Support NeoGAF

[mo60]

I think the GOP will only start worrying once they lose races like GA-6.Not when they lose races in blue states like delaware.

 

[Grexeno]

Oh was the Delaware special election today?

 

[AntraxSuicide]

I am real fucking sick of the implication, though, that if we're not on board with just running the Democrats as a full on dem socialist european style party its because we don't want it bad enough

Same here. I've literally always lived here in rural white Mississippi. I think a lot of policies would be great, but before we start trying to legislate for working whites I'd like to try to do something about the minorities around here who are literally staring down state governments that are as hostile to them as fucking ISIS would be, sometimes.

By this logic, shouldn't we have all abandoned the ACA as well? Over the past 6 years, it often polled terribly, was partially responsible for lots of 2010 Democratic losses, and even that parts that polled well (no pre-existing conditions, children stay on until 26, medicaid expansion) should apparently be compromised away because "there's a huge ol asterisk next to that question"? Were you even more distrustful of those?

All those folks back in 2010 did the "rational" thing and ran away from the ACA, because after all, you gotta appeal to the "moderates" right?

I guess I don't see why "lock in the private insurance system, make backroom deals with insurance companies, and steadily tweak a bunch of things until maybe one day we turn into Switzerland. Maybe." is considered a sober and rational political message that will rally people, but "hey you know that Medicare program that's pretty popular? Well, we should expand that to everyone" is some loony leftist message that only privileged white liberals in college would be into (to paraphrase a lot of the criticisms)

That's not quite the point they were making (I think). The point is that the approval ratings we saw for the ACA (and what we're seeing for it now) are the real numbers; when you just ask someone vaguely "Hey do you want healthcare for cheap?" you just get a lot of people saying "Yeah!" who actually only want it to go to white people.

There was one of those "Trump voters who are about to get fucked" articles that asked some woman in Ohio about losing the ACA, and her answer was something like "I just thought he'd stop those scamming city people from using it up, not working people" and it was just so fucking clear that she meant "black people" and "white people" for those two groups.

I'll be blunt - what if the only way to win those mythical working class voters is to throw non-white people under the bus? Will it be OK to care about the needs of minorities and women over the WWC then?

There are no common goals with people who want socialism, but only for white people. Because that's what they want. No matter how much you talk about "universal" policies, 90% of Trump voters will still say no because brown people get a piece as well.

And this is the core question that all of these debates are actually talking about. Is it possible to push for these far-left goals without tossing people of color out the window to do it? One camp says yes, the other says no. Neither has a 100% solid case since the former camp is clearly arguing in good faith (I don't think anyone here would tell black people to fuck off), while the latter camp has verifiable proof historically that people of color (and other minorities) get left out of these policies often.

Far-left: "We want policies X, Y, and Z for everyone!"
Minorities, particularly of color: "Does that mean us too? What are the guarantees?"
Far-left: "Of course, we believe in equality for everyone!" (Note: this is genuine in my opinion)

People of color have heard that before, and it's backfired on them before. And it's a fuckton worse if you lose an election to people living in these red shitholes instead of Seattle.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

The presidency I'm not worried about. But I am deeply deeply worried about our ability to control the senate, and without the senate the whole thing falls apart. There's no getting around the 2 votes given to every goddamn red state

Time to force through legislation to make DC and Puerto Rico a state (assuming they ever get their referendum process worked out)

Spoiler

will never happen

 

[Holmes]

I think the GOP will only start worrying once they lose races like GA-6.Not when they lose races in blue states like delaware.

It's nothing to be worried about, more upsetting, considering the same Republican came within 3% of winning the seat in 2014, when turnout was lower, and this would have given the state senate to the Republicans. It's very positive for Democrats though. GA-06 should be interesting though, yes.

 

[Suikoguy]

The GOP won't care as long as the democrats are getting results like the delaware special election in lean blue or super blue states.

