Remove this ad

avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,112

Lead

Feb 25 17 1:52 PM

Tags : :

I watched a haircut, a grocery truck unload, and the election for the new head of the DNC.
Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Remove this ad
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,112

#2 [url]

Feb 25 17 4:13 PM

SmashLampjaw wrote:
I didn't watch it or even know it was happening. Who won? Was it Hillary? I've heard she's the most qualified woman to ever walk the Earth, though nobody can point to any accomplishments of hers to justify that.

Former Labor Secretary Tom Perez.  Like it much matters this point in time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,971

#3 [url]

Feb 25 17 8:50 PM

Actually, this is fascinating.

http://crooksandliars.com/2017/02/tom-perez-new-dnc-chair-keith-ellison

Seems straightforward enough but then go to the comments section.

and then the links in the comments section.

https://newrepublic.com/article/140847/case-tom-perez-makes-no-sense

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/24/key-question-about-dnc-race-why-did-white-house-recruit-perez-to-run-against-ellison/

**grabs popcorn**

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Jacob Jones

Regular User

Posts: 198

#4 [url]

Feb 25 17 9:27 PM

Shan wrote:
Actually, this is fascinating.

http://crooksandliars.com/2017/02/tom-perez-new-dnc-chair-keith-ellison

Seems straightforward enough but then go to the comments section.

and then the links in the comments section.

https://newrepublic.com/article/140847/case-tom-perez-makes-no-sense

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/24/key-question-about-dnc-race-why-did-white-house-recruit-perez-to-run-against-ellison/

**grabs popcorn**

Here's my question. Why are people getting so worked up over who gets to be the chair of the DNC? It's not like the Superbowl or the World Series, it's a political party coming together to decide who gets to help run the fundrasing and managing of campaigns. (I'm guessing the deputy chair is going to be the guy who runs all the other chairs and maybe subs for the main guy every once in a while)

​Plus, even from what i've heard; Keith Ellison and Tom Perez are pretty good friends in real life. No bad blood as far as i'm concerned, and they share most of the same viewpoints so; I see no reason to get angry over Tom Perez becoming the DNC.

​(Now if it were that Sam Rosan guy, i'd be really baffled. Only reason he got popular was because he said some things people (geuninely) resonated with, got endorsed by The Jimmy Dore Show and had his fifteen minutes in the spotlight.)

Last Edited By: Jacob Jones Feb 25 17 9:29 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,112

#5 [url]

Feb 26 17 6:16 AM

Jacob Jones wrote:

Here's my question. Why are people getting so worked up over who gets to be the chair of the DNC? It's not like the Superbowl or the World Series, it's a political party coming together to decide who gets to help run the fundrasing and managing of campaigns. (I'm guessing the deputy chair is going to be the guy who runs all the other chairs and maybe subs for the main guy every once in a while)

​Plus, even from what i've heard; Keith Ellison and Tom Perez are pretty good friends in real life. No bad blood as far as i'm concerned, and they share most of the same viewpoints so; I see no reason to get angry over Tom Perez becoming the DNC.

​(Now if it were that Sam Rosan guy, i'd be really baffled. Only reason he got popular was because he said some things people (geuninely) resonated with, got endorsed by The Jimmy Dore Show and had his fifteen minutes in the spotlight.)


My point was that it was in the news a lot.  The joke is that the Democrats have done so badly lately, and it was not because they failed to campaign properly.  It was because the Democrats in general have gotten such a bad reputation in recent times.  They didn't do well in the late 2000s because they wer so popular, but because the public was angry at the Republicans.  Then the public became angry at the Democrats when they proved no better.  Trump won the Presidency specifically because he was an outsider.  And his popularity is actually enhanced because so many prominent liberals despise him.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,971

#6 [url]

Feb 26 17 6:22 AM

The hilarious part is that he's not even remotely an outsider and to those of us outside the US, the Democrats aren't even remotely liberal either.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Beardfist

Regular User

Posts: 175

#7 [url]

Feb 26 17 7:28 AM

Well, part of that is because as the US isn't a parliamentary system, progressive parties aren't really able to get anywhere unless they get absorbed into a larger, more centrist one. I think the UK is somewhat of an outlier with Labour being as lefty as it is, largely thanks to Corbyn, which is also why they're having trouble getting anywhere. But Labor in Australia and the SPD in Germany are both fairly centrist, left-leaning-but-not-insane parties. That nutty goodness is able to express itself in smaller parties, who may have a shot at getting into parliament (later, at least, as right now it's dawn of the smaller conservative parties).

