Nope!
Nope!
Nope!
Also, welcome to the BBS.
5 Likes
Yeah I don’t think it’s clear what your saying at all. For instance I’m not at sure at all who the “they” in the above comment is.
So they need to be on the defensive against the agenda setters but they set the agenda?
Look the DNC has routinely been on the defensive. Reacting to a political dynamic where the terms are set by the conservative machine. Being on the defensive is a bad thing. And you’ve complained about them not taking specific actions that they and others are taking.
I’ll agree there needs to be a hell of a lot of more noise in the voting rights/gerrymandering side. The lack of action on that during 2016 is still a mystery to me. “the other side is actively preventing you from voting” is an obvious and winning approach to a campaign.
But where do you think those law suits are coming from? Like the one that actually redistricted pa a little while ago? Or the one in NC that found the GOP targeted blacks with “surgical precision”? The DNC is involved in some fashion with all of them. Amicus briefs. Pushed by DNC connected activist groups. Etc.
I mean look at the dates on some of this stuff
You can “know” they aren’t “substantially not on the agenda”. But when this shit is getting mentioned by prominent dnc politicians on the regular. And are explicitly listed in the past platform at the national level
https://www.democrats.org/party-platform
What your basically complaining about us that you haven’t noticed. Or they aren’t loud enough about it.
2 Likes
AFAIK, Sanders is more than free to file suit against the DNC, the only problem being that a lawsuit would seriously complicate his attempt to become the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee. As well as the small detail that evidence of hacking on behalf of the DNC is nonexistent.
But hey, you got a giant lie in the first post, so kudos to you for a pro derail.
3 Likes
I haven’t seen him express any interest in that. He’s more focused on reforming the party through orgs like Our Revolution. In the long run that’s a more effective course than a lawsuit over past chicanery.
I agree that the DNC didn’t hack his campaign, at least not digitally. They’re too technically incompetent to do so and they didn’t need to since they rigged the 2016 primaries against him in the first place using more old-fashioned ratf*ckery.
6 Likes
Here’s a complete list of DNC officers. Which of them is supposed to have been involved in suppressing Sanders?
Tom Perez, Chair
Keith Ellison, Deputy Chair
Ken Martin, Vice Chair, ASDC President
Maria Elena Durazo, Vice Chair
Michael Blake, Vice Chair
Rep. Grace Meng, Vice Chair
Karen Carter Peterson, Vice Chair of Civic Engagement and Voter Participation
Jason Rae, Secretary
Bill Derrough, Treasurer
Lorna Johnson, Assistant Treasurer
Henry R. Muñoz III, National Finance Committee Chair
Jaime Harrison, Associate Chair and Senior Counselor
These are the people bringing this lawsuit. Wasserman-Schultz and her ilk were forced out of the leadership.
Here’s a screenshot of the clickable menu at the bottom of the Democratic Party web page @Ryuthrowsstuff linked. What evil people, to have these as part of their permanent effort!
3 Likes
Lakoff is pushing shoddy metaphysics when there’s a more simple solution in front of everyone’s face: Federalism, part of the giant compromise with rich slave-holders at our nations founding, is no longer a historical quirk–it’s the lever by which Republicans hold control of our government.
You can sharpen your rhetoric all you like, there’s been sharp words on the left for more than a hundred years now, but it makes no difference in a system where Wyoming has 68 times fewer people than California, but the same amount of Senate representation. Federalism, as expressed through the Electoral College, literally affected the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, why on earth you think some sharply worded paragraphs can stand up to that structural advantage is quite beyond me.
2 Likes
OK, I’ve had it. If I can’t point out that “Democrat Party” is dog-whistle language used by the far right and the uninformed without having my posts suppressed, then there is something seriously wrong with this forum.
11 Likes
That’s all I’m saying, but you used fewer and better words to say it.
2 Likes
So, are you proposing napalm for them instead of gasoline for me? If so, I think I’m on board. Let me know when and where and how much to bring.
2 Likes
Agreed, but forcing them out was only the first step. The new leadership needed to offer a sincere public apology for the behaviour of Wasserman-Schultz and the other Clinton cronies who rigged things against Sanders and any candidate who didn’t hew to Third Way ideology. This should have happened on 21 January, 2017 at the earliest, after a series of emergency post-mortem lessons-learned meetings in the preceding month. So while I support this lawsuit as legitimate and useful the Dems still have work to do when it comes to cleaning their own house.
