RustyNails
Member
Bernie just needs to retire. He's such a horrible spokesman. His purity tests will mean another 4 years of Trump bullshit in 2020.
-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PoliGAF 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Sanders is not a Democratic Party member, so why is he inserting himself into party politics.
Who wouldn't? I don't care about parties. If the Democrats started pushing for legalising slavery, I'm not going to support it just because I'm a Democrat. Extreme example to make my point, but you see what I mean. Nobody has a vested interest in a party just because it is that party, they have a vested interest in that party because it does what they think is right. Sanders has a large influence over the Democratic membership, and will accordingly use it to change the party as and where he can. Party politics is politics politics - what happens in parties affects everyone and everyone has a right to be concerned by that.
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.
Right, but this is true of anyone. By putting Ossoff forward, by pushing him as a progressive, you are driving a wedge between people - those who want to elect real progressives and those who don't. Everything is a wedge issue to someone. The only reason you're complaining is because you're on the losing side of the wedge.
Why it is only gatekeeping when his side does it, and never when yours does it?
Personal politics before country, then?
Obviously not. My politics is what's best for my country - if it wasn't, it wouldn't be my politics. It is better for America that a Sanders-ite candidate gets elected in 2020. If Sanders didn't intervene, he would be doing his country a disservice.
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?
Okay, so, argue the opposite. Be my guest. I'm waiting. But this sounds an awful lot like: the mean Sanders has convinced everyone that Wall Street sucks, but we have no counterarguments, so let's just say that he shouldn't be talking at all! No wonder you're losing influence. Fight for your ideas! Show some fire!
People want a preacher man, not an accountant.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Right I saw the NPR thing earlier. I don't disagree that local candidates will be held to different standards, and that the nationalization of local politics is going to be a really big problem no matter where on the progressive spectrum you fall. But...that applies to economic progressivism and economic populism as well. That shit aint going to fly in a lot of red and purple America, and Sanders and many of his supporters still seem to think that it is, and so cleave this delineation between "real progressives" and "not so sure if they're progressives" based on those economic lines, because apparently we can compromise when one area might not be locally popular, but not another
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Yeah these quotes are pretty bad. How is the Dem party supposed to keep the Obama coalition rallied if we throw all of our social positions out the door? And it's especially bad that he's so quick to do so.
I'm fine with his mayor because I understand compromise in red areas. But apparently he only shares that view as long as he's not giving anything up on his end.
Bernie just needs to retire. He's such a horrible spokesman. His purity tests will mean another 4 years of Trump bullshit in 2020.
"Compromise is the fuel of progress"
I think taking clear and honest positions is exactly what the dems need in 2018. That means saying no sometimes.
You can say that, but in main off topic every time Sanders opens his mouth and says something some passerby likes they make a thread about it. Of course, they're not going to make threads about the negative shit Sanders does. While the OT is perpetually relitigating the primary, numbers and districts and calculations are flying around in here.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.
If those who are only following their Great Leader's every dribble of a word and take it for gospel, then obviously Sanders saying something damaging to women's and civil rights would be a problem.
What I can say is if DailyKos, being the den of active participants they are, is saying Sanders is hindering their efforts, then Sanders should learn what he should say and what he shouldn't say. Hillary had to do it, Obama had to do it, but of course they have pressures and hardships that Sanders cannot even begin to imagine so they had to be better. We should stop lowering the fucking bar for old white men.
It's not surprising to me that a liberal from Vermont defines progressivism based on economic issues, and not social/racial/gender justice.
Do they even have brown people in Vermont?
🤔
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Holy shit. No one cares or wants Bernie to call Ossoff a progressive. What we want is for him to say something inoffensive like "Ossoff is a good person and candidate and I wish him luck" and then keep his mouth shut. It is not helpful for him to explicitly say Ossoff is "not a progressive," especially while going to campaign for an anti-choice candidate at the same time!
He is testing the limits of his popularity in the Democratic Party, I'll say that much.
He is testing the limits of his popularity in the Democratic Party, I'll say that much.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
It's not surprising to me that a liberal from Vermont defines progressivism based on economic issues, and not social/racial/gender justice.