Dems electing Perez just means that there's going to be more and more internal strife because he's of the same blood as Obama and Clinton--the party's old guard. He's not likely to give into many of the progressive demands the other side puts forward, and the other side is unlikely to try to maturely leverage their political power against him... so there's going to be a fit, more infighting, more all of this shit.

That said, comparing Ellison and Perez, I think Perez has the chance of giving the party some gains in 2018. Ellison was without a doubt a slave to the identity politics nonsense, which would faithfully ensure the democrats rake in loss after loss--but if Perez is able to garner popular dissatisfaction with Trump and offer a ~reasonable~ alternative (as opposed to 'fuck white people and let's make everything free without any idea of how we're going to pay for it except 'fuck people rich enough to just move their shit overseas at a moment's notice") to the new Republican political pole, he could make some minor wins. Or at the very least, staunch the bleeding of the party.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,112

#8 [url]

Feb 26 17 7:52 AM

Shan wrote:
The hilarious part is that he's not even remotely an outsider and to those of us outside the US, the Democrats aren't even remotely liberal either.

An outsider to the party political establishment certainly.

​The Democrats aren't liberal?  Non-Americans aren't total social liberals, based on the commentary that I've read from them.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

plarblman

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,170

#9 [url]

Feb 26 17 8:30 AM

It can be confusing at times. If by liberal you mean classically liberal, it's mostly the Libertarians, some Republicans, and a few Democrats. The Democratic party is mostly social liberals, with a large progressive contingent and a couple of outright socialists.

I've heard about this new group that's been trying to gain traction called "Justice Democrats" as the faction that will save the Democrats from themselves, but I don't know much about them, especially whether or not their policies are actually sane.

Quote    Reply   

#10 [url]

Feb 26 17 1:19 PM

Justice Dems don't seem much better than regular Dems.

_____________________________________________________________________

People have a common defense mechanism they employ to defend themselves from the threat of contrary viewpoints. This shield they wield is the act of dismissing such contrary viewpoints by arbitrarily undermining their validity.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Jacob Jones

Regular User

Posts: 198

#11 [url]

Feb 26 17 1:38 PM

Horerczy wrote:
Justice Dems don't seem much better than regular Dems.

Justice Democrats are really the same thing as regular democrats, only they're not politicians and aren't part of the 'establishment' and won't take 'corporate money.'

​Other than that; they pretty much believe the same things. But nope, the establishment Democrats are bad because they take money from corporations. Even though the idea itself isn't awful, it's just that there are businesses out there who are corrupt that muck the entire process up. I can think of a compromise for both sides; make a policy so that the more shadier corporations are shut out from the talks and the corporations that are clean can only donate whenever the party feels it is nessecary.

​It's not perfect, but it's a start at least.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

SmashLampjaw

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,969

#12 [url]

Feb 26 17 8:40 PM

Yeah, but the DNC just elected the first who-gives-a-damn to direct their racist, identity-politics-playing organization. Everyone should be cheering for that. Because if there's anything the Democrats needed to turn things around was to be able to have another first-something.

/maximized enthusiasm

.


Issues composing posts in Yuku's editor?  See this guide to using BBCode.

Quote    Reply   

#13 [url]

Feb 27 17 7:18 AM

Unfortunately for anyone hoping the Democrats will abandon identity politics under Tom Perez is wrong, remember, he was part of Clinton's team, which heavily pushed that sort of thing.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Beardfist

Regular User

Posts: 175

#14 [url]

Feb 27 17 6:02 PM

Clinton held very few honest beliefs to her phylactery, and was more of an 'at all costs' opportunist. She wanted to win. In earlier decades, she downplayed the woman thing--but that was in vogue in the loose 2014-2016 election season, and identity politics had its zenith in 2015 until the Yale protests started to turn the tides. So her platform adopted it. Obama harped on the importance of race somewhat during his candidacy, but compared to the 2016 election, both 2008 and 2012 were far more moderate (though that's not to suggest it was absent). There's a much better chance of pragmatists ejecting dogma than of zealots, and that's about the best hope. The Clinton team really drubbed up identity politics as it became clear that Bernie was an actual contender, as there wasn't a way ~that~ candidate could run on his anticorporatism.

Justice democrats are some strange bedfellows. Cenk Uygur, Kyle Kulinski (secular talk guy), and Sargon of Akkad all loosely give the idea their blessing. Despite this, it's already shown it's more than willing to throw out some hot n spicy 2015-style identity politics and has no understanding of economics (so to say, it pushes the exact same shit that cranky grandpa did with no moderation or pragmatism whatsoever). It's a loose, barely functional attempt by progressives to rebrand themselves with the exact same ideas--without the association to aids skrillex, carl the cuck, trigglypuff, and that whole gaggle.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help