|
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 October 20 2017 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Turns out Democrats really enjoy being losers. Show nested quote +Ousted and demoted DNC veterans reportedly include Ray Buckley, James Zogby, Alice Germond and Barbra Casbar Siperstein, the network reported, adding that a common thread linking many of them is their support of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), who ran against Perez for the chairmanship.
Buckley, who ran against Perez for the top DNC role before endorsing Ellison, was pushed out of his positions on the DNC's Executive Committee and Rules Committee, NBC News reported.
"I understand the chair can do as he pleases, but still, it's all just very disappointing," Buckley told the news outlet. Remember this is with Donna Brazile (admitted cheater) being ON the rules committee. The DNC is just hopeless.
I'm just so sad. I am, however, of the opinion that whatever we're gonna do, we gotta just commit to it and go ham on it and that we can't afford to be 50/50 split on every single decision. Perpetual infighting doesn't help either of the two wings in the democratic party. The party as a whole needs to restructure, adapt and transform its message and national strategy.
I feel compelled to see where they take this and what they now go on to do. What will their message on health care be? Military? I will skeptically hold my criticism until they actually establish a plan.
That being said, I would say I have roughly 20% confidence in the democratic party right now. If this dude takes out Roy Moore, I will hop aboard the centrist train. But I don't think that'll happen. And I don't think democrats will get the house or senate in 2018. I really expect this is just gonna be a huge mess.
|
On October 20 2017 06:00 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2017 05:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Turns out Democrats really enjoy being losers. https://twitter.com/thehill/status/921023185436463104Ousted and demoted DNC veterans reportedly include Ray Buckley, James Zogby, Alice Germond and Barbra Casbar Siperstein, the network reported, adding that a common thread linking many of them is their support of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), who ran against Perez for the chairmanship.
Buckley, who ran against Perez for the top DNC role before endorsing Ellison, was pushed out of his positions on the DNC's Executive Committee and Rules Committee, NBC News reported.
"I understand the chair can do as he pleases, but still, it's all just very disappointing," Buckley told the news outlet. Remember this is with Donna Brazile (admitted cheater) being ON the rules committee. The DNC is just hopeless. I'm just so sad. I am, however, of the opinion that whatever we're gonna do, we gotta just commit to it and go ham on it and that we can't afford to be 50/50 split on every single decision. Perpetual infighting doesn't help either of the two wings in the democratic party. The party as a whole needs to restructure, adapt and transform its message and national strategy. I feel compelled to see where they take this and what they now go on to do. What will their message on health care be? Military? I will skeptically hold my criticism until they actually establish a plan. That being said, I would say I have roughly 20% confidence in the democratic party right now. If this dude takes out Roy Moore, I will hop aboard the centrist train. But I don't think that'll happen. And I don't think democrats will get the house or senate in 2018. I really expect this is just gonna be a huge mess.
They are taking it to wherever their big money donors tell them to. Either you want to follow along or you don't.
|
The Democrats have failed to realize that although people despise the Republican Party, the same holds true for the Democrats, especially in the wake of the post-Sanders show of force. They failed to embrace the willing grassroots movement within the progressive wing of their party and they will continue to lose and lose and lose to the least competent of GOP opposition.
|
On October 20 2017 06:06 LegalLord wrote:
The Democrats have failed to realize that although people despise the Republican Party, the same holds true for the Democrats, especially in the wake of the post-Sanders show of force. They failed to embrace the willing grassroots movement within the progressive wing of their party and they will continue to lose and lose and lose to the least competent of GOP opposition.
It is interesting how republican grassroots stuff was just barely powerful enough to where the establishment didn't really have a choice. Grassroots democratic movements haven't had 8 years of opposition to energize their base. It isn't really fair to compare the two. One party being in power really motivates the other party to get involved and "take back" the country. Meanwhile, people who are pretty much cool with the fact that their party is doing well, just hang out. What allowed the grassroots movement of the republicans to finally go over the top was the formally somewhat-centrist getting on board with the tea party and things like that.