It really just comes off as excusing problematic older relatives. Fuck that. If Sanders wants to go national, that means accepting national criticism from various left wing groups. He doesn't get to throw women or people of color under the bus without some outcry.
Holy shit. No one cares or wants Bernie to call Ossoff a progressive. What we want is for him to say something inoffensive like "Ossoff is a good person and candidate and I wish him luck" and then keep his mouth shut. It is not helpful for him to explicitly say Ossoff is "not a progressive," especially while going to campaign for an anti-choice candidate at the same time!
He is testing the limits of his popularity in the Democratic Party, I'll say that much.
When did he say Ossoff is "not a progressive"?
Carpe Libertatem
Member
When did he say Ossoff is "not a progressive"?
Implicitly, not explicitly, then. My point remains the same. And yes, saying "I don't know if Ossoff is a progressive" is implicitly saying he's not. Either that or Bernie literally doesn't know, which I think is bad for someone who is supposed to be a leader in the party!
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
Holy shit. No one cares or wants Bernie to call Ossoff a progressive. What we want is for him to say something inoffensive like "Ossoff is a good person and candidate and I wish him luck" and then keep his mouth shut. It is not helpful for him to explicitly say Ossoff is "not a progressive," especially while going to campaign for an anti-choice candidate at the same time!
He is testing the limits of his popularity in the Democratic Party, I'll say that much.
This. You can be remain principled and not have to endorse against your ideals while still speaking carefully, which he basically never does. Nuance, word choice, etc.
IggyChooChoo
Member
Implicitly, not explicitly, then. My point remains the same. And yes, saying "I don't know if Ossoff is a progressive" is implicitly saying he's not. Either that or Bernie literally doesn't know, which I think is bad for someone who is supposed to be a leader in the party!
Right, and even if you're on board with Bernie setting gates, it makes sense to set those gates before a dem primary, when a better dem is theoretically possible. It does not make sense to set that gate after the primary, when the only other option is a Republican.
People want a preacher man, not an accountant.
The subtitle to the new book on the 2016 election campaign, ladies and gentleman.
As for the rest of your post, Crab, I think this comment says it better than I ever could:
Holy shit. No one cares or wants Bernie to call Ossoff a progressive. What we want is for him to say something inoffensive like "Ossoff is a good person and candidate and I wish him luck" and then keep his mouth shut. It is not helpful for him to explicitly say Ossoff is "not a progressive," especially while going to campaign for an anti-choice candidate at the same time!
He is testing the limits of his popularity in the Democratic Party, I'll say that much.
You guys need to get over the primary. I mean, you won even. Let it go.
Basically (though I wouldn't necessarily agree that what he's saying is dumb).
Everything about our culture, history, education, media, etc demonizes the concept of political parties (how many times in school were you taught that George Washington quote about parties?) and promotes the idea of individual heroes/saviors in politics. Americans have an extremely poor understanding of politics/civics in general because our shitty education and media don't properly teach that topic. I'd vastly prefer a parliamentary system where we vote for parties, but I'm a tiny minority. The very idea would repulse most Americans who view "party," and "partisan," as toxic, dirty words.
It doesn't help that the Democratic party isn't even a particularly great party. They're weak, ineffective, corrupt (albeit significantly less than the opposition), and all too often seem satisfied with simply being better than the other side.
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.
Basically (though I wouldn't necessarily agree that what he's saying is dumb).
You guys also need to stop blaming voters for this shit. I agree that it's stupid, but there will be almost zero regular people who give a flying fuck about the "party as a whole." But it's because we've been told that we shouldn't our whole lives.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.
Everything about our culture, history, education, media, etc demonizes the concept of political parties (how many times in school were you taught that George Washington quote about parties?) and promotes the idea of individual heroes/saviors in politics. Americans have an extremely poor understanding of politics/civics in general because our shitty education and media don't properly teach that topic. I'd vastly prefer a parliamentary system where we vote for parties, but I'm a tiny minority. The very idea would repulse most Americans who view "party," and "partisan," as toxic, dirty words.
It doesn't help that the Democratic party isn't even a particularly great party. They're weak, ineffective, corrupt (albeit significantly less than the opposition), and all too often seem satisfied with simply being better than the other side.