Oh they care, and the special election also matters to get more people out to vote showing that yes if people go to vote it works.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Time to force through legislation to make DC and Puerto Rico a state (assuming they ever get their referendum process worked out)

Spoiler

will never happen

But for real, they should be states. And also, all of our smaller territories should be rolled into a Pacific state too. It's bullshit that in 2017 we still have unrepresented territories.

This is how I feel too, in almost exact measure.

Knowing and previously being close to people like my mother and father, I have no hope in converting them into decent non-racist human beings. This is the kind of thing that's rooted in upbringing. It comes from lifelong mental construction. If it is ever going to change, change will come from within. No amount of conversation geared towards changing their minds or helping them see peace is ever going to make a difference.

So if people like my parents, and many Trump fans, are a lost cause... where does that leave us?

I think back to before the election when I didn't know which ones of my friends or coworkers were racists. I didn't know which ones were misogynists. I didn't know which ones valued the safety of their guns over the safety of their fellow American. These things were below the surface and we were able to get along. We were able to coexist. I would never be close to them, or deepen my relationship with them, but we could at least function together on a basic social level.

Some days I think that that's the best we can hope for. Because you can't make a fifty year old man not a racist. But you can raise a new generation of Americans not to be. Sometimes I think if we can at least get to a point where our politics is rallied around common ground, then we can promote a culture that is a standard for progressive and liberal ideals. If we can normalize equality and liberal ideology in our culture, it will manifest in the burgeoning generation of politics.

That's why I think stuff like Star Wars having black or female leads is important too. That's the culture we want to promote and standardize, even if we have to talk about politics in regards to the issues instead of the voters.

I'm sort of rambling, but I need somewhere to talk about these ideas so that I can property digest them. I spend a lot of time in the real world not talking to anybody about this at all because the climate is so incredibly volatile. Talking about it here, even with apprehension, is important for me to find truth.

Great post. In my case, my dad is a racist piece of shit (among other things) and it's absolutely my intent to make sure he never meets his grandchildren. Maybe one day I'll tell them my dad was a shithead, but it'll be long after he dies. The goal is to shrivel them up as a group. There will always be racists, but if you make it one of the most shameful things to be, then they don't congregate as much.

The idea that anyone would be walking around with a fucking Pepe pin is a sign we're not doing enough. They should be afraid of massive social ostracization for that shit.

 

[mackaveli]

How come whenever Trump refers to Secretary Kelly. He always says this (well everytime I hear him mention him he says it): General Kelly now Secretary Kelly like to me he isn't comfortable with how Kelly is now Secretary Kelly like its only a womans job or some shit so he always starts with General Kelly to show that this guy is masculine or some shit before then proceeding to say Secretary Kelly.

Or am I just overthinking it. He does it all the time.

 

[jack_package_200]

Huh, Reddit seemed to take Tom Perez's appointment pretty well.

 

[The Technomancer]

Huh, Reddit seemed to take Tom Perez's appointment pretty well.

Really only Twitter is freaking out

Well and this forum apparently

 

[Teggy]

Twitter Thread Summary:

Kuwait Embassy moved event from 4 Seasons to Trump Hotel, paying around 60K. Trump stopping by Hotel coincidentally. Press Pool not being allowed into hotel.


https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/835664800663408641

Think he messed up as someone chimed in and said this dinner was on Wednesday.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

How come whenever Trump refers to Secretary Kelly. He always says this (well everytime I hear him mention him he says it): General Kelly now Secretary Kelly like to me he isn't comfortable with how Kelly is now Secretary Kelly like its only a womans job or some shit so he always starts with General Kelly to show that this guy is masculine or some shit before then proceeding to say Secretary Kelly.

Or am I just overthinking it. He does it all the time.

No you're probably spot on if he's doing that (I haven't noticed). He doesn't want to stop calling him General.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Really only Twitter is freaking out

Well and this forum apparently

This inspired me to check Facebook and only one friend posted about it, along with DSA (which just said "Perez is the new chair, organize with us for true democracy") and ginandtacos which made a joke about the guy who gave the nomination speech for Perez being a coal lobbyist. My roommate hasn't said anything about it yet.