If they want a cookie for supporting those groups and efforts I’m always glad to give it to them. If they continue to act as if it’s still 1992, though, they’re not going to be able to transform them into concrete results.
3 Likes
Yeah I doubt that. They could, but the libertarians are the 3rd party that have the most mind share, thanks in part to their having colonized parts of the GOP already.
For us to have effective 3rd parties, we need to have major overhauls to our election systems, full stop. Otherwise, we’re going to keep having the same two corrupt parities in power.
4 Likes
Or perhaps a genuine progressive disgusted with the ongoing bipartisan crimes against humanity (the War on Drugs, the violent suppression of ethical whistleblowers, the incineration of men, women and children via robot all around the world, and so much more) being perpetrated in our names? Sorry, I didn’t mean to trigger you so thoroughly by expressing my disrespect for the repulsive Democratic party by calling them the “Democrat” Party. This does NOT mean I consider them equivalent to the even-more-repulsive Republican party. But neither is fit to lead America in the 21st century. With humanity in a literal endgame due to climate change and many other existential threats we don’t have time to keep pretending either major party has the capability or the will to save us.
Bernie Sanders summons team to discuss 2020
Sanders is stumping in the south, gathering support from leaders who previously endorsed HRC.
But hey, he’s not a virgin/whore, so I’m sure his political legwork will be regarded as astute coalition building, rather than perfidious neoliberal skullduggery.
2 Likes
But not actually having meaningful change, rather the 3rd parties get absorbed. The last time a 3rd party broke through was with the Republicans, and that was, putting it mildly, in extraordinary times. As for Teddy - he had very high profile, having already been president.
3 Likes
Because you lost the context of what I originally wrote. (go back up there^^^ check it out… other people understood what I wrote…) i.e. the republicans need to be on the defense from a new set of agenda-setters, aka, the democrats. And not just on the defense, but the agenda-setters (democrats) need to establish the terminology used in the debate, the language in the bills, etc. Pretty straightforward.
So, in order to make that happen… right? What comes next? Kicking their dumb ass out and getting the people we need in there.
1 Like
Sorry to hear that. I supported him in 2016, but his running again would be very bad news for the Dems in 2020.
4 Likes
Perhaps, but again, not one who’s going to be taken seriously by other liberals and progressives. There are plenty of ways to criticise the Dem establishment’s undemocratic leanings without coming off like the kind of rube who listens to Limbaugh or who votes for Il Douche.
11 Likes
American K-12 history courses are such that most Americans don’t appreciate how near to the brink of violent revolution the U.S. was during that period thanks to the excesses and inequality of the Gilded Age.
That said, we are living in extraordinary times ourselves, here at the end of the postwar economic anomaly, the first real effects of global warmings, and the dying out of those who lived through the fascist period. The quasi-parliamentary system that’s emerged in the U.S. in the past few years is a symptom of that.
As you note, in the case of the Dems it will more likely mean a reform from within or the absorption of a 3rd party rather than one supplanting the Dems in the built-in duopoly system.
3 Likes
They apologized unconditionally for the emails in July 2016. As for apologizing for rigging, any rigging was a structural aspects of the primary system, the superdelegate system; early commitment of the superdelegates to Clinton gave her an (arguably unfair) edge.
Superdelegates were instituted after the nasty Carter-Kennedy primary that probably contributing strongly to Reagan’s election. That primary happened because of rule changes in 1968 where nominee selection process was taken out of smoke-filled rooms and fully democratized. The party was trying to find some middle ground between the no-democracy and full-democracy approaches to nomination, both of which were/are problematic, and this solution worked fine until it didn’t. So, the party will try something else. I see this historical and continuing willingness to try to improve process as a positive thing.
9 Likes
There was also the built-in favouritism and expectation of a coronation from an organisation that was supposed to remain neutral in practise if not in preference. Wasserman-Schultz and co. just leveraged the structural aspects to turn the party into an appendage of Clinton’s primary campaign. Apologising to a certain extent also means reforming, but the process should have begun more than a year ago with a clear statement of intent.
I hope you’re correct that they’re trying to improve, but all I see is a hapless organisation that will win seats in the 2018 primaries only because so many GOP rats are abandoning a ship that’s become too toxic even for them.
5 Likes