It really just comes off as excusing problematic older relatives. Fuck that. If Sanders wants to go national, that means accepting national criticism from various left wing groups. He doesn't get to throw women or people of color under the bus without some outcry.
I'm not excusing it and I don't like it either.
It doesn't help that the Democratic party isn't even a particularly great party. They're weak, ineffective, corrupt (albeit significantly less than the opposition), and all too often seem satisfied with simply being better than the other side.
When "being better than the other side" means completely different (and better) living conditions for millions of people, many of whom -- based on their gender, religion, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation -- are completely ignored if not demonized by that other side... well, that's not an especially bad choice to make, is it.
Kid Kamikaze10
Member
To me, this isn't about the Primary.
This is about Sanders rectifying his mistake: taking black and women voters for granted. A big reason he fucked up in the Primary.
We keep talking about Hillary Clinton never learns from her mistakes. And that is unfortunately true.
But Bernie sure is doing the same right now.
This is about Sanders rectifying his mistake: taking black and women voters for granted. A big reason he fucked up in the Primary.
We keep talking about Hillary Clinton never learns from her mistakes. And that is unfortunately true.
But Bernie sure is doing the same right now.
excelsiorlef
Member
Right, but this is true of anyone. By putting Ossoff forward, by pushing him as a progressive, you are driving a wedge between people - those who want to elect real progressives and those who don't. Everything is a wedge issue to someone. The only reason you're complaining is because you're on the losing side of the wedge.
What is or isn't a real progressive?
And who decides that?
Are you saying that those who think Ossoff might be progressive don't want real progressives, and that those who don't think Ossoff is progressives (ie Sanders) are the only ones who want real progressives?
What does it matter at this stage anyway? It's him or a ten times worse Republican... Sanders trying to play Progressive Maker is frustrating because a lot of people listen to him.
Ossoff though absolutely has a lot of progressive policies especially on Social issues...
Like literally other than some more moderate economic opinions Ossoff actually sounds pretty damn great.
https://electjon.com/priorities/
That said I echo that the issue isn't that Sanders must call him Progressive... It's that Sanders could't even be bothered to avoid implying that he's not one while simultaneously talking about how not all candidates can ever agree on every issue which conveniently applies to social issues like abortion but not economics (and Ossoff isn't some crazy right wing guy on economics either). It's clear that compromise comes only in the name of things Sanders doesn't prioritize.
You guys need to get over the primary. I mean, you won even. Let it go.
This isn't about the primary this is about the here and now... Sanders is still doing things right now that need to be talked about ya know.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Bernie is really putting the democrats in a bad position for 2020. They pretty much have to include him in the conversations for leadership (whether that is VP, cabinet, or leadership position in the DNC) to appease him and his zealot followers. Not saying that he wouldn't be a good possibility for any of those positions, but they have to find something that makes everyone happy or else he's going to screw this thing up again.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
And look, I think it's great that Bernie is going to Omaha to campaign with Mello because Nebraska is exactly the type of place where Bernie's message plays well. Unfortunately because of his comments about Ossoff immediately before that, he's likely hurt Mello more than he's helped him. We wouldn't be talking about Mello at all if it weren't for Bernie's comments about Ossoff.
benicillin
Banned
That said I echo that the issue isn't that Sanders must call him Progressive... It's that Sanders could't even be bothered to avoid implying that he's not one while simultaneously talking about how not all candidates can ever agree on every issue which conveniently applies to social issues like abortion but not economics (and Ossoff isn't some crazy right wing guy on economics either). It's clear that compromise comes only in the name of things Sanders doesn't prioritize.
I guess I don't understand why it's so important that Sanders possibly implied that Ossof isn't progressive - is Ossof not going to win because a bunch of suburban people in GA-6 are swayed by Sanders opinion of him? Does everyone have to be progressive to be a democrat? Would you even want Ossof to label himself or be labeled as a progressive?
I feel like this wouldn't even be news if, like you said, it wasn't in the context of him campaigning for that pro-life mayor, but Perez was there too so idk.