It is kind of weird that it's contained to gaf.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I can't imagine how bad Trump is going to be at 74 after four years of being president while not sleeping.

 

[Grexeno]

Bernie Bros: "I will never trust polls again. Every single one was wrong."

Also Bernie Bros: "The fact that Bernie would have beaten Trump in the general is unquestionable. Here, look at these pre-convention polls from March."

 

[soul creator]

Did we just live through the same six years? Half of the country went frothing with rage over those basic improvements only to freak out when they realized taking the good stuff away from the "moochers" meant they would lose out also. I'm not saying we need to compromise away on universal healthcare, I'm cautioning people against thinking that its a surefire campaign winner

Half the country is gonna "froth with rage" over anything Democrats do, so why not just go for something that actually solves the problem in the first place and is actually way simpler to communicate? Unless you think existing Democrats are going to run away (and no polls show that, but I guess they have asterisks too?), or that it's some completely fringe position (which no polls show, but again, asterisks I guess) what's the point in constantly pre-compromising (especially when the only other option is the GOP basically wanting to leave people for dead)? Who are these mythical moderates that I keep hearing so much about that we have to appeal to? They surely aren't voting Democrats in, based on the past 6 years.

Of course, nothing is a "surefire campaign winner". But we do know that the ACA and other convoluted private/public programs aren't surefire campaign winners either, and that's been the most common type of Democratic programs on offer over the past 30 years or so. So, now what, considering we still have plenty of people without insurance, and even those with insurance sometimes can still barely afford it?

I guess we disagree on what's actually considered "moderate". I think people fall into the idea of thinking that convoluted stuff like the ACA is somehow inherently more "moderate" and "serious", even though I see no evidence of that among regular people. I don't get why "add more tax credits and subsidies and deductible relief and regulations and hope that we maybe turn into Switzerland one day" is inherently a more pragmatic message than "let's just give Medicare to everyone".

I mean, we constantly see Medicare being among the most popular programs, even among old voters that are usually Republican. If they're supposedly so right-wing anti-government, and people always put policies into strict left-right divides, shouldn't they hate Medicare?

And if the reply is "well, it's racism, they like it for white people, but not for others", how does the ACA avoid that? Is medicare for all too much for racists to support, but the ACA somehow is able to skate under the radar of racism? I certainly haven't seen evidence of that either.

And anyway, we're not supposed to give a fuck about what racists think anyway, lol.

Calling strawman arguments paraphrasing is an interesting twist I guess. Most Dems, including more moderate ones, support the public option.

That's the whole point of the BernieBro smear, to paint anything left of mainstream Dems as something only a tiny number of privileged people like. There's never any evidence of that, but it's certainly been a useful strategy to use.

Most Dems (and people overall) also support a federally funded healthcare system that provides insurance for everyone also, but for some strange reason, this keeps getting painted as some fringe belief, or that people don't really support it, because racism.

The problem is that there weren't 60 votes for it in the senate in 2009 and eliminating the filibuster wasn't an option. It sucks but that's our version of democracy. Most of the arguments you're trying to hand wave away are that the ACA was still worth doing without it. We're seeing the reason why working with insurance companies make sense right now. They're throwing up huge roadblocks to the GOP rolling back Obamacare instead of working with the Republicans.

And after all the politicking to get this passed, it still led to massive Democratic losses. If the future of our country depends on constantly catering to corporate needs rather than people's needs first, then it seems like we're kinda fucked long-term anyway, lol.

I'm not against voting for something like the ACA as a compromise, if that genuinely is the only thing on the table. I'm not even necessarily against the ACA within the specific political context and congress makeup of 2009-2010. What I'm against is always starting with the compromise, and pretending like everything else is some loony extreme belief, even though there's no evidence that it is. I'm also against a supposed "left-wing" party acting like various things are loony extreme beliefs (even when the majority of the party supports it! I guess Democrats are all racist too?), and then acting shocked when someone says that the ACA isn't the be all end all of progressive policy.

