It'd be bizarre for you to change your mind on the "lesser of two evils" argument now; if ever there was a case for it, it was 2016. And you yourself seem to be suggesting that the Democrats are going to lose if they don't give in to the left wingers that refuse to consolidate support behind Democrats even in the current nightmare. From context it sounds like you think the bolded part indicates that I think you don't have any substantive reasons you dislike Perez, which I certainly didn't mean to imply. While I do suspect that a majority of the people who would feel betrayed by Democrats if they chose Perez are even less informed on his qualifications than I am, I would bet that you specifically know a fair amount about both Perez and Ellison (maybe not all the lesser candidates like Buttigieg, but who could blame you for not bothering with all of them).
I was trying to differentiate between people who actually oppose Perez as chair for both the obvious practical political reasons, and because of issues with his positions (and how he characterizes them), and the people who are generally politically ignorant and oppose him because of the more superficial dichotomy. One way to tell the difference is if they know who Sam Ronan is or if they at least have qualms about Keith as well.
|
Picking perez would be a mistake I think. Green horizons laid it out pretty well in his posts above.
I fear that the democratic elite indeed does not realize the need to change. The other day I saw a few democrats discuss on tv about the future of the democratic party. "the demographic trends are still in our favor" was the thing that struck me most. And while true they put way to much trust in it. As if they feel it is just a matter of time till they will hold power permanently and that no real change is needed.
If the democrats wont change then I think with the next election they will face heavy competition from a 3rd progressive party at the left of them in the political spectrum. This election was already close,if sanders had ran independent he would have gotten a lot of votes.
|
On February 24 2017 12:40 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On February 24 2017 12:25 Nevuk wrote:I found this humorous. Not really sure how this would even work. One Republican Iowa State Senator is so sick of liberal professors brainwashing students at local universities, he has a rather innovative approach to try to purge the school system of the overwhelming bias. State Sen. Mark Chelgren is proposing a bill that would impose an ideological litmus test of sorts, in which the university would keep tabs on individual professors’ party affiliation. He calls it an attempt to “balance” the political affiliations in faculty and staff at institutions of higher learning.
Here’s how it would basically work. The bill says:
“A person shall not be hired as a professor instructor member of the faculty at such an institution if the person’s political party affiliation on the date of hire would cause the percentage of the faculty belonging to one political party to exceed by ten percent the percentage of the faculty belonging to the other political party.”
Each year the state commissioner of elections would provide “free of charge” voter registration records for employees at each public university. The bill would prohibit universities from hiring professors that exceed the party affiliation limitations. The bill would allow teachers to register as “no party” and they would not be counted in the overall total.
“We have an awful lot of taxpayer dollars that go to support these fine universities,” Chelgren said in a recent interview. “(Students) should be able to go to their professors, ask opinions, and they should know publicly whether that professor is a Republican or Democrat or no-party affiliation, and therefore they can expect their answers to be given in as honest a way possible. But they should have the ability to ask questions of professors of different political ideologies.”
One local blogger called the bill a “soviet-style” purge.
“The most disturbing aspect of Chelgren’s legislation, however, is that it is outright fascist. Republicans haven’t even spent two full months in power at the Iowa Statehouse and they’re already trying to impose a one-party rule in the state in perpetuity. You’re a registered Democrat? You’re banned from getting a job,” said Pat Rynard with the Iowa Starting Line.
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/new-state-bill-would-purge-universities-of-liberal-professors/ Top 10 dumbest things I have literally every read. My god. Im fine with him passing it if we 1. Start testing the intelligence of all congressmen and 2. They are forced to have the logos of any company or group that donated to them permanently embroidered on their suit.
Everything below $200k on the suit, everything above as a tattoo on their face. You can cut photos to avoid showing the suit, but it gets difficult if it's the face 
|
|
|
Read: If the intel community and the public find out everything they've heard about my campaign and Russia is true, I'm fucked. Help pls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