Lucky Forward
Member
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.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-tweets-about-ridiculous-first-100-days-marker/
In October 2016, he tweeted the details of his 100 Day Plan which included tax reform, repealing and replacing Obamacare, ending illegal immigration, fixing Social Security, cleaning up corruption in Washington, and a slew of other proposed laws.
My '100 DAY PLAN' will Make America Great Again, but only if we WIN. Donate BIG today! https://t.co/TQRYDO0s5s pic.twitter.com/J1HLNP2EiV
Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 26, 2016
Carpe Libertatem
Member
I guess I don't understand why it's so important that Sanders possibly implied that Ossof isn't progressive - is Ossof not going to win because a bunch of suburban people in GA-6 are swayed by Sanders opinion of him?
I feel like this wouldn't even be news if, like you said, it wasn't in the context of him campaigning for that pro-life mayor, but Perez was there too so idk.
Perez did not go to Omaha to campaign with Mello, though he did express his support (was done with much better wording than what Bernie normally does, though). But yes, it is a problem that Bernie within a couple days implied Ossoff is not progressive and also campaigned for an anti-choice candidate. We wouldn't even be talking about the latter if he didn't do the former.
Box of Kittens
Banned
I'm not sure this has to be so complicated. I'm fine with Sanders focusing his efforts on candidates like Quist and Mello. It makes more sense from his perspective and from the party's perspective it's a better use of him anyway.
The problem is that he shouldn't be saying things to undermine our candidate in a high profile race. It shouldn't be that hard to come up with an answer to questions like "Ossoff and I disagree on a number of issues but I certainly hope everybody shows up to send him to Congress in June."
The problem is that he shouldn't be saying things to undermine our candidate in a high profile race. It shouldn't be that hard to come up with an answer to questions like "Ossoff and I disagree on a number of issues but I certainly hope everybody shows up to send him to Congress in June."
AntraxSuicide
Banned
I'm not excusing it and I don't like it either.
Sorry didn't mean to imply you were excusing it. Just agreeing. I think a lot of Sanders' fans give him a pass because "he's just not familiar with that stuff" but that's literally the same thing we do for older people who say racist stuff.
I guess I don't understand why it's so important that Sanders possibly implied that Ossof isn't progressive - is Ossof not going to win because a bunch of suburban people in GA-6 are swayed by Sanders opinion of him? Does everyone have to be progressive to be a democrat? Would you even want Ossof to label himself or be labeled as a progressive?
I feel like this wouldn't even be news if, like you said, it wasn't in the context of him campaigning for that pro-life mayor, but Perez was there too so idk.
I actually think it's better to not outright call him a progressive, but to just say "He seems like a good dude" and leave it at that. But as far as I'm concerned it seems like both candidates mentioned are pretty progressive, but because one of them compromised on an issue Sanders doesn't seem to care about (if asked, of course he'll say he's socially progressive but it's far from the first thing he ever thinks about) that guy gets the full-throated support. It's purely egotism, which is fine and common in politics, but it certainly doesn't get Sanders' any brownie points for being a Great Uniter.
BoogieWoogie
Banned
Odds on Chaffetz announcing he's quitting today?
I'd imagine it'll be around 4 o'clock or so to avoid the news cycle.
I'd imagine it'll be around 4 o'clock or so to avoid the news cycle.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It's clear that compromise comes only in the name of things Sanders doesn't prioritize.
This is true of everyone, though. Literally everyone. I think you would be extremely at loath to support an incredibly and deeply transphobic senatorial candidate - even if they otherwise largely agreed with you (I would be, too). We all have priority issues where we say: okay, I can't condone this. We can compromise on minor things that we don't prioritise, sure - they were minor. But a compromise is: I give up a little of my A for you giving up a little of your B, and we both get what we want. If your A is incredibly important to you, and their B is incredibly important to them, you won't give it up - you shouldn't give it up. There's not always a compromise you should reach.
And to go deeper: economic polices are social policies. They're one and the same. 'economics' is just a system for distributing social privileges. We literally give people state-sanctioned tickets they can exchange with other people in order to access certain opportunities. The main way, by far, that black Americans are discriminated against is that they are give less of these state-sanctioned tickets than everyone else, and cut out from all their opportunities. Police killings don't even come close to the years lost to poverty, with stress, poor diet, worse healthcare, less educational attainment, and so on. Same goes for women. Do you know the biggest single biggest reason why women have an abortion, accounting for 73% of all abortions? They can't afford to have a child right now. Additionally, unwanted pregnancies are more common among those who are poorer because they've typically had less education, less sexual health education, are more likely to have self-esteem issues that push people towards seeking validation, and so on.