When people hit a certain point of continuous losing, they look for anyone that'll make them feel heard and like they are winning. I expect a large segment of the democrats currently ages 40-60 will start to come around and see the value in the Sanders philosophies.
I guess TLDR is that 8 years of Obama helped energize the grassroots republicans whereas democrats are only starting to lose their minds. I wouldn't say the left is doing much worse than the right was shortly after Obama was elected. We are just in a really grim state right now.
|
I wager in 2020 or 2024 there will be a big third party presence unseen since probably 1992. So much dissatisfaction with party establishments from both wings.
|
people cycle on and off committees. they brought on a ton of younger and minority folks, which means not everyone is going to keep their old seat.
i'll bet that plenty of "establishment dems" also lost their appointments, but that's probably not as interesting of a story.
|
I'm pretty sure the democratic party is trying to play Russian roulette. They're gambling hatred of trump will outweigh hatred of them. This sounds so familiar I wonder if DWS and Clinton planned it
|
On October 20 2017 06:15 ticklishmusic wrote:
people cycle on and off committees. they brought on a ton of younger and minority folks, which means not everyone is going to keep their old seat.
They made room for a cheater on the RULES committee but not longstanding members who happened to support Sanders/Ellison. Ain't nobody got time for that nonsense.
|
On October 20 2017 05:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
So is it party policy to blame Sanders for the election then?
That's delusional.
no idea; but there are some that understandably dislike him, especially from a party perspective. I'd expect some of them to feel quite a grudge (regardless of how justified or not).
there are also a lot of people spinning a division/dispute story. it's hard to tell how much is really infighting, and how much is just the appearance of it by people pushing a narrative by selectively looking at facts or failing to account for context. a lot of things these days are a result of people half-hearing a narrative once, not ever finding about the followup, and just using bias + dribs and drabs of info to let them shape their worldview how they like.
|
A quick google on the 4 people who lost their positions reveals that the last one, Barbra Casbar Siperstein, was a Clinton superdelegate.
Also, Ray Buckley was on the exec committee because he was president of the association of state democratic party chairs... and he resigned from that position to run for DNC chair which meant he lost his default position on exec.
jesus, what garbage "reporting". there's no fucking purge happening.
|
On October 20 2017 06:19 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2017 05:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
So is it party policy to blame Sanders for the election then?
That's delusional. no idea; but there are some that understandably dislike him, especially from a party perspective. I'd expect some of them to feel quite a grudge (regardless of how justified or not). there are also a lot of people spinning a division/dispute story. it's hard to tell how much is really infighting, and how much is just the appearance of it by people pushing a narrative by selectively looking at facts or failing to account for context.
Anyone engaged with their local Democratic party knows there is even more infighting than people see in the media.
On October 20 2017 06:22 ticklishmusic wrote:
Also, a quick google on the 4 people who lost their positions reveals that the last one, Barbra Casbar Siperstein, was a Clinton superdelegate. nice reporting there.
She supported Ellison. I imagine they could have articulated that more clearly though. Coincidentally the first and only(?) transgender elected member of the committee, well, former member.
|
On October 20 2017 06:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2017 06:19 zlefin wrote:On October 20 2017 05:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
So is it party policy to blame Sanders for the election then?
That's delusional. no idea; but there are some that understandably dislike him, especially from a party perspective. I'd expect some of them to feel quite a grudge (regardless of how justified or not). there are also a lot of people spinning a division/dispute story. it's hard to tell how much is really infighting, and how much is just the appearance of it by people pushing a narrative by selectively looking at facts or failing to account for context. Anyone engaged with their local Democratic party knows there is even more infighting than people see in the media.
could be; but there's also a difference between it being some kind of sanders/clinton infighting, and the perpetual bureaucratic squabbles between individuals.
|
On October 20 2017 06:19 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2017 05:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
So is it party policy to blame Sanders for the election then?
