• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF
  • Like

Staf
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:12 PM)
Staf's Avatar

Originally Posted by sazzy

Onion headline

Oh my god, that is amazing.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
(04-21-2017, 12:14 PM)
Rebel Leader's Avatar

Originally Posted by Dan

WaPo: Trump’s treasury secretary: The tax cut ‘will pay for itself’



Keep trying. The nth time is sure to be the one that works!

We're going for Kansas on a national scale!!
dramatis
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:23 PM)
dramatis's Avatar

Originally Posted by cartoon_soldier

Why would anyone think that being pro choice is important for Bernie.

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.
royalan
Lotus Member
(04-21-2017, 12:35 PM)
royalan's Avatar

Originally Posted by cartoon_soldier

Why would anyone think that being pro choice is important for Bernie.

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
(04-21-2017, 12:35 PM)
Rebel Leader's Avatar
Sessions is amazed that a judge on an island(Hawaii) can block the travel ban



Ummm.. Wow
Last edited by Rebel Leader; 04-21-2017 at 12:39 PM.
Poodlestrike
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:37 PM)
Poodlestrike's Avatar

Originally Posted by royalan

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.

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
(04-21-2017, 12:44 PM)
Carpe Libertatem's Avatar

Originally Posted by Poodlestrike

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?

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
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:47 PM)
Poodlestrike's Avatar

Originally Posted by Carpe Libertatem

It's just frustrating to see someone with so much influence over the party continually push aside the issues of key, reliable Democratic constktuenties 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.

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.
tbm24
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:50 PM)
tbm24's Avatar

Originally Posted by Carpe Libertatem

It's just frustrating to see someone with so much influence over the party continually push aside the issues of key, reliable Democratic constktuenties 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.

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
Member
(04-21-2017, 12:53 PM)
Poodlestrike's Avatar

Originally Posted by tbm24

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.

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.
Wilsongt
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:01 PM)
Wilsongt's Avatar
Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump

No matter how much I accomplish during the ridiculous standard of the first 100 days, & it has been a lot (including S.C.), media will kill!
6:50 AM · Apr 21, 2017

He mad.
Baron von Loathsome
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:05 PM)
Baron von Loathsome's Avatar

Originally Posted by Wilsongt

Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump

No matter how much I accomplish during the ridiculous standard of the first 100 days, & it has been a lot (including S.C.), media will kill!
6:50 AM · Apr 21, 2017

He mad.

Teggy
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:06 PM)
Teggy's Avatar
Yes, trump personally killed the fillibuster and forced a pick on to the Supreme Court. Because that would be a great accomplishment even if it were true?
Zolo
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:14 PM)
Zolo's Avatar

Originally Posted by Wilsongt

Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump

No matter how much I accomplish during the ridiculous standard of the first 100 days, & it has been a lot (including S.C.), media will kill!
6:50 AM · Apr 21, 2017

He mad.

So now it's no longer doing great, but too much being expected?
Aaron Strife
Honk if you love cookies.
(04-21-2017, 01:16 PM)
Aaron Strife's Avatar

Originally Posted by Wilsongt

Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump

No matter how much I accomplish during the ridiculous standard of the first 100 days, & it has been a lot (including S.C.), media will kill!
6:50 AM · Apr 21, 2017

He mad.

"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.
Teggy
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:17 PM)
Teggy's Avatar
Oh, so Roger stone got suspended over that tweet.
DonShula
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:21 PM)
DonShula's Avatar

Originally Posted by Poodlestrike

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.

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
(04-21-2017, 01:21 PM)
Carpe Libertatem's Avatar

Originally Posted by Poodlestrike

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.

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.
Diablos
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:21 PM)
Diablos's Avatar

Originally Posted by Sobriquet



Rain of frogs? Are are we already at the locusts?

Disgusting...

Originally Posted by Slime

That is incorrect. It's entirely possible for the President to fire the FBI director.

Ugh why do I keep thinking it's not possible
Crab
Famed for his Europa Universalis IV exploits
(04-21-2017, 01:44 PM)
Crab's Avatar
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.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:50 PM)
Carpe Libertatem's Avatar

Originally Posted by Crab

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.

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.
Blader
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:51 PM)
Blader's Avatar
I actually agree that "the first 100 days" is an arbitrary time frame that people are only obsessed with for Narrative™ reasons.

That said, when the president starts calling out the arbitrariness of the 100 days, it's because the Narrative isn't good. :lol
dramatis
Member
(04-21-2017, 01:55 PM)
dramatis's Avatar

Originally Posted by Blader

I actually agree that "the first 100 days" is an arbitrary time frame that people are only obsessed with for Narrative™ reasons.

That said, when the president starts calling out the arbitrariness of the 100 days, it's because the Narrative isn't good. :lol

Conservatives love to lift up Reagan, but presidents are still evaluated by the standard of FDR, which tells you all you need to know.
Crab
Famed for his Europa Universalis IV exploits
(04-21-2017, 01:57 PM)
Crab's Avatar
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.
Last edited by Crab; 04-21-2017 at 02:03 PM.
dramatis
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:05 PM)
dramatis's Avatar
Check out the lack of self-awareness:

Sanders pushed back against the criticism. "The truth is that in some conservative states there will be candidates that are popular candidates who may not agree with me on every issue. I understand it. That's what politics is about," Sanders told NPR.

"If we are going to protect a woman's right to choose, at the end of the day we're going to need Democratic control over the House and the Senate, and state governments all over this nation," he said. "And we have got to appreciate where people come from, and do our best to fight for the pro-choice agenda. But I think you just can't exclude people who disagree with us on one issue."

But "Ossoff isn't a progressive" lol

We do have a word for this, it's called hypocrisy
Crab
Famed for his Europa Universalis IV exploits
(04-21-2017, 02:06 PM)
Crab's Avatar
But Ossoff disagrees on lots of issues. His platform is not very similar to Sanders' ideal at all.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
(04-21-2017, 02:06 PM)
The Technomancer's Avatar

Originally Posted by Crab

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.

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
(04-21-2017, 02:11 PM)
Carpe Libertatem's Avatar

Originally Posted by Crab

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.

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/...b018a9ce590a84

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.
Last edited by Carpe Libertatem; 04-21-2017 at 02:14 PM.
Pixieking
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:13 PM)
Pixieking's Avatar

Originally Posted by Crab

But Ossoff disagrees on lots of issues. His platform is not very similar to Sanders' ideal at all.

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?
Wilsongt
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:18 PM)
Wilsongt's Avatar
Bernie Sanders dun fucked up the Democratic Party.

/JasmineMasters
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:18 PM)
Kid Kamikaze10's Avatar
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.
dramatis
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:21 PM)
dramatis's Avatar

Originally Posted by Crab

But Ossoff disagrees on lots of issues. His platform is not very similar to Sanders' ideal at all.

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.

“I think that Bernie’s comments are not helpful,” Carlos Moreno, the founder of an Indivisible group in Georgia that has been working to support the Ossoff campaign, said in an interview. “If you look at Jon’s positions on civil rights, the environment, a woman's right to chose, healthcare, you’ll see that he really is very much a progressive candidate. He is someone who shares the values of Democratic voters, who wants to fight corruption, protect access to the ballot box, and promote good education.”

“I think that Bernie seems to have a rather extreme point of view, that if a candidate wants to do anything to create jobs, that he’s not a progressive,” Moreno added.

David Nir, the political director for Daily Kos, which has been instrumental in channeling grassroots support for Ossoff into an influx of small-donations, respond to Sanders’ comments on Twitter by saying: “Bernie Sanders isn’t helping—he's hurting. He should either endorse Ossoff and raise money for him, or keep his silence.” Nir later added, “on second thought, Sanders shouldn’t endorse Ossoff. He should just remain silent and not hurt the efforts of those of us helping in #GA06.”

Crab
Famed for his Europa Universalis IV exploits
(04-21-2017, 02:41 PM)
Crab's Avatar

Originally Posted by The Technomancer

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

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
Member
(04-21-2017, 02:46 PM)
BoogieWoogie's Avatar
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.
Crab
Famed for his Europa Universalis IV exploits
(04-21-2017, 02:51 PM)
Crab's Avatar

Originally Posted by Pixieking

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.

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?

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?

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
(04-21-2017, 02:54 PM)
Kid Kamikaze10's Avatar
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.
benicillin
Member
(04-21-2017, 03:00 PM)
benicillin's Avatar
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
Member
(04-21-2017, 03:01 PM)
SomewhatGroovy's Avatar
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?
sangreal
Member
(04-21-2017, 03:03 PM)
sangreal's Avatar

Originally Posted by SomewhatGroovy

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?

https://democrats.senate.gov/2005/05...dvice-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
Last edited by sangreal; 04-21-2017 at 03:06 PM.
Wilsongt
Member
(04-21-2017, 03:04 PM)
Wilsongt's Avatar

Originally Posted by BoogieWoogie

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.

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
(04-21-2017, 03:05 PM)
Kid Kamikaze10's Avatar

Originally Posted by benicillin

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.

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
(04-21-2017, 03:05 PM)
Carpe Libertatem's Avatar

Originally Posted by Crab

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?

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.
Crab
Famed for his Europa Universalis IV exploits
(04-21-2017, 03:05 PM)
Crab's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kid Kamikaze10

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.

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. It's a very small clique of people, even in the Democratic Party, who think the way this thread does.
Pixieking
Member
(04-21-2017, 03:06 PM)
Pixieking's Avatar

Originally Posted by Crab

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Crab

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).

Personal politics and egotism, then?

Originally Posted by Crab

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?

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?
Last edited by Pixieking; 04-21-2017 at 03:09 PM.
lastflowers
Banned
(04-21-2017, 03:08 PM)
lastflowers's Avatar

Originally Posted by The Technomancer

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

Sanders was less interested in the Ossoff race. “He’s not a progressive,” he said. He was endorsing Democrats based on their economic populism; they could differ from progressives on social issues but not on the threat of the mega-rich to American politics. Soon, he said, the 5-to-4 majority on the Supreme Court was likely to make it legal for the wealthy to give unlimited sums to candidates, and the only way to fight back was grass-roots politicking and small donations.
“If you are running in rural Mississippi, do you hold the same criteria as if you’re running in San Francisco?” he said. “I think you’d be a fool to think that’s all the same.”
Sanders had said this before, and each time, he had sparked anger from a center-left ready to accuse him of abandoning women or nonwhite voters. On Thursday, he was set to campaign in Omaha for Heath Mello, a Democrat running for mayor who had previously backed a bill requiring ultrasounds for women considering abortions.
But Perez and Sanders were on the same page about candidate diversity. “I live in the people’s republic of Takoma Park,” Perez said. “If you demand fealty on every single issue, then it’s a challenge. The Democratic Party platform acknowledges that we’re pro-choice, but there are communities, like some in Kansas, where people have a different position.”

Sanders pushed back against the criticism. "The truth is that in some conservative states there will be candidates that are popular candidates who may not agree with me on every issue. I understand it. That's what politics is about," Sanders told NPR.
"If we are going to protect a woman's right to choose, at the end of the day we're going to need Democratic control over the House and the Senate, and state governments all over this nation," he said. "And we have got to appreciate where people come from, and do our best to fight for the pro-choice agenda. But I think you just can't exclude people who disagree with us on one issue."

.https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDi...a_progressive/
Holmes
Member
(04-21-2017, 03:08 PM)
Holmes's Avatar
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
(04-21-2017, 03:09 PM)
Kid Kamikaze10's Avatar

Originally Posted by Crab

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.

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
Member
(04-21-2017, 03:09 PM)
benicillin's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kid Kamikaze10

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.

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.
Dan
No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
(04-21-2017, 03:13 PM)
Dan's Avatar

Originally Posted by Wilsongt

Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump

No matter how much I accomplish during the ridiculous standard of the first 100 days, & it has been a lot (including S.C.), media will kill!
6:50 AM · Apr 21, 2017

He mad.

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
(04-21-2017, 03:14 PM)
Kid Kamikaze10's Avatar

Originally Posted by benicillin

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.

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.

Thread Tools