If you seriously wanted to cut down on discrimination - I mean seriously, not just pissing around the sides - you'd be running on a programme which had economic consequences in the sense of: you'd have to spend money on that shit. Repairing communities, improving educational and early schooling, providing more child support. Obviously keeping funding for Planned Parenthood is fantastic. It's great. I would vote for it all day, every day, and filibuster the shit out of anyone opposed. But in the grand scheme of things... it's not very progressive, in the sense that it barely progresses things. It's a milquetoast policy. The number of people whose lives you improve is small compared to what you could be doing.
Instead, we get candidates like Ossoff who are sexist-lite, who're racist-lite, because they're not actually willing to put in the effort to change the system. They're pretty content with the status quo.
And the final remaining response I've seen is "okay, but at least he's only sexist-lite! The Republicans are full sexist!". But where does that logic end? At some point, you have to say: no, this isn't good enough. Even if you're a shade better than the other guy.
Pandora012
Member
I wonder if they will be able to stop a government shut down. They have 1 week to pass the budget, but we haven't seen anything. Now they are talking about healthcare....
It certainly is an easy choice for me! I've voted in every primary/general election since I've been eligible to vote, and I've voted democrat every time (except in the multiple local/state races that always have uncontested republicans running, then I write in names). That's why I'd prefer a parliamentary system, so I'd have more to choose from than a collection of pure evil vs a collection of well-meaning incompetents/self-serving opportunists.I'm not excusing it and I don't like it either.
When "being better than the other side" means completely different (and better) living conditions for millions of people, many of whom -- based on their gender, religion, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation -- are completely ignored if not demonized by that other side... well, that's not an especially bad choice to make, is it.
But my post was more about how chastising voters for not caring about "the party as a whole," or waiting for them to suddenly start caring is a losing prospect. Everything from the media, education system, current political climate, arguably even our constitutional framework actively discourages caring about a party.
excelsiorlef
Member
I guess I don't understand why it's so important that Sanders possibly implied that Ossof isn't progressive - is Ossof not going to win because a bunch of suburban people in GA-6 are swayed by Sanders opinion of him? Does everyone have to be progressive to be a democrat? Would you even want Ossof to label himself or be labeled as a progressive?
I feel like this wouldn't even be news if, like you said, it wasn't in the context of him campaigning for that pro-life mayor, but Perez was there too so idk.
Because it's pretty clear Sanders only wants to support candidates that fit his status of "progressive"... Sanders could have said anything else other than a subtle dismissal of Ossoff. That helps fucking no one. He doesn't have to campaign for him but talking like Ossoff isn't worth electing helps fucking zero people
It's an issue because this:
Sanders was less interested in the Ossoff race. Hes 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.
Should be unacceptable
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...cd6118e1409_story.html?utm_term=.d9799a370bdd
Flores added that while she personally would not support any candidate who does not fundamentally support a woman's right to abortion the fact that this one issue didn't disqualify his support of Mello just speaks to the complexity of what it means to be a progressive champion during a time when many within the Democratic Party are still trying to figure out what that means.
As for Ossoff, Flores said, the candidate "has not taken a definitive stance on some progressive issues" including advocating a single-payer universal health care system, or raising the minimum wage to 15 dollars an hour, and believes that "may be part of the problem for Senator Sanders."
This is borderline ridiculous.... He's not for singele-payer (which is a fucking 20-30 year + fight if it ever happens)
And he's not for 15$ minimum wage... so fuck him... Even though Ossoff has stated he's for minimum wage as living wage he's just more cautious about the road to get there
And this is also no helpful....
Jon Ossoff doesnt have the word income inequality on his issues page, he doesnt talk about single-payer health care, and he doesnt have a plan to fight climate change a former Sanders campaign staffer said in an interview. I dont think the senator is anointing anyone or imposing a litmus test on candidates, and I dont think he sees it that way either. Hes always cared about a core set of economic issues, which is why people flocked to his campaign, and he wants to make sure he supports people who believe in the same things.
