Democratic (Party) Direction

oh, it's absolutely true, i can't see how the democratic party can ever break free from the total control of the guy who brought the world "mighty morphin power rangers".

― increasingly bonkers (rushomancy), 6. marts 2017 21:45 (fifty-five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Perhaps he was the one who taught them to schedule the tv-debates on Saturdays?

What's most annoying isn't even the fact that only 1 out of his 11 sentences that Morbs quoted is a statement of facts instead of an absolutist opinion steeped in the self-assured purist ethos only bestselling Princeton instructors can actually afford, it's that the call to action is to abandon all hope, and then he goes on to quote ol' Dusty-dusty because the next thing is Bolsheviks, dontcha know. Great. Glad we're all in this together, asshole.

that we are

i gave up 32 years ago btw

(when the Dems weren't nearly the whorehouse they are now)

you've made us all so proud

i pretty much have no idea what you hardbitten mainstream realists are talking about anymore (eg Saban and mighty morphin power rangers -- really Fredik, gtfo)

however, i vote for Democrats when it's necessary, so let's shove "purist" up whatever ass fits for the last time.

i pretty much have no idea what you hardbitten mainstream realists are talking about anymore (eg Saban and mighty morphin power rangers -- really Fredik, gtfo)

― Supercreditor (Dr Morbius)

what i still can't figure out is if you honestly think political discussion on this board is genuinely dominated by lamestream democrats or if this is just a fundamental part of your schtick now

pointing out the weaknesses in the arguments you quote is not the same as calling you names, dude.

I'd love it if someone could explain to me in nonpartisan, snarkless terms what is actually going on with the party. It's true that the DLC is absolutely the pro-corporate wing of the party, right? Is Perez a member of the DLC?

yes and no

Perez would be the most liberal head of the party in decades if not ever had Ellison not come along

I can't get over that Obama and co. ran him specifically to counter Ellison, followed by Perez's claims that he wants "Ellison to be the face of the party." Well, gee, I can think of one way that could have happened.

The DNC chair is not normally the face of the party.

DLC is no longer around I thought?

We're not fucked because of Perez. We're fucked because people "can't get over" Perez as if he was a former Dubya appointee or some such nonsense

"Obama and co." Jesus Christ on the fucking cross do you read what you write?

What America needs right now is for people to stand strong against that corrupt, two-faced, incompetent, narcissistic, bigoted, hateful "Obama and co."

OTM :http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/02/the-assassination-of-keith-ellison-by-the-neoliberal-coward-tom-perez

And hey yeah DLC closed up shop in 2011, god googling that was hard

you mean the ppl who left Yam all those unconstitutional toys, right

Did the DLC? Wow, fuck those guys.

The problem is not Perez, the problem is the reasons Perez was pushed into the race. This is not really typical, Obama and some other democrats really, really didn't want Ellison to be chair, because there's no other reasonable explanation. Even a lot of the mainstream of the party was backing Ellison - Schumer, teacher's union pres Randi Weingarten, etc. He's a better organizer, has more election experience, is more charismatic, etc. If the argument for Perez is "he's just as progressive," okay, why did we need a second "just as progressive" candidate?

I mean I can basically live with Perez as DNC chair. I think he's a huge improvement over DWS, and his at least ostensible desire to involve Ellison via the new "deputy" position is a good sign. But I think the process that led to Perez entering the race is not a good sign, and if there were really good reasons to not want Ellison as chair I'd certainly like to hear what they are.

I agree with everything you wrote, prefer Ellison, don't ultimately care so long as the chair's progressive.

The matter is not the position but what the machinations portend for the future. The Clinton-Obama-Biden-Debbie people are not going quietly, and they need to gogogo.

ie what manalive said

i gave up 32 years ago btw

(when the Dems weren't nearly the whorehouse they are now)

― Supercreditor (Dr Morbius), Monday, March 6, 2017 3:10 PM (two days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

gettin' the vibe itt that morbs doesn't like the dem party

thx tombot for being like... a voice of reason

"Liking" any party owned by b/millionmaires is not a good move. They are there to be used when we can use 'em.

they need to gogogo

Victory through subtraction!

Always instructive to remember that the most successful liberal president ever was a plutocrat.

I just wish the Democrats had a rich sponsor to drive wedges into the Republicans like the Koch-funded "Learn Liberty" is doing here to the Democrats:
http://https%3A//image.ibb.co/mwb0WF/learnliberty.jpg

https://image.ibb.co/mwb0WF/learnliberty.jpg

Rather anomalous, wouldn't you say? xxp

Insofar as all successful politicians bow to their constituencies, not really.

(He's unique for other obvious reasons tho)

wait do you mean FDR or LBJ

both sure loved their dough!

FDR. LBJ was a different kind of plutocrat ie not born into it

Born to money gave FDR a freedom that plutocrats don't have; that's why I don't count FDR as one.

that's an interesting interpretation. I know it's pointless to argue w the good doctor, but the reason I brought FDR and his roots up (and LBJ is relevant here too) is because he's emblematic of why a politician should not be judged on background, personal wealth, connections/associations, or even prior actions and positions because those don't really indicate anything conclusive about how useful they will be in achieving certain goals.

ie Perez being pushed by ppl leftists don't like doesn't reflect anything meaningful

I was talking about the Dem puppetmasters mostly -- you know, the actually source of their 'philosophy' -- if you read carefully (tho given the post-WH