Oh my god, that is amazing.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
Oh my god, that is amazing.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Since he's making himself the arbiter of who is progressive or not, he should be called out for supporting non-progressive candidates.
Of course he doesn't give a shit about women's issues. But since he would like to bask in the national spotlight, then Sanders should have to face the wrath of the people who do think women's issues are super important.
Anybody Dems prop up on a so-called "Unity Tour" needs to care about women's rights a bit more than low-key attacking pivotal candidates who he suspects aren't progressive enough.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Sessions is amazed that a judge on an island(Hawaii) can block the travel ban
Ummm.. Wow
Ummm.. Wow
Poodlestrike
Banned
In fairness, they don't mention who is being unified with who. Using Bernie as a blunt cudgel to try and get his precious snowflake wannabe progressive bothsidesers on board I can live with.
Y'all right that Bernie is incredibly gross about this sorta thing, but then, what else is new?
Carpe Libertatem
Member
It's just frustrating to see someone with so much influence over the party continually push aside the issues of key, reliable Democratic constituenties in order to chase after unreliable voters who may or may not vote for the Democratic. It's a running theme at this point.
No problem with Bernie supporting Heath Mello. But he shouldn't call him progressive and imply Ossoff is not. He really just didn't need to say anything about Ossoff at all other than "He's a great candidate and person and I wish him the best of luck," but apparently he is unable to do such a thing.
Poodlestrike
Banned
We need to be working on assuring and courting our reliable base entirely independently of Sanders. Like you say, he shouldn't be saying shit like that, but he's an idiot with his head up his ass and can't help himself. Can't rely on Saint Bernard for messaging on that front, so we need to be getting some other surrogates on Unity Tours focused more on the rest of the party.
Kind of a shame we didn't get Maxine Walters to do some speaking engagements with Ellison or Perez during the recess.
Honestly at this point I'm tired of the need to slap on label on someone as if a progressive sticker on their shoulder is a be all end all. Bernie in particular needs to stop treating it like a sticker pack her walks around with and decides who gets one.
Poodlestrike
Banned
This is easily the... well, not the worst, but the most obnoxious aspect of it. In the Bernie Fandom, Sanders is the only one who decides who is and is not progressive. If he says you're not, you're FOREVER CAST INTO DARKNESS. If you attach yourself to him, you are now and forever, even if you do, for example, buy wholesale into Syrian propaganda and become a warcrimes apologist.
Progressive is getting taken over as the label of an exclusive club rather than a policy descriptor. Galling.
So now it's no longer doing great, but too much being expected?
Aaron Strife
Banned
"Including" SC? Dude it was only SC and they had to change the rules just to get your shitty candidate through.
But you all knew that.
The obvious bears repeating: Democrats are letting him do this by way of their own disorganization. He is free to cruise the country and say what he wants to large audiences because Clinton steamrolled the primary, lost, and then disappeared. I'm not making a judgment on that, just stating it as fact. The party leaders from 12 months ago are nowhere to be found, and no one is filling their shoes. Obama and Biden are rightfully on vacation, Clinton is laying low, and Warren is promoting a book. There is no bench right now, just a bunch of prospects waiting to get called up (or waiting to call their own number as 2020 approaches) and no one even knows who's around to do the calling.
The dumpster fire of the Trump administration is masking the fact that the Dems still don't have their shit together.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
I'm just worried that all the attention and influence we're giving Sanders will alienate other voters.
But I guess the thinking for a lot of people is that our base's votes can be taken for granted.
Disgusting...
Rain of frogs? Are are we already at the locusts?
Ugh why do I keep thinking it's not possible
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Ossoff isn't especially progressive, though. I'm looking at the economy section of his website, and leaving outside the white noise that every candidate puts (who ever said they didn't want a dynamic economy with a responsible fiscal policy? or planned to handicap small businesses?), we've got:
- Reduce the tax burden on small businesses
- Reduce healthcare premiums
- Equal pay for equal work
- The minimum wage as a living wage, but implemented only as fast as employers can adapt
None of these are especially harmful, per se, but they're all incredibly milquetoast. For genuine small businesses, the tax burden is pretty low - 15% company tax on the lowest bracket is lower than most of other OECD economies (e.g., the UK small profits rate is 20%) already. If anything, reducing the tax burden on 'small businesses' by adjusting the scaling normally helps large businesses more - for example, if my business makes $65,000 a year and I'm a sole proprietor, then reducing the company tax to 10% means I get an extra $3,250 - which is great and all, but if my business makes $100,000 a year, then I get an extra $3,750, because I extend all the way through the $75,000 bracket to make the most of it.
