… and then adding additional meanings and claiming I said things I did not say.
Lets return to the topic now, shall we.
Again, perhaps you’re not being clear.
And it would be nice if you’d stop accusing us of trolling.
7 Likes
2 Likes
Uh, this is not how forums work.
If you don’t want people to comment on or otherwise indicate how a post came across to them, do not post here. People are going to misinterpret what you say, or view it differently than you intended. That is one of the many limitations of a text-based medium. The solution is to clarify your statements (or, possibly, consider their points, certainly not to say that they are unable to view what you said as anything other than what you meant. That requires mind-reading, and more importantly, is completely antithetical to a forum.
15 Likes
I am attempting to discourage straw man arguments in order to raise the quality of the dialog. There was no mind reading requested - just to cease twisting meaning. Read it for yourself. My comments were reasonable.
There is a reason assume good faith is in our community guidelines, to avoid situations just like this. Do not assume posters do not mean what they say or are not debating in good faith. If you believe that’s not the case, flag the post, do not respond.
8 Likes
They were trying to avoid a contested convention - which at least would have been according to their rules, and would have given all the delegates their say. They were making the decision after the SC primary instead of in a democratic way at the convention. Yes - I call that a manipulation of the process.
No - what you are citing is like a trickle down economics theory. What I am saying is if the middle class is doing well, women, minorities and LGBT can still be left behind if for instance we have discrimination in the workplace or in lending. But if we make progress in those areas, then women, minorities and LGBT are more likely to share the an improving middle classe, or at least not suffer worse than a declining middle class.
Often because the party supports people who have devoted their lives to public service and party principles, for example in the 2018 NY Attorney General election when senior party members endorsed a smart, dedicated, experienced, hard-working woman of color, over the progressive (and BB principals’) choice, a white woman from a privileged background with little political experience.
6 Likes
Congrats for your 7-year BBS anniversary.
ETA: In that case, cheers to all with the software-changeover cake day.
There was forum software change 7 years ago, so a relatively large number of BBS regulars have 2013 as their year of joining.
1 Like
Well that’s a convenient example, but I was speaking more to the party’s effort to knock out Ocasio Cortez in the primary, when she clearly is a popular candidate, even accepting funding from typically republican donors.
FTFY
, but I was speaking more to the party’s effort to knock out Ocasio Cortez in the primary
The party didn’t do that; Caruso-Cabrera was the Chamber of Commerce’s candidate.
For example, Pelosi effectively endorsed Ocasio-Cortez (in a statement on June 4 about her and another NYC congressperson, where she said “I think the people in New York are very blessed to have them both in the Congress”).
Honestly, whenever I see these bogeyman fantasies of what the Democratic Party is up to, I think about the “creatures from the id” in Forbidden Planet.
4 Likes
Oh well, I am so glad Pelosi is speaking for the DNC now. Its too bad they were so welcoming of her challenger. They were not nearly so generous 2 years ago.
Pelosi supports valued incumbent colleagues. This year it is AOC. 2 years ago it was not.
Pelosi does not speak for the entire DNC, but she is a member of the leadership by virtue of her Speaker position. If she’s not who you were thinking of when you wrote “the party opposing progressive candidates”, maybe you can elaborate?
In fact, throughout this thread you often refer to some vaguely-specified group – the party, or “Democrats”, or “the DNC” – which has power and agency and is engaged in bad behavior, like duping people into voting against their interests. Maybe you can specify who exactly you mean: the DNC leadership? Party members (around 46 million of us)? The Gamesters of Triskelion?
7 Likes
Never mind Pelosi. Now exactly when does the DNC think that incumbency actually begins? Because old Joe Crowley certainly didn’t think it began after he lost the primary because he saw fit to run against Cortez in the main election anyway. I guess that was just the supportive thing to do for a valued incumbent. Or was Joe out of the club at that point? If he managed to win you would have spurned him, not let him back in?
Incumbency is a weak test for who the party ought to support. Party officials in the Bronx knew what was going on there, or rather what was not going on, and should have asked Joe to shuffle off long ago. When incumbency starts forming insiders clubs that don’t work for their constituents, its time to change the way you regard them.
You haven’t answered my question. Who exactly do you mean by “the DNC”?
As for Crowley, he was on the ballot in November only because he was the nominee of two other parties besides the Democrats. He did not campaign, and endorsed Ocasio-Cortez in the election. Your indignation is misplaced.
2 Likes
It depends on “exactly” what the context is. I’ve nothing more to tell you.
Why?
Well that does not make it ok.
Why did the WFP and the WEP nominate Crowley? Damned if I know, but third parties do occasionally endorse candidates from other parties. It has nothing to do with your Democratic bogeymen, whoever they are, who I’m sure would be happy if these parties didn’t exist.
It depends on “exactly” what the context is. I’ve nothing more to tell you.
OMFG. I think at this point it is time to invoke the old expression, quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. I’m out.
4 Likes