That's delusional. no idea; but there are some that understandably dislike him, especially from a party perspective. I'd expect some of them to feel quite a grudge (regardless of how justified or not). there are also a lot of people spinning a division/dispute story. it's hard to tell how much is really infighting, and how much is just the appearance of it by people pushing a narrative by selectively looking at facts or failing to account for context. a lot of things these days are a result of people half-hearing a narrative once, not ever finding about the followup, and just using bias + dribs and drabs of info to let them shape their worldview how they like.
Well put.
Misinformation is king in the information age, I guess.
|
On October 20 2017 06:24 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2017 06:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2017 06:19 zlefin wrote:On October 20 2017 05:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
So is it party policy to blame Sanders for the election then?
That's delusional. no idea; but there are some that understandably dislike him, especially from a party perspective. I'd expect some of them to feel quite a grudge (regardless of how justified or not). there are also a lot of people spinning a division/dispute story. it's hard to tell how much is really infighting, and how much is just the appearance of it by people pushing a narrative by selectively looking at facts or failing to account for context. Anyone engaged with their local Democratic party knows there is even more infighting than people see in the media. could be; but there's also a difference between it being some kind of sanders/clinton infighting, and the perpetual bureaucratic squabbles between individuals.
Again, people engaged with their local Democratic parties have picked up on it being centered around the differences in philosophies between Sanders and Clinton supporters.
The biggest factor (which probably get the least attention) is fundraising. Which in defense of those giving them money, establishment folks fight tooth and nail within the party AGAINST things they tell people outside of the party they are fighting FOR.
|
On October 20 2017 06:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2017 06:19 zlefin wrote:On October 20 2017 05:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
So is it party policy to blame Sanders for the election then?
That's delusional. no idea; but there are some that understandably dislike him, especially from a party perspective. I'd expect some of them to feel quite a grudge (regardless of how justified or not). there are also a lot of people spinning a division/dispute story. it's hard to tell how much is really infighting, and how much is just the appearance of it by people pushing a narrative by selectively looking at facts or failing to account for context. Anyone engaged with their local Democratic party knows there is even more infighting than people see in the media. Show nested quote +On October 20 2017 06:22 ticklishmusic wrote:
Also, a quick google on the 4 people who lost their positions reveals that the last one, Barbra Casbar Siperstein, was a Clinton superdelegate. nice reporting there. She supported Ellison. I imagine they could have articulated that more clearly though. Coincidentally the first and only(?) transgender elected member of the committee, well, former member.
and because she supported ellison that's why she got the boot? when ellison is deputy chair? is that really an argument you feel is convincing?
i have no love lost for donna brazile, and i don't particularly agree with keeping her on. but this talk of a purge is bullshit.
|
On October 20 2017 06:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2017 06:24 zlefin wrote:On October 20 2017 06:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2017 06:19 zlefin wrote:On October 20 2017 05:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
So is it party policy to blame Sanders for the election then?
That's delusional. no idea; but there are some that understandably dislike him, especially from a party perspective. I'd expect some of them to feel quite a grudge (regardless of how justified or not). there are also a lot of people spinning a division/dispute story. it's hard to tell how much is really infighting, and how much is just the appearance of it by people pushing a narrative by selectively looking at facts or failing to account for context. Anyone engaged with their local Democratic party knows there is even more infighting than people see in the media. could be; but there's also a difference between it being some kind of sanders/clinton infighting, and the perpetual bureaucratic squabbles between individuals. Again, people engaged with their local Democratic parties have picked up on it being centered around the differences in philosophies between Sanders and Clinton supporters. The biggest factor (which probably get the least attention) is fundraising. Which in defense of those giving them money, establishment folks fight tooth and nail within the party AGAINST things they tell people outside of the party they are fighting FOR.
sounds plausible, do you have citations?
|
On October 20 2017 06:31 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2017 06:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2017 06:19 zlefin wrote:On October 20 2017 05:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
So is it party policy to blame Sanders for the election then?
That's delusional. no idea; but there are some that understandably dislike him, especially from a party perspective. I'd expect some of them to feel quite a grudge (regardless of how justified or not). there are also a lot of people spinning a division/dispute story. it's hard to tell how much is really infighting, and how much is just the appearance of it by people pushing a narrative by selectively looking at facts or failing to account for context. Anyone engaged with their local Democratic party knows there is even more infighting than people see in the media. On October 20 2017 06:22 ticklishmusic wrote:
Also, a quick google on the 4 people who lost their positions reveals that the last one, Barbra Casbar Siperstein, was a Clinton superdelegate. nice reporting there. She supported Ellison. I imagine they could have articulated that more clearly though. Coincidentally the first and only(?) transgender elected member of the committee, well, former member. and because she supported ellison that's why she got the boot? when ellison is vice chair? is that really an argument you feel is convincing? i have no love lost for donna brazile, and i don't particularly agree with keeping her on. but this talk of a purge is bullshit.
Ellison is in a powerless token position created specifically so people could make the asinine talking point you are now.
It's no secret Democrats have pushed Sanders supporters away going from the election to today, I can't imagine someone seriously taking the position they aren't.
On October 20 2017 06:31 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2017 06:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2017 06:24 zlefin wrote:On October 20 2017 06:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2017 06:19 zlefin wrote:On October 20 2017 05:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
So is it party policy to blame Sanders for the election then?
That's delusional. no idea; but there are some that understandably dislike him, especially from a party perspective. I'd expect some of them to feel quite a grudge (regardless of how justified or not). there are also a lot of people spinning a division/dispute story. it's hard to tell how much is really infighting, and how much is just the appearance of it by people pushing a narrative by selectively looking at facts or failing to account for context. Anyone engaged with their local Democratic party knows there is even more infighting than people see in the media. could be; but there's also a difference between it being some kind of sanders/clinton infighting, and the perpetual bureaucratic squabbles between individuals. Again, people engaged with their local Democratic parties have picked up on it being centered around the differences in philosophies between Sanders and Clinton supporters. The biggest factor (which probably get the least attention) is fundraising. Which in defense of those giving them money, establishment folks fight tooth and nail within the party AGAINST things they tell people outside of the party they are fighting FOR. sounds plausible, do you have citations?
2015-2017
|
On October 20 2017 06:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2017 06:24 zlefin wrote:On October 20 2017 06:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2017 06:19 zlefin wrote:On October 20 2017 05:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
So is it party policy to blame Sanders for the election then?
That's delusional. no idea; but there are some that understandably dislike him, especially from a party perspective. I'd expect some of them to feel quite a grudge (regardless of how justified or not). there are also a lot of people spinning a division/dispute story. it's hard to tell how much is really infighting, and how much is just the appearance of it by people pushing a narrative by selectively looking at facts or failing to account for context. Anyone engaged with their local Democratic party knows there is even more infighting than people see in the media. could be; but there's also a difference between it being some kind of sanders/clinton infighting, and the perpetual bureaucratic squabbles between individuals. Again, people engaged with their local Democratic parties have picked up on it being centered around the differences in philosophies between Sanders and Clinton supporters. The biggest factor (which probably get the least attention) is fundraising. Which in defense of those giving them money, establishment folks fight tooth and nail within the party AGAINST things they tell people outside of the party they are fighting FOR.
Compare the Republicans party today to what it was in 2008. Anger takes time. It is not reasonable to expect grassroots movements to be succeeding nationally this early. Trump's entire movement was largely a response to Obama. The left is going to get a lot more left over these next 4 years. Palin didn't show up until after a full Obama term. This takes time. We'll get our tea party.
|
On October 20 2017 06:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2017 06:31 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 20 2017 06:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2017 06:19 zlefin wrote:On October 20 2017 05:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
So is it party policy to blame Sanders for the election then?
That's delusional. no idea; but there are some that understandably dislike him, especially from a party perspective. I'd expect some of them to feel quite a grudge (regardless of how justified or not). there are also a lot of people spinning a division/dispute story. it's hard to tell how much is really infighting, and how much is just the appearance of it by people pushing a narrative by selectively looking at facts or failing to account for context. Anyone engaged with their local Democratic party knows there is even more infighting than people see in the media. On October 20 2017 06:22 ticklishmusic wrote:
Also, a quick google on the 4 people who lost their positions reveals that the last one, Barbra Casbar Siperstein, was a Clinton superdelegate. nice reporting there. She supported Ellison. I imagine they could have articulated that more clearly though. Coincidentally the first and only(?) transgender elected member of the committee, well, former member. and because she supported ellison that's why she got the boot? when ellison is vice chair? is that really an argument you feel is convincing? i have no love lost for donna brazile, and i don't particularly agree with keeping her on. but this talk of a purge is bullshit. Ellison is in a powerless token position created specifically so people could make the asinine talking point you are now. It's no secret Democrats have pushed Sanders supporters away going from the election to today, I can't imagine someone seriously taking the position they aren't.
oh, so ellison is now a willing puppet of the evil establishment? wow we're really good at what we do i guess.
|
On October 20 2017 06:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2017 06:31 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 20 2017 06:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2017 06:19 zlefin wrote:On October 20 2017 05:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
So is it party policy to blame Sanders for the election then?
That's delusional. no idea; but there are some that understandably dislike him, especially from a party perspective. I'd expect some of them to feel quite a grudge (regardless of how justified or not). there are also a lot of people spinning a division/dispute story. it's hard to tell how much is really infighting, and how much is just the appearance of it by people pushing a narrative by selectively looking at facts or failing to account for context. Anyone engaged with their local Democratic party knows there is even more infighting than people see in the media. On October 20 2017 06:22 ticklishmusic wrote:
Also, a quick google on the 4 people who lost their positions reveals that the last one, Barbra Casbar Siperstein, was a Clinton superdelegate. nice reporting there. She supported Ellison. I imagine they could have articulated that more clearly though. Coincidentally the first and only(?) transgender elected member of the committee, well, former member. and because she supported ellison that's why she got the boot? when ellison is vice chair? is that really an argument you feel is convincing? i have no love lost for donna brazile, and i don't particularly agree with keeping her on. but this talk of a purge is bullshit. Ellison is in a powerless token position created specifically so people could make the asinine talking point you are now. It's no secret Democrats have pushed Sanders supporters away going from the election to today, I can't imagine someone seriously taking the position they aren't. Show nested quote +On October 20 2017 06:31 zlefin wrote:On October 20 2017 06:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2017 06:24 zlefin wrote:On October 20 2017 06:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 20 2017 06:19 zlefin wrote:On October 20 2017 05:48 Jockmcplop wrote:
So is it party policy to blame Sanders for the election then?
That's delusional. no idea; but there are some that understandably dislike him, especially from a party perspective. I'd expect some of them to feel quite a grudge (regardless of how justified or not). there are also a lot of people spinning a division/dispute story. it's hard to tell how much is really infighting, and how much is just the appearance of it by people pushing a narrative by selectively looking at facts or failing to account for context. Anyone engaged with their local Democratic party knows there is even more infighting than people see in the media. could be; but there's also a difference between it being some kind of sanders/clinton infighting, and the perpetual bureaucratic squabbles between individuals. Again, people engaged with their local Democratic parties have picked up on it being centered around the differences in philosophies between Sanders and Clinton supporters. The biggest factor (which probably get the least attention) is fundraising. Which in defense of those giving them money, establishment folks fight tooth and nail within the party AGAINST things they tell people outside of the party they are fighting FOR. sounds plausible, do you have citations? 2015-2017
that is not a citation. so i'll take that to mean you don't have any citations, and are merely using your own highly biased viewpoint, rather than having something to back it up, and thus disregard your claim unless an actual citation is forthcoming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