You don't have to endorse but you sure as shit doesn't help to have your people talking about him like this.
And it's not even true on environment
THE ENVIRONMENT
Jon will be informed by scientists, not lobbyists, when it comes to environmental policy, and he will work to make Georgia a clean energy economic powerhouse.
There is a clear scientific consensus that climate change is driven by human activity and that it threatens global prosperity, health, and security. This is not just the opinion of activists; it is the studied conclusion of our countrys distinguished scientists. Our military and intelligence agencies agree. Jon will oppose efforts to undo the climate change agreement reached last year in Paris and will work to make the United States a global leader against climate change.
Clean air and clean water are not controversial. They are essential to our health, our prosperity, and our quality of life. Jon will oppose and investigate failures to enforce environmental laws. He will support our national parks and work to conserve Americas treasured wildlife and natural beauty.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...soff-abortion-progressive-heath-mello/523770/
Right now it's maybe not as big of a deal but if he were to gain more power and more say it means we might not even see guys like Ossoff running in the future...
BoogieWoogie
Banned
I wonder if they will be able to stop a government shut down. They have 1 week to pass the budget, but we haven't seen anything. Now they are talking about healthcare....
Nope. A perfect crescendo to the shitstorm that is his first 100 days.
Abinash117
Member
It's not surprising to me that a liberal from Vermont defines progressivism based on economic issues, and not social/racial/gender justice.
I'm not really well versed in the economy, but it seems like a lot of those types of progressives similar to Bernie are more interested in expanding safety net, than involving themselves in the economy specifically.
KirbYuuYuu
Member
4 times in 4 days: Russian military aircraft fly off US coast http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/21/politics/russian-bombers-tensions-trump/index.html
Hmmm. Told my aunt to start worrying after 7 days, but this is rather... eh
Hmmm. Told my aunt to start worrying after 7 days, but this is rather... eh
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Ossoff is "sexist- and racist-lite" now? Because he's got a few economically moderate positions?
Your posts really show where your priorities lie, Crab. Clearly not with women, people of color, or other minorities. Even if you say that your economic priorities will help them, they have OTHER PRIORITIES TOO. You are asking them to put their own priorities on the back burner in favor of yours.
I don't expect a non-American to really understand the importance of Planned Parenthood and choice, at any rate.
Your posts really show where your priorities lie, Crab. Clearly not with women, people of color, or other minorities. Even if you say that your economic priorities will help them, they have OTHER PRIORITIES TOO. You are asking them to put their own priorities on the back burner in favor of yours.
I don't expect a non-American to really understand the importance of Planned Parenthood and choice, at any rate.
Is the DNC going to pump any cash into upcoming elections? I was reading an article from last month about O'Rourke and Castro running and it said dems at the state level have "little hope" that the party would pour enough money into the race to make it competitive. It seems like a perfect time to start making a serious push for challenging dems in red states.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
This is true of everyone, though. Literally everyone. I think you would be extremely at loath to support an incredibly and deeply transphobic senatorial candidate - even if they otherwise largely agreed with you (I would be, too). We all have priority issues where we say: okay, I can't condone this. We can compromise on minor things that we don't prioritise, sure - they were minor. But a compromise is: I give up a little of my A for you giving up a little of your B, and we both get what we want. If your A is incredibly important to you, and their B is incredibly important to them, you won't give it up - you shouldn't give it up. There's not always a compromise you should reach.
You have to be more specific in these hypotheticals! Is this problematic candidate running in Mississippi or California? Because if it's the former, and all else holds pretty close to my politics, I'll probably end up voting for them over the other guy. It's why I (and it seems most here) don't actually have a problem with this mayor guy! Compromise needs to happen to win in these red areas.
The issue for me is two-fold: Sanders has set himself up (based on what appears to very arbitrary reasons) as the gatekeeper for who gets the Oprah's Book Club sticker of Progressivism, and he isn't actually making any good faith compromises. I'll back his play 100% to get a Dem in Nebraska elected because that would be really good, even if it comes with compromise. It seems pretty clear to me that Sanders isn't coming to the table with the same belief. It's not a compromise, it's a strong-arm move. Why should I respond positively to that when there really doesn't seem to be any reason for the strong-arm move?*
*By this, I mean the primary is literally over so it's not like Sanders can say he's doing this for some other GA-6 candidate. It's just Ossoff.
Is the DNC going to pump any cash into upcoming elections? I was reading an article from last month about O'Rourke and Castro running and it said dems at the state level have "little hope" that the party would pour enough money into the race to make it competitive. It seems like a perfect time to start making a serious push for challenging dems in red states.
The DCCC is pumping money into Montana at least
excelsiorlef
Member
There's also this assumption that unlike Social issues which aren't going to be popular everywhere so we might have to compromise there (completely true) that Sanders economic platform is a winner everywhere so there's no need for any compromise and anyone who doesn't buy in isn't needed (hilarious)
Box of Kittens
Banned
There's also this assumption that unlike Social issues which aren't going to be popular everywhere so we might have to compromise there (completely true) that Sanders economic platform is a winner everywhere so there's no need for any compromise and anyone who doesn't buy in isn't needed (hilarious)
Yeah, I didn't want to go into this too much in my post because it's a side issue to the point I was making. But it's not exactly surprising that a candidate running in suburban Atlanta is not doing so on a Sanders-style message, while candidates in the Plains and West are embracing that kind of message more.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Ossoff is "sexist- and racist-lite" now? Because he's got a few economically moderate positions?
Your posts really show where your priorities lie, Crab. Clearly not with women, people of color, or other minorities. Even if you say that your economic priorities will help them, they have OTHER PRIORITIES TOO. You are asking them to put their own priorities on the back burner in favor of yours.
I don't expect a non-American to really understand the importance of Planned Parenthood and choice, at any rate.
Crab would certainly advocate for the "rising tides lift all boats" argument, and I don't doubt that he's honest in saying that. But from the perspective of these minority groups, people making that argument have to understand that in the past, when a bill actually hit someone's desk or got drafted in the Senate, a lot of progressive politicians didn't hop off when "rising tides lift all boats" became "rising tides will lift some boats for now." That's going to naturally give people pause.
I mean, Crab would make the same argument about a centrist and economic issues! "They say they back this stuff in theory but we all know they'll water it down to appease businesses." And you know, he's not totally wrong! But his side does not have a perfect track record of not watering down bills to exclude minority groups, and if a Medicare for All bill hit the floor that found a way to somehow keep some minority groups out of it, I wouldn't bet my house on Sanders rejecting it.
Is the DNC going to pump any cash into upcoming elections? I was reading an article from last month about O'Rourke and Castro running and it said dems at the state level have "little hope" that the party would pour enough money into the race to make it competitive. It seems like a perfect time to start making a serious push for challenging dems in red states.
Montana is getting some cash, I think.
Fuck man the 28th has me worried these morons are going to shut down the government again just through infighting over spending.
A shut down would be the cherry on this 100 days shit sundae. It's a disastrous start to this administration, and I can't wait for them to break for another recess so we get more Congresspeople shit-talking each other.
A) Addressing economic inequality DOES NOT fix racial inequality. Like this is such an obvious fact of how American politics and society has and currently works I can't believe we are still having this sort of discussion. They are interrelated problems but they require different focus and solutions and many people have legit reasons for having different priorities regarding the subjects. An economic first platform is fine to push in white majority districts and States with very small minority populations but its not an acceptable nationwide platform or a good fit for States with large minority populations.
B) As has been said multiple times, Sanders didn't have to endorse Ossoff but a back handed insult was just not fucking needed. It helps nobody and reflects poorly on his mindset.
I mean if the Trump/Republicans want to take another L let them? Though I of course would feel real bad for those who would miss a paycheck and would prefer no shutdown
B) As has been said multiple times, Sanders didn't have to endorse Ossoff but a back handed insult was just not fucking needed. It helps nobody and reflects poorly on his mindset.
Fuck man the 28th has me worried these morons are going to shut down the government again just through infighting over spending.
I mean if the Trump/Republicans want to take another L let them? Though I of course would feel real bad for those who would miss a paycheck and would prefer no shutdown
ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
Nope. A perfect crescendo to the shitstorm that is his first 100 days.
Yep. This is what is going happen.
Black people made places where they were economically well off, and they got burnt to the ground. Women can do well economically and still suffer sexual harassment or assault. Asians can do immensely well, but if they do too well, white people leave because they feel inferior and prefer hanging out with their 'normal kind'.This is true of everyone, though. Literally everyone. I think you would be extremely at loath to support an incredibly and deeply transphobic senatorial candidate - even if they otherwise largely agreed with you (I would be, too). We all have priority issues where we say: okay, I can't condone this. We can compromise on minor things that we don't prioritise, sure - they were minor. But a compromise is: I give up a little of my A for you giving up a little of your B, and we both get what we want. If your A is incredibly important to you, and their B is incredibly important to them, you won't give it up - you shouldn't give it up. There's not always a compromise you should reach.
And to go deeper: economic polices are social policies. They're one and the same. 'economics' is just a system for distributing social privileges. We literally give people state-sanctioned tickets they can exchange with other people in order to access certain opportunities. The main way, by far, that black Americans are discriminated against is that they are give less of these state-sanctioned tickets than everyone else, and cut out from all their opportunities. Police killings don't even come close to the years lost to poverty, with stress, poor diet, worse healthcare, less educational attainment, and so on. Same goes for women. Do you know the biggest single biggest reason why women have an abortion, accounting for 73% of all abortions? They can't afford to have a child right now. Additionally, unwanted pregnancies are more common among those who are poorer because they've typically had less education, less sexual health education, are more likely to have self-esteem issues that push people towards seeking validation, and so on.
If you seriously wanted to cut down on discrimination - I mean seriously, not just pissing around the sides - you'd be running on a programme which had economic consequences in the sense of: you'd have to spend money on that shit. Repairing communities, improving educational and early schooling, providing more child support. Obviously keeping funding for Planned Parenthood is fantastic. It's great. I would vote for it all day, every day, and filibuster the shit out of anyone opposed. But in the grand scheme of things... it's not very progressive, in the sense that it barely progresses things. It's a milquetoast policy. The number of people whose lives you improve is small compared to what you could be doing.
Instead, we get candidates like Ossoff who are sexist-lite, who're racist-lite, because they're not actually willing to put in the effort to change the system. They're pretty content with the status quo.
And the final remaining response I've seen is "okay, but at least he's only sexist-lite! The Republicans are full sexist!". But where does that logic end? At some point, you have to say: no, this isn't good enough. Even if you're a shade better than the other guy.
How nice of you to candidly admit that abortion rights are essential to the economic equality of women. If that's the case, then Sanders can do better than being a sexist-lite, racist-lite politician endorsing solely on the basis of white male populism. Criticism is warranted.
Via the Texas Tribune Cruz has 5.2 million in his war chest, O'Rourke has 535,000. The article notes that O'Rourke is relying on grassroots support while Cruz is utilizing PAC's.The DCCC is pumping money into Montana at least
https://www.texastribune.org/2017/04/21/cruz-has-52m-start-re-election-race/
RustyNails
Member
I thought they worked out something about extending CR with a week. Surprised at the lack of conversation about this.Fuck man the 28th has me worried these morons are going to shut down the government again just through infighting over spending.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Via the Texas Tribune Cruz has 5.2 million in his war chest, O'Rourke has 535,000. The article notes that O'Rourke is relying on grassroots support while Cruz is utilizing PAC's.
https://www.texastribune.org/2017/04/21/cruz-has-52m-start-re-election-race/
Isn't a Castro also thinking about running here though? The DCCC may want to just hold back and let the cards fall on that one first, especially with it not being an upcoming election.
I thought they worked out something about extending CR with a week. Surprised at the lack of conversation about this.
Wait had they?
IggyChooChoo
Member
If they shut down the government, we will almost certainly win back the House, and Trump's popularity among his base will start to really crack. So while I don't want a shutdown, the silver lining is significant. The debt limit is even more scary IMO.Fuck man the 28th has me worried these morons are going to shut down the government again just through infighting over spending.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.