But anyhoo, good discussion. I'll leave things off with this, lol: One thing red state voters don’t like about Obamacare is that it sucks.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Again, run that poll with the cavaet, "do you support a federally funded healthcare program if middle class taxes go up and the level of care for middle class families stays the same."

There are multiple threads here even on NeoGAF where people freak about their taxes going up - because they thought it would all be paid for by Wall Street & billionaires.

And I say that as somebody who believes middle class taxes need to go up, but they need to go up after people have gotten benefits. Create the program, then say we need to increase taxes to pay for it.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

The care will probably stay the same, but they will lose their plan.

And there will be (possibly justified) fear of getting worse care because change is associated with risk.

 

[sc0la]

Are we really posting Bruenig articles now? The dude that got fired for harassing people on twitter?

 

[Wilsongt]

RussiaLeaks wasting no time in attacking Perez and linking him to the DNC's cheating of Godnie Sandsus.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

But anyhoo, good discussion. I'll leave things off with this, lol: One thing red state voters don’t like about Obamacare is that it sucks.

Do they dislike it because of what it is as policy or because their governor/state government didn't expand Medicaid or set up an exchange, therefore weakening it?

Unless things have changed.. pretty sure Kynect was pretty popular in Kentucky until Matt Bevin ended it, as one example.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Do they dislike it because of what it is as policy or because their governor/state government didn't expand Medicaid or set up an exchange, therefore weakening it?

Unless things have changed.. pretty sure Kynect was pretty popular in Kentucky until Matt Bevin ended it, as one example.

There have been examples of Democrats talking about how poorly the ACA is working or not working. Ol' Bill called it crazy and Dayton (who expanded Medicaid and is certainly not a conservative) said it was unaffordable and not working.

Also the article goes into that it's frustrating for poor people to see Medicaid be 1000x better than subsidized exchange plans so when they are working less hours so they can stay on Medicaid, it's probably not a good system.

 

[AntoneM]

There have been examples of Democrats talking about how poorly the ACA is working or not working. Ol' Bill called it crazy and Dayton (who expanded Medicaid and is certainly not a conservative) said it was unaffordable and not working.

Also the article goes into that it's frustrating for poor people to see Medicaid be 1000x better than subsidized exchange plans so when they are working less hours so they can stay on Medicaid, it's probably not a good system.

This is a small number of people and they wouldn't have had healthcare before the ACA. Not to be heartless, but, there are very very few pieces of legislation that don't have "losers", those people who are not benefited by it. I don't blame them for gaming the system because otherwise they would fall into the loser camp and I also don't think that makes the ACA a failure.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

There have been examples of Democrats talking about how poorly the ACA is working or not working. Ol' Bill called it crazy and Dayton (who expanded Medicaid and is certainly not a conservative) said it was unaffordable and not working.

Also the article goes into that it's frustrating for poor people to see Medicaid be 1000x better than subsidized exchange plans so when they are working less hours so they can stay on Medicaid, it's probably not a good system.

Mark Dayton said it wasn't working for the 2 percent of people in the individual market who don't receive any kind of subsidy.

And, yes, that gap is a big issue! It's something that needs to be addressed. I just don't know that it's proof that the ACA isn't working. It certainly isn't for that small group of people. But it is for a larger group of people.

 

[Cat]

My Indivisible group for our district (TX-21) held their own town hall since our rep, Lamar Smith, refuses to meet with them.

Tweet saying over 400 people with a shot of the crowd in video:
https://twitter.com/lauriejoyfrick/status/835645664365277188

Media says over 600 people here:
http://www.kvue.com/news/local/citizens-hold-town-hall-meeting-for-us-rep-lamar-smith/414758399

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Mark Dayton said it wasn't working for the 2 percent of people in the individual market who don't receive any kind of subsidy.

And, yes, that gap is a big issue! It's something that needs to be addressed. I just don't know that it's proof that the ACA isn't working. It certainly isn't for that small group of people. But it is for a larger group of people.

That's 40% of the people using the exchanges, which might mean there's a bigger problem here, especially since keeping those people in the market is key to keeping it affordable for the other 60%!

And it's frustrating when we have systems that are working basically fine (Medicaid, Medicare) and instead we have to use a system of questionable value that's superior to its predecessor but is otherwise unwieldy and provides poorer services than the simpler solution.

 

[mAcOdIn]

I think one of the things that's hurting Obamacare is how it's future was always in doubt, it's been under threat of repeal from the start which really doesn't encourage companies making an honest go at it. And we all know that some States are essentially sabotaging it by not doing the medicaid expansion. Way I see it is it's working as expected given the situation. Hard to say it's broken when things that needed to happen simultaneously for it to work didn't happen. At the same time as a citizen it'd be hard to say it's working, behind the scene shit doesn't matter to them.

Really, I worry about any plan in this country because right now we're split down the middle as a country(well the parties are at least) as to whether a plan should even exist at all and I don't think that kind of attitude fosters honest long term efforts of viability from those participating. From either side, heck, even if I was a consumer I'd feel iffy subscribing to something that's been under threat of repeal since the first day it was passed. Worse yet, in my opinion, is if it were repealed that'd basically show these companies to always tread carefully, only dip one toe in the pool for any future law and be prepared to split at a moment's notice, that's not a way for an industry to operate. It'd totally validate those companies who treated their participation as political leverage or didn't try to make it work. I don't see how a market solution can work without a semblance of stability and a long term commitment from the government which just can't exist right now with our two parties.

'course that's with the assumption that the insurance companies are part of the next plan we push.

 

[soul creator]

Do they dislike it because of what it is as policy or because their governor/state government didn't expand Medicaid or set up an exchange, therefore weakening it?

Unless things have changed.. pretty sure Kynect was pretty popular in Kentucky until Matt Bevin ended it, as one example.

All the more reason why convoluted state-by-state programs are tougher to build a messaging campaign around, and also maintain a coalition of political support for!

It just leaves you more vulnerable to a single GOP state governor being able to end it (why intentionally design a national policy in this way?). As opposed to something like Social Security and Medicare, which are routinely considered "third rails" of politics that can't be touched (though the GOP, and sometimes Democrats, certainly try to hack around it).

It's not a shock that people don't realize the benefits of something, when it's inherently designed in a way to obscure itself and be overly complex. It's still obviously better than not having it, but I think it's something that should be taken into account when designing policy.

Spoiler

of course, the real reason why it's so needlessly complex for regular people to use is because health insurance companies mostly want it that way, and want to maintain their business

This is a small number of people and they wouldn't have had healthcare before the ACA. Not to be heartless, but, there are very very few pieces of legislation that don't have "losers", those people who are not benefited by it. I don't blame them for gaming the system because otherwise they would fall into the loser camp and I also don't think that makes the ACA a failure.

I'd argue that the losers under ACA are more numerous than the losers under a medicare-for-all system. The only real losers I would be concerned about under medicare-for-all are lower/middle class folks who work at health insurance companies, but there are ways to address that (interestingly enough, the "but what about their jobs" concern never comes up when it comes to policies that affect certain other groups of people...)

And ACA isn't a "failure" in comparison to before obviously. But it's certainly a failure in its goal of "universal, affordable health care". Since it's still not universal, and it's often still unaffordable (again, better than before, but it's far from actually solving the problem)

One argument is "let's tweak it some more until eventually become Switzerland". My argument is "you already have a popular program available in Medicare, why not expand that instead?"

The latter seems far more straightforward and simpler to message, but that's just me I guess.

Again, run that poll with the cavaet, "do you support a federally funded healthcare program if middle class taxes go up and the level of care for middle class families stays the same."

There are multiple threads here even on NeoGAF where people freak about their taxes going up - because they thought it would all be paid for by Wall Street & billionaires.

And I say that as somebody who believes middle class taxes need to go up, but they need to go up after people have gotten benefits. Create the program, then say we need to increase taxes to pay for it.

Then you communicate to people that they're already paying for Medicare (it's literally on every person's paycheck), and you would no longer pay premiums, and for the vast majority of people, they would more than likely come out ahead. And hammer on that. And organize grassroots folks to message it (oops). And use all that DNC consultant money to make constant ads about it, lol.

It wouldn't be easy of course. But passing and defending the ACA wasn't easy either! People freaked out about their premiums going up, and people still are forced into "can I afford these premiums every month...oh shit I can...but wait, can I afford this deductible?" conflicts. So it just seems weird to intentionally design a policy in a way that actually makes your job as a politician harder, as we've seen over the past few years.

And the middle class is already pissed because their plans changed, they resent the fact that they still have to deal with high deductibles, premiums, in-network/out of network shenanigans, suprise costs, etc. So it's not like the ACA actually solved those particular problems either.

So why are ACA worries simply a necessary evil that we just need to continue tweaking the policy and message on, but medicare for all worries are somehow permanently unsolvable problems that can never be addressed? Sure, if you create a poll question that only talks about the main bad thing and doesn't talk about any of the good things, people are less likely to support it. That applies to literally any policy, so I'm not sure why this is somehow seen as a specific medicare-for-all issue.

If we have to repeatedly cater to 1) corporate interests and 2) never talking about taxes at all, no matter how directly beneficial to people's lives it is, then as I mentioned in my previous post, we're fucked long-term anyway, lol.

 

[Pixieking]

A special election to fill a vacancy in the 10th District in the Delaware State Senate took place on February 25, 2017.

The officeholder who vacated the seat, Bethany Hall-Long, was a Democrat. She was elected as the lieutenant governor of Delaware in the November 2016 elections. In the special election, Democrat Stephanie Hansen defeated Republican John Marino.

Dem beat the Republican by 17.3%.

 

[~Kinggi~]

I just watched Children of Men again and good lord it is highly disturbing how much they might have gotten right. I mean, aside from the 'stop having babies' thing every other little detail is almost dead on the money, at least, we are on track for that future. If you havent seen it i suggest you watch it and shit your pants. Prophets those writers (and author).

 

[Aaron Strife]

My Indivisible group for our district (TX-21) held their own town hall since our rep, Lamar Smith, refuses to meet with them.

Tweet saying over 400 people with a shot of the crowd in video:
https://twitter.com/lauriejoyfrick/status/835645664365277188

Media says over 600 people here:
http://www.kvue.com/news/local/citizens-hold-town-hall-meeting-for-us-rep-lamar-smith/414758399

We had something like this for Erik Paulsen, we surpassed the fire code at a local church and people ended up being turned away, including me. I signed in though all the same.

 

[shinra-bansho]

If you make a concerted effort to explain to people they're already paying for other people's healthcare, you're just going to convince them that that program should be ended, not expanded.

 

[kess]

My Indivisible group for our district (TX-21) held their own town hall since our rep, Lamar Smith, refuses to meet with them.

Tweet saying over 400 people with a shot of the crowd in video:
https://twitter.com/lauriejoyfrick/status/835645664365277188

Media says over 600 people here:
http://www.kvue.com/news/local/citizens-hold-town-hall-meeting-for-us-rep-lamar-smith/414758399

That's an ...excellent idea. This should happen in every district where there is a congressional no show.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

We had something like this for Erik Paulsen, we surpassed the fire code at a local church and people ended up being turned away, including me. I signed in though all the same.

Even though it would just be for catharsis, I really want to go yell at Labrador. Unsurprisingly, he hasn't done town halls or anything in quite a long time.

I guess I can save it for our new state senator, who is of the "climate change is a scam and women who get abortions should be locked in jail" variety. Three hundred fucking votes, man.

 

[Tranqueris]

What I want for Monday:

Every Democratic Senator making a fuss about Richard Burr's collusion with the white house.

 

[Armaros]

If you make a concerted effort to explain to people they're already paying for other people's healthcare, you're just going to convince them that that program should be ended, not expanded.

Yup, all they hear is "im already paying taxes for X person, so get rid of it now!"

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I have far more respect for "women who get abortions should be in prison" people than "abortion is murder with no murderers involved or...." politicians that infest the GOP.

 

[tuxfool]

I have far more respect for "women who get abortions should be in prison" people than "abortion is murder with no murderers involved or...." politicians that infest the GOP.

What are you talking about? The Devil is doing the murderin'

 

[leroidys]

I am real fucking sick of the implication, though, that if we're not on board with just running the Democrats as a full on dem socialist european style party its because we don't want it bad enough

In other tales from Bernie-or-busters, I had a professor tell me today on facebook that literally the only reason to vote for Perez over Ellison was racism. And no I'm not being reductive, that's exactly what they said.

 

[Aaron Strife]

In other tales from Bernie-or-busters, I had a professor tell me today on facebook that literally the only reason to vote for Perez over Ellison was racism. And no I'm not being reductive, that's exactly what they said.

It was a Latino versus an African-American...

I mean yes, you can be racist against one and not the other, but that can certainly go the other way.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

I do think people are underplaying the "Ellison is a spooky Muslim who hates Jews" smear.

 

[The Technomancer]

I do think people are underplaying the "Ellison is a spooky Muslim who hates Jews" smear.

I honestly don't think it matters. The DNC chair is going to be in the news for the next approximate 17 hours

 

[shinra-bansho]

I do think people are underplaying the "Ellison is a spooky Muslim who hates Jews" smear.

The spooky Muslim is the Deputy Chair, confirmed afaik by pretty unanimous viva voce.

 

[Carpe Libertatem]

I do think people are underplaying the "Ellison is a spooky Muslim who hates Jews" smear.

He's gotten criticism for his comments on Israel since forever

I think some of it - especially in the OT thread - teetered too close to a "big Jewish conspiracy" for my comfort. But maybe I'm just on edge given the world we live in now.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

I think I'm honestly beginning to hate Berniecrats more than I hate Trump supporters.

It's chair of the DNC. How petty can you get?

 

[You Know Nothing]

I think I'm honestly beginning to hate Berniecrats more than I hate Trump supporters.

It's chair of the DNC. How petty can you get?

Plenty petty. Let's see how low we can go.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Plenty petty. Let's see how low we can go.

I mean when you're putting the future of the party in the hands of someone so self-aggrandizing they won't even officially join the party I dunno how much lower you can go.

 

[Aaronology]

Plenty petty. Let's see how low we can go.

I think this will settle down soon enough.

+1 for the Salvat avatar.

 

[mo60]

Trump bashed Nice and Paris in his CPAC speech on Friday and the french president responded.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/po...mething-say/ria3wz4slWlQRQcJ4RiT1N/story.html

 

[Pixieking]

Sens. Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren: The two most prominent voices of liberals in Washington made a show of force with very early endorsements of Ellison. The goal was to end the race before it started, discouraging other serious candidates from running.

(From: Winners and losers from the Democratic National Committee chairman's race )

I've been trying to put my finger on what confused me about the Bernie wing pushing Ellison so hard, and this made me realise it. Bernie and Warren acted in the same way that "the establishment" acted in the Presidential candidacy - pushing a specific candidate hard to create the narrative there couldn't be any other choice. 95% of what I read about Ellison was that it was the "grassroots and Bernie Bro choice". Now, certainly I can understand the grassroots point there. But Bernie and the Bros are guilty of gross hypocrisy in what he tried to do, surely?

Also from that article:

Republicans had been open about their hopes that Ellison would win the chair's race, believing his strongly liberal record and past controversies would give them a useful punching bag for years to come. Perez, while still quite liberal, is not the lightning rod that Ellison would have been. The search continues ...

Not read too much from this perspective, but it sounds like Ellison would've given the GOP a specific person to turn attacks on, in the same way as Hillary was the focus during the campaign.