Equal pay for equal work is incredibly misleading. Women do get paid almost equal pay for equal work (about 96% of what a man would make); and their right to do this is enshrined in statute and has been for decades. There are minor fixes here and there you could make - better enforcement, campaigns to raise awareness and encourage people to come forward when they realise they are being given discriminatory pay - but these are minor changes. What is happening is that people are mostly getting equal pay for equal work... but the work they receive is unequal. Women are much more likely to be represented in jobs that pay less, like teaching or nursing - same with minorities. If you wanted to fix that, you'd need concerted government action to tackle sexism and racism at root, like offering retraining and reskilling programmes for minorities, pouring enormous amounts of time and money into schools in minority areas, improving housing conditions in the poorest cities, offering stronger state maternity support - which change the nature of the workplace and help women and minorities into jobs that are currently colonised by men. That's progress, and something that (for example) Sanders has committed to, rather than Ossoff's ida to promise to do something that is, more or less, already in place.
Committing to raising the minimum wage at a rate employers are happy with is basically doing nothing. They have a vested interest in making a great deal of noise about it. Not to mention the minimum wage is a sticky plaster for a pre-existing failure - the weakness of labour compared to business, something a progressive would actually want to address.
- Reduce the tax burden on small businesses
- Reduce healthcare premiums
- Equal pay for equal work
- The minimum wage as a living wage, but implemented only as fast as employers can adapt
None of these are especially harmful, per se, but they're all incredibly milquetoast. For genuine small businesses, the tax burden is pretty low - 15% company tax on the lowest bracket is lower than most of other OECD economies (e.g., the UK small profits rate is 20%) already. If anything, reducing the tax burden on 'small businesses' by adjusting the scaling normally helps large businesses more - for example, if my business makes $65,000 a year and I'm a sole proprietor, then reducing the company tax to 10% means I get an extra $3,250 - which is great and all, but if my business makes $100,000 a year, then I get an extra $3,750, because I extend all the way through the $75,000 bracket to make the most of it.
Equal pay for equal work is incredibly misleading. Women do get paid almost equal pay for equal work (about 96% of what a man would make); and their right to do this is enshrined in statute and has been for decades. There are minor fixes here and there you could make - better enforcement, campaigns to raise awareness and encourage people to come forward when they realise they are being given discriminatory pay - but these are minor changes. What is happening is that people are mostly getting equal pay for equal work... but the work they receive is unequal. Women are much more likely to be represented in jobs that pay less, like teaching or nursing - same with minorities. If you wanted to fix that, you'd need concerted government action to tackle sexism and racism at root, like offering retraining and reskilling programmes for minorities, pouring enormous amounts of time and money into schools in minority areas, improving housing conditions in the poorest cities, offering stronger state maternity support - which change the nature of the workplace and help women and minorities into jobs that are currently colonised by men. That's progress, and something that (for example) Sanders has committed to, rather than Ossoff's ida to promise to do something that is, more or less, already in place.
Committing to raising the minimum wage at a rate employers are happy with is basically doing nothing. They have a vested interest in making a great deal of noise about it. Not to mention the minimum wage is a sticky plaster for a pre-existing failure - the weakness of labour compared to business, something a progressive would actually want to address.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
No one is saying that Bernie needed to call Ossoff progressive. Frankly, given the demographic makeup of GA-06 it's probably best if Bernie doesn't say anything other than "Ossoff is a great person and candidate and I wish him the best of luck." But questioning his progressive bonafides while simultaneously supporting an anti-choice candidate in Heath Mello and calling him progressive is problematic because it basically shows one can only be "progressive" if Bernie Sanders decrees it.
Progressivism is more than economic issues! Shocker, I know.
Conservatives love to lift up Reagan, but presidents are still evaluated by the standard of FDR, which tells you all you need to know.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Heath Mello has a 100% Planned Parenthood rating for 2015 and 2016, though. He changed his political beliefs on this issue, as does happen. Consequently, one can say "he is currently a progressive", while also saying "Ossoff is not currently especially progressive". I agree that I'd like someone with more consistency of belief, if only because you can have more confidence they'll continue their current beliefs in the future, but as it currently stands, Mello is a progressive candidate - more so than Ossoff.
EDIT: Like, I don't remember this much fuss being made about Tim Kaine, who has a much worse record in this respect? Kaine approved a number of anti-abortion bills as the Governor of Virginia, some of which are still in force today. This isn't whataboutery - I think they both made bad choices - I'm pointing out that you're being incredibly inconsistent. I could go back and find quite a few "Daddy Kaine" posts from many of the people currently complaining about this issue.
Fundamentally, the only reason you're reacting so viscerally to the fact a guy had different stances to the ones he had five years ago is because he is associated with Sanders, and you're still bitter about the primaries. Get over it, guys.
EDIT: Like, I don't remember this much fuss being made about Tim Kaine, who has a much worse record in this respect? Kaine approved a number of anti-abortion bills as the Governor of Virginia, some of which are still in force today. This isn't whataboutery - I think they both made bad choices - I'm pointing out that you're being incredibly inconsistent. I could go back and find quite a few "Daddy Kaine" posts from many of the people currently complaining about this issue.
Fundamentally, the only reason you're reacting so viscerally to the fact a guy had different stances to the ones he had five years ago is because he is associated with Sanders, and you're still bitter about the primaries. Get over it, guys.
Check out the lack of self-awareness:
We do have a word for this, it's called hypocrisy
But "Ossoff isn't a progressive" lol
We do have a word for this, it's called hypocrisy
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
But Ossoff disagrees on lots of issues. His platform is not very similar to Sanders' ideal at all.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
No fundamentally I'm reacting viscerally to the fact that Sanders is essentially acting like the national guard of who is progressive and not. I think, honestly, that both candidates were worth support and will form valuable allies if they get elected, although I understand that for a lot of people Mello's abortion stuff is a complete no-go and I don't resent if they choose not to support him because of it (and even then, I'm more "tolerant" than "support") but if Sanders is going to remain on the national stage we get to discuss him regardless of whatever happened in the primaries and this current whiplash between who he did and didn't use his large platform to anoint as progressive is telling
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Planned Parenthood never endorsed Heath Mello, nor did they ever give him a 100% rating. That has been erroneously reported. In fact, they and NARAL are concerned about his legislative past! Although they say their doors are open, but that Mello has never reached out to start a conversation.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ctive-health-care_us_58f8e868e4b018a9ce590a84
The Tim Kaine stuff is absolutely whataboutism, so not worth responding to.
And again, no problem with supporting Mello. Only a problem with Bernie being the one who gets to decide who is progressive and who is not, apparently entirely on economic issues.
There's an implication here which I think should be the main point. It shouldn't matter whether Ossoff and Sanders are close in ideals, because there's an argument to be made that Sanders should not be a taste-maker of the Democratic Party.
To me, it's very interesting that Hillary has moved to one-side as the "leader" of "her wing", but Sanders continues to push people he believes in in terms of progressive ideology. Surely the Dems should be at the stage where Sanders should retreat into the background on such things, in order to unify the party behind new blood untainted by the 2016 election process?
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
Didn't take long, but Ellison and Perez shitted on a lot of the good will they had.
With Bernie's guidance of course.
Perez with his tour, letting Bernie trash the party with a smile on his face.
Ellison for blaming something the DNC and Dem party did, abandon Obama/ACA and got smashed in the mid-terms, on Obama.
Get your shit together, Dems.
With Bernie's guidance of course.
Perez with his tour, letting Bernie trash the party with a smile on his face.
Ellison for blaming something the DNC and Dem party did, abandon Obama/ACA and got smashed in the mid-terms, on Obama.
Get your shit together, Dems.
Sanders's ideal is not the ONLY ideal of the Democratic Party. There were plenty of people here before him who built the progressive party it is today, and there are plenty of people who disagree with Sanders's ideal.
A debate over what it means to be a progressive is front-and-center as the party tries to rebuild.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Of Sanders is acting that way! If I was him, I'd do exactly the same. I'd say: "this is what we should progress towards, and therefore this is what progressivism is, and therefore these are progressive candidates" - because the more people I can persuade, the more likely we are to progress towards my goals. I mean, I might not pick the same candidates as him or the same ends as him (I probably wouldn't, we hold strongly different views on some topics), but I'd definitely be trying to persuade people: these candidates are progressive, you should back them. Who wouldn't use a large platform if they had one to try and rally for candidates more in line with what you want?
In fact, you'd do it too... because you are right now, busy trying to convince me Ossoff is progressive, because you have some idea of what goals we should progress towards, and therefore what progressivism is, and Ossoff fits into your idea of progressivism. So criticising Sanders for acting as a gatekeeper when you then go on to set out your own gate is... a little laughable. We all have our own gates, we do it all the time.
The main reason you're complaining is because he seems to be dominating the debate a little more than you, combined with the fact you're still suffering from primary resentment.
BoogieWoogie
Banned
Listen, I don't care if we have to get a god damn ham sandwich as our 2020 candidate, Democrats need to fucking unite already and get Trump out of office.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
This, I think, is a more honest argument. You're not upset that Sanders is setting gates, because everyone does that all the times, we just set different gates. You're upset at what Sanders' gates are, and think they should be different. So why not set out the case which makes those points?
Why would he do that? He doesn't want new blood "untainted" by the 2016 election process. He wants the next election process to be as influenced by his ideas and policies as much as he possibly can! You're assuming being associated with Sanders in 2020 would be a bad thing. Looking at favourability ratings, it would be a very good thing for that candidate (ceteris paribus).
I think Clinton moved aside because her pull is spent - she's regarded as the failure that lost to Trump. Having her as a public voice for her side of the party would, in all honesty, probably harm it more than help it. So she's quite wisely decided to leave someone else to take up the banner. Sanders is in the position where he can still carry that banner himself.
The problem seems to be a general frustration from this thread that nobody has taken up Clinton's mantle and consequently Sanders' view is dominating and having the most influence on those who lean Democrat. But that problem starts with you, not him. Start asking yourself: well, why don't metropolitan elite Democrats have a standard-bearer? Why do we have no prominent national figure fighting our case?
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
Well, because of Ellison blaming Obama, the most popular politician to the Dem's most loyal base, it's not a Clinton defender Bernie's gonna have to deal with.
More than likely? It'll be black voters. Which I don't understand, because it shouldn't be difficult to NOT piss them off.
More than likely? It'll be black voters. Which I don't understand, because it shouldn't be difficult to NOT piss them off.
benicillin
Banned
Bernie's saying dumb stuff but it seems to me that a lot of this is overblown hemming and hawing that isn't going to mean a whole lot when it comes to getting votes out.
SomewhatGroovy
Banned
Saw a meme quoting Reid back in 2005 saying Senate weren't under any constitutional obligation to vote in a Supreme Court Justice nominee and juxtaposed to last year when he complained the Republicans weren't voting for Garland.
What was the context of the 2005 quote?
What was the context of the 2005 quote?
https://democrats.senate.gov/2005/05/19/senator-harry-reids-floor-statement-on-advice-consent/
he was arguing against the nuclear option so he was talking about up or down votes. it really has nothing to do with what the GOP did with Garland
What? I'm sorry. I can't hear you over the sound of me trying to find a candidate to fall in love with and not care about the party as a whole.
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
Honestly?
This has been a thing since the primaries. And it hasn't died down one bit, unlike Obama/HRC.
At some point, it's gonna have to be addressed straight up or the Dem party's just gonna be in disarray till election time.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
People here have talked many times about our concern with economic policies being the "gate" instead of social policies. Sanders is clearly choosing the former over the latter, his simultaneous embrace of Mello and shunning Ossoff being the latest indication of that.
At that point, there's no difference between being mad at Sanders setting gates and what his gates are because you cannot separate those two things. They are intertwined.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Sanders' favourability among black voters is 77/13, or 85.5/14.5 adjusting for DK. Obama's is 86/9, or 90.5/9.5 adjusting for DK. If you were to pick a black voter entirely at random from those who hold an opinion on both, the odds are only 1 in 20 that you'd find someone who liked Obama but disliked Sanders. If you excluded people who posted in this thread, it'd be 0 in 20
I joke, I joke, but you get the point.
Kind of missed my point...
Sanders is not a Democratic Party member, so why is he inserting himself into party politics. Moreover, gatekeeping/kingmaking in his fashion does not unify, it divides - as he pushes his impression of what progressive is, he drives a wedge between people.
Personal politics and egotism, then?
Because Sanders and Trump have fostered an anti-establishment anti-elite electorate that views Wall Street as The Most Evil Thing To Ever Have Eviled?
I mean, seriously - when you have Hillary's totally legit Goldman speeches being used to shred her character, how do you expect anyone else to fight the case for non-socialist left-wing politics?
I'll just say that a hypothetical President Sanders would need Ossoff to pass his plans, and considering the demographics of the district, Ossoff would be more likely to survive a Sanders midterm than hypothetical Representatives Quist and Thompson. Though they would probably all lose.
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
All true, but I also think that can change over time, especially if things continue at this rate.
Bernie has a problem interacting with black voters. Working with the Dems helps a bundle, but if he wants the revolution, he needs to do better. People have been saying this for years, and he still hasn't listened.
And now, Ellison is making it worse.
benicillin
Banned
That's probably because unlike HRC, Obama won and HRC losing meant Orange Julius was elected God King Emperor. I'm sure if Obama lost to McCain the Dem party would have squabbled a bit, too.
I'm not trying to disregard it, but worrying every time Bernie opens his mouth when it doesn't seem to be all that important isn't helping any more than Bernie is.
Says the man who spent his campaign hyping up what he would accomplish on day one. He failed on his day one promises and is failing with an even longer time period.
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
Maybe so.
Honestly? This recent news just makes me want to fight everyone. So fucking frustrating. It feels like Bernie's side has their ear to the ground of what black people want EVEN LESS than Hillary's side.
Like, I thought he was supposed to be better than that? Even the DSA have a better idea.
Nobody fucking listens to black people.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked