• 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 |OT1| From Russia with Love

Status
Not open for further replies.

Debirudog

Member
If the young left (which I am a part of) can't bother to read that Perez is actually a progressive who has fought for civil and labor rights, then that's their own problem to deal with. As someone who wanted Ellison as DNC chair, this shouldn't be a conflict that for some reason-it is.

This is literally not being happy about getting a different-colored car and the brand you want even though they work basically the same.
 
There seems to be a bit of a tension between "this position doesn't really matter, they're both basically the same" and "White House decides to push for an alternate candidate and this push coincides with an increase in anti-semitism smears from rich party donors against the initial favored candidate"

Obviously it mattered on some level to those who hold power within the Democratic Party, or else the latter likely wouldn't have happened.

Team Pete or Sam tho
 

sangreal

Member
Ok I guess us on the far left should just fuck off forever after this is all over gotcha will do.

hopefully

can you name a single achievement this country has reached by appealing to the far left? For the record, I consider myself a leftist who lives in the real world in a shitty conservative country

I'm also a member of the capitalist class who makes a lot of money
 
Well when Ellison actually did the job of Chair and didn't become the leader and face of the party I'm guessing they would stop being sated with the dumb win.

So... unappeasable still seems right.

I dunno, bansho.

Like, I won't argue the point because I truthfully don't know. But I think the idea is just to get more people who represent their views as gears in the machine. And part of being empowered is having somebody you chose take up the mantle, not somebody chosen for you. That's why even a progressive like Perez isn't appealing to Ellison. I think stubborn Ellison supporters are mad because they just want to get some cogs in the machine of their own selection, but it feels like there's no room at all.

All liberals feel defeated in 2017. Try to remember that further left liberals feel trampled by Trump and their fellow liberals. There is a reason they are so restless. I think it's easier to make them feel part of the party than you think.
 

Zereta

Member
My problem with this whole "olive branch" to the young left and hard left progressives is the blind ignorance of the fact that Tom Perez himself is essentially a progressive.

But because Ellison backed Bernie (and then Clinton but nevermind) and Perez backed Clinton, I guess Perez is a corporate shill and the Democrats haven't learned anything.

But oh well.
 

Tall4Life

Member
hopefully

can you name a single achievement this country has reached by appealing to the far left? For the record, I consider myself a leftist who lives in the real world and a shitty conservative country
The New Deal. The Civil Rights Act. The Great Society. I can name more if you want.

And spoilers, yes those things are considered part of the base of the Democratic party now. But back then? It was pretty much far left. But then it was incorporated and became the standard!

Magical fucking thought!

And I'm glad that you're not being completely patronizing for saying I don't live in the real world.
 
hopefully

can you name a single achievement this country has reached by appealing to the far left? For the record, I consider myself a leftist who lives in the real world and a shitty conservative country

My friend, please, this is insane. Realize that most of the people you decry as failed anarchists are people who identify with the politics of Union Square, not the burn-it-all-down charicature you envision.

When you say things like this, you make people who want the same things you do feel like outsiders. This is why they are so defensive and reject party norms.
 
I dunno, bansho.

Like, I won't argue the point because I truthfully don't know. But I think the idea is just to get more people who represent their views as gears in the machine. I think stubborn Ellison supporters are mad because they just want to get some cogs in the machine, but it feels like there's no room at all.

All liberals feel defeated in 2017. Try to remember that further left liberals feel trampled by Trump and their fellow liberals. There is a reason they are so restless. I think it's easier to make them feel part of the party than you think.
For the most part I don't think people who are super upset about this have bothered to look much into what the role is supposed to comprise.

So I think they'd be rather disappointed to find out even if "their guy" won, that there wouldn't be big rallies and cake and fireworks. And that all of their positions wouldn't be immediately imposed and super liberals would be installed in Manchin's WV seat. I'm disappointed at the lack of cake.
 
I find this point of view hazardous and incorrect. The proposed bargain was quite clear: appoint Ellison as DNC chair and appease the restless young liberals. There was really nothing disingenuous about it. You can debate the ethics of them not accepting anybody but Ellison, even somebody with a similar platform, but I don't think it's accurate or realistic to say these liberals are unappeasable. They just take a hardline about what they want, which I expect would become more flexible if they felt like they were getting any of the things they specifically asked for.

Question: do we actually *want* restless young liberals to be appeased? We want our base angry as and restless as hell, giving them warm milk feels like the opposite of that.

If Perez and Ellison do their jobs right, that anger can be refocused. People think mostly about red state outreach, but dealing with the hard left is part of a 50 state strategy.
 

tuxfool

Banned
My friend, please, this is insane. Realize that most of the people you decry as failed anarchists are people who identify with the politics of Union Square, not the burn-it-all-down charicature you envision.

When you say things like this, you make people who want the same things you do feel like outsiders. This is why they are so defensive and reject party norms.

Uhuh. Which is why there were people in that thread seriously calling for accelerationism.
 

CygnusXS

will gain confidence one day
FP: Trump Administration Seeks to Loosen Hiring Requirements to Beef Up Border Patrol
Sounds ominous. But what are we talking about here?
Customs and Border Protection, part of DHS, is seeking approval to relax some stringent standards that have made it difficult for the agency to meet recruitment targets in recent years. That includes a request to potentially loosen congressionally-mandated requirements such as a polygraph
Oh well those are useless anywa-
as well as an entrance exam and background check.
Wait what? Is that a good idea
And some current and former DHS officials and outside experts are concerned that lowering standards could allow the influx of less-qualified candidates who may be susceptible to corruption. CBP is uniquely targeted by drug-trafficking and other transnational organizations seeking out agents they can bribe — with money or sexual favors — to allow drugs, undocumented immigrants, or other contraband across the U.S.-Mexico border.

“We actually lived through this,” said Jay Ahern, a deputy CBP commissioner under George W. Bush, when the agency doubled in size.
Oh, maybe you shouldn't then
Yet the polygraph has become the biggest hurdle, officials and experts say. Two out of three CBP applicants fail — more than double the average rate for eight other law enforcement agencies, according to the Associated Press.
because it kind of sounds like
The polygraph “helps us insure our integrity,” and has helped identify cartel lackeys trying to infiltrate CBP, McAleenan said Saturday.

...

Yet those tough standards, including a mandatory polygraph, were put into place by Congress in 2010, after Customs and Border Protection suffered acute growing pains during the Bush administration, when CBP doubled in size. Some Border Patrol agents didn’t complete background checks before they deployed to the frontlines, officials reported, and the agency saw an increase in cases of internal corruption, and questions over its use-of-force training following a spate of deadly incidents.
you need it
 
"if we give the left any leverage they will destroy this party"

"wait why won't you work with us"

Ellison was given every opportunity to win and he wasn't able to. I'd argue the support that was given to him by the establishment was the leverage you're talking about. Ellison just couldn't bring it home.

My problem with this whole "olive branch" to the young left and hard left progressives is the blind ignorance of the fact that Tom Perez himself is essentially a progressive.

But because Ellison backed Bernie (and then Clinton but nevermind) and Perez backed Clinton, I guess Perez is a corporate shill and the Democrats haven't learned anything.

But oh well.

Yep, this is my thought as well. Tom Perez is a seriously great choice, even if I preferred Ellison. I'm disappointed in how people are treating him.
 

Zereta

Member
deray is getting called establishment shill! and a centrist! for saying perez would be good at his job.

Case in point.

I don't doubt there are some here on NeoGAF that are different but I'm sorry, the youth/hard leftists cannot be satisfied and are willing to abandon anyone/any cause if they don't pass their constant purity tests.
 

sangreal

Member
The New Deal. The Civil Rights Act. The Great Society. I can name more if you want.

And spoilers, yes those things are considered part of the base of the Democratic party now. But back then? It was pretty much far left. But then it was incorporated and became the standard!

Magical fucking thought!

And I'm glad that you're not being completely patronizing for saying I don't live in the real world.

those were accomplishments by the left, not the far left

My friend, please, this is insane. Realize that most of the people you decry as failed anarchists are people who identify with the politics of Union Square, not the burn-it-all-down charicature you envision.

When you say things like this, you make people who want the same things you do feel like outsiders. This is why they are so defensive and reject party norms.

This is why I am not in any position of power. I am just telling you how I feel on a videogame forum. I would get what you're saying if somebody who mattered tried to marginalize your pinon
 
Ellison was given every opportunity to win and he wasn't able to. I'd argue the support that was given to him by the establishment was the leverage you're talking about. Ellison just couldn't bring it home.



Yep, this is my thought as well. Tom Perez is a seriously great choice, even if I preferred Ellison. I'm disappointed in how people are treating him.

I mean, you don't really get broader intra-party co-sponsorship than Chuck Schumer, Senator from the Elemental Plane of Establishment, and Bernie Sanders.

Cybit said earlier that the Perez supporters in the DNC were at least as salty about Ellison or worse, than vice versa. And I don't doubt it. It's easy for we establishment shills to call others crybabies when our establishment shill candidates keep winning party contests. But equally, the faves from the Sanders wing haven't had a chance to disappoint their base after direct contact with the electorate, either. So I have and continue to have concerns about the purity goalposts being moved once one of these guys inevitably has to say something uncomfortably practical, massaged, or, heaven forfend, just happens to fuck up. But I guess the only way we'll know for sure is when we finally put someone up to try.
 

kirblar

Member
The New Deal. The Civil Rights Act. The Great Society. I can name more if you want.

And spoilers, yes those things are considered part of the base of the Democratic party now. But back then? It was pretty much far left. But then it was incorporated and became the standard!

Magical fucking thought!

And I'm glad that you're not being completely patronizing for saying I don't live in the real world.
The first one explicitly excluded minorities. The second ushered the GOP into power for generations.
 

Boke1879

Member
I mean, you don't really get broader intra-party co-sponsorship than Chuck Schumer, Senator from the Elemental Plane of Establishment, and Bernie Sanders.

Cybit said earlier that the Perez supporters in the DNC were at least as salty about Ellison or worse, than vice versa. And I don't doubt it. It's easy for we establishment shills to call others crybabies when our establishment shill candidates keep winning party contests. But equally, the faves from the Sanders wing haven't had a chance to disappoint their base after direct contact with the electorate, either. So I have and continue to have concerns about the purity goalposts being moved once one of these guys inevitably has to say something uncomfortably practical, massaged, or, heaven forfend, just happens to fuck up. But I guess the only way we'll know for sure is when we finally put someone up to try.

Imagine if Ellison won, and it came out some time in the future he was meeting with big corporations for whatever reason. Or he was ok with accepting corporate money.

They would have turned on him right then and there.
 

Tall4Life

Member
The first one explicitly excluded minorities. The second ushered the GOP into power for generations.
Social security and the large deficit spending associated with the New Deal were still far left for the time. Is it far left by today's standards? Of course not, but that's not the point.

And if you were talking about the Civil Rights Act with your second comment, are you serious? Because it emboldened the racists to move to the Republican party, it was bad?

And if you were actually talking about the Great Society, ok, but it still worked? The Democratic party between Johnson and Clinton was corrupt as shit and alienated people. Just look at the 1968 Democratic Convention riots for proof.
those were accomplishments by the left, not the far left

Yes, people on the left did those things, they didn't have Communist or Socialist next to their names. But those things were still part of the far left FOR THE TIME. And now it's become essentially standard. We don't see those things as far left today because the definition of far left has changed in the past 100 years. It changes when once novel and "extreme" ideas like Social Security become standard and new ideas become the "extreme".

Since Lincoln, America has gradually moved more left. Is it that left compared to other countries? Hell no, but it has still been moving more left, even with valleys like Reagan and now Trump. It's post-Antebellum American history.
 

Supast4r

Junior Member
The New Deal. The Civil Rights Act. The Great Society. I can name more if you want.

And spoilers, yes those things are considered part of the base of the Democratic party now. But back then? It was pretty much far left. But then it was incorporated and became the standard!

Magical fucking thought!

And I'm glad that you're not being completely patronizing for saying I don't live in the real world.

the most left thing done in the past 30 plus years was done under a moderate (Obama Care). IMHO people with leftest ideas have to appeal to the middle when running for election. Bernie's folk do not do that well.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Social security and the large deficit spending associated with the New Deal were still far left for the time. Is it far left by today's standards? Of course not, but that's not the point.

Okay so this is one of those traps I think we risk falling into (not calling you out specifically, just a perfect example): what's "left" and what's "far left" isn't linear, especially when it comes to race. You'll find a lot of people who are quite a bit further left on various issues compared to 50 years ago, except where race enters the question. This is the subtext behind all of the shock about Obamacare repeal; a lot of these folks were actually on board with improvements to our healthcare system but they don't like them going to brown people.
 

sangreal

Member
\
Yes, people on the left did those things, they didn't have Communist or Socialist next to their names. But those things were still part of the far left FOR THE TIME. And now it's become essentially standard. We don't see those things as far left today because the definition of far left has changed in the past 100 years. It changes when once novel and "extreme" ideas like Social Security become standard and new ideas become the "extreme".

Since Lincoln, America has gradually moved more left. Is it that left compared to other countries? Hell no, but it has still been moving more left, even with valleys like Reagan and now Trump. It's post-Antebellum American history.

Listen, you might be right. I don't think you are, but I am not going to say you are wrong. My take is that the positions I referred to as 'far left' as still further outside of the mainstream than the views you are speaking of during the civil rights battle. As somebody who is not a republican, I am willing to admit I may be off base. However, I think the voting patterns of the past decade have shown I am not
 

Supast4r

Junior Member
I'm so sick of hearing about Bernie Sanders. Like, I don't even hate the guy or blame him for anything. He had ideals and stuck to them and resonated with a lot of people and a bird or something happened (but forbid if memes happen to any other candidate).

I most am sick of hearing about him because of his ravenous followers, and yeah, most are good and just want progressive stuff to happen, but I'm sick of it because of the ones that didn't get their way and became okay with a lot of people suffering, or worse, switched to Trump, something I saw with my own eyes so maybe that's why I'm more salty over it.

It's called privilege.
 
The New Deal. The Civil Rights Act. The Great Society. I can name more if you want.

And spoilers, yes those things are considered part of the base of the Democratic party now. But back then? It was pretty much far left. But then it was incorporated and became the standard!

Magical fucking thought!

And I'm glad that you're not being completely patronizing for saying I don't live in the real world.

None of those examples was driven by the far left. Actual far left groups like EPIC hated Roosevelt because he was an elite and in their stronger states like California tried to take over the state party. For the civil rights act or Great Society, even mainstream liberals thought LBJ was a racist neo-confederate from Texas and true leftists believed he killed Kennedy.
 
None of those examples was driven by the far left. Actual far left groups like EPIC hated Roosevelt because he was an elite and in their stronger states like California tried to take over the state party. For the civil rights act or Great Society, even mainstream liberals thought LBJ was a racist neo-confederate from Texas and true leftists believed he killed Kennedy.
Wow, it's almost like the further removed we get from these politicians the more we glorify them so we can shit on their modern counterparts by comparison.

If only Obama was as liberal as FDR. Maybe he too should have locked up Japanese citizens and only made Obamacare available for widows.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Okay so this is one of those traps I think we risk falling into (not calling you out specifically, just a perfect example): what's "left" and what's "far left" isn't linear, especially when it comes to race. You'll find a lot of people who are quite a bit further left on various issues compared to 50 years ago, except where race enters the question. This is the subtext behind all of the shock about Obamacare repeal; a lot of these folks were actually on board with improvements to our healthcare system but they don't like them going to brown people.

That's been the history of the social safety net in our country. Race is literally the thing holding everything back, it's the deepest current influencing our politics. If you dig down deep enough on anything it comes back to race. It's the overarching issue that needs to be addressed because of how it influences everything else.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
That's been the history of the social safety net in our country. Race is literally the thing holding everything back, it's the deepest current influencing our politics. If you dig down deep enough on anything it comes back to race. It's the overarching issue that needs to be addressed because of how it influences everything else.

Yup and its why I'm distrustful of any poll showing that "70% of Americans support universal healthcare" or whatever, because for a lot of people answering those polls there's a huge ol asterisk next to that question
 
wait, are we subtly doing the thing where we pretend the civil rights movement was the result of centrist, pragmatic liberals and that radical politics is the exclusive domain of white men
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
wait, are we subtly doing the thing where we pretend the civil rights movement was the result of centrist, pragmatic liberals and that radical politics is the exclusive domain of white men

The Civil Rights movement was absolutely radical and revolutionary. What it wasn't was popular, and what I'm seeing a lot of people say right now is that all our far left dreams actually are popular and are just going to win us all the elections if Democrats actually run on them
 

CygnusXS

will gain confidence one day
That's been the history of the social safety net in our country. Race is literally the thing holding everything back, it's the deepest current influencing our politics. If you dig down deep enough on anything it comes back to race. It's the overarching issue that needs to be addressed because of how it influences everything else.

Small note: this is true of Europe as well. The northern European countries are generally the prime example of the progressive's dilemma.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Small note: this is true of Europe as well. The northern European countries are generally the prime example of the progressive's dilemma.

This is true, but historically it hasn't been as big an issue because they're far far far whiter than the US. But it's fairly clear now for any that missed it, given how everyone is so willing to jump in the arms of fascists or shoot themselves in the face the second some brown people showed up asking for help.

Yup and its why I'm distrustful of any poll showing that "70% of Americans support universal healthcare" or whatever, because for a lot of people answering those polls there's a huge ol asterisk next to that question

Yup. It's often not acknowledged because of how we as a society (by this I mean powerful white people) have been trying to pretend we fixed race relations and it's not longer an issue. It got fixed with MLK and then again with Obama, is the unsaid argument.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
There's too much time spent arguing about left, far left, right, far right, blah blah blah. Nobody cares aside from a small bubble of political anoraks. Most Americans are thoroughly innocent of ideology. The way they vote is determined by their social context. They don't like policies that are marketed as far left, not because they dislike those policies, but because most Americans are deeply apolitical. Having an ideology - a coherent, fully formed jdeology - is pretty weird. By calling yourself far left, you're saying something like: I'm not like you. People won't vote for that.

But actual policies? People don't really pay any attention to those. So if you want to win, get whatever set of policies you like, and then figure out why people might want them. Most Americans like leftwing policies when presented in the abstract... but not for the reasons liberals like them. Liberals tend to have expansive, universalist notions: we ought to provide anyone healthcare on principle. The average American has, and is perfectly normal in having, tight, communal notions: I'd hate it if my sister fell ill, she should be cared for. I grew up with these guys, they're just like me, and now they don't have a job: someone should do something. But you can't just apply that to someone outside their bubble, because these leftwing notions are based on small-c conservative, almost familial principles. They don't apply to people you don't know and communities you don't understand. And it definitely isn't a valid response retreat into being some kind of bland, anodyne centrist, because people don't identify with them any more either. The technocrats are dead.

The Labour Party's problem is that neither side really gets it. Corbyn's busy trying to be the most socialist socialist ever to socialist, and selling up his far leftiness every three seconds. Meanwhile, Kendall and co. are just offering Blair tributes in an era where Blair is an even more unpopular politician than Corbyn - it's not 1997 any more, times change. It's just frustrating seeing the Democrats doing the same thing, with a time lag of about nine months. No, going super hardcore far left with your marketing isn't going to work. At the same time, trying to embrace liberal technocracy won't either.
 

pigeon

Banned
Liberal technocracy is actually still overwhelmingly popular in all the Western countries that are not having white supremacists take them over, but note that the reason white supremacists aren't attacking them is that they are overwhelmingly white already
 

Tall4Life

Member
I'm not arguing that we should completely dismantle the Democratic Party or have them plunge into far left policy. I'm fine with Perez and will continue to vote Democrat in the future. The only thing I'm arguing is that our concerns and ideas on how to improve the party shouldn't be totally ignored, acting like we don't exist at all like some here want, for what was once "extreme" policy becomes the norm a decade later and this discussion happens again.
 

Emerson

May contain jokes =>
Considering the farthest of the Left are generally those who stand to lose the most from Trump in power, it's incredibly baffling to see any suggestion from them that they might just rather fuck off than unite to fight the man.

I mean, I'm a straight white male who makes a lot of money. I don't particularly have a lot to lose here, but I'm ready to fight. So how about we just do that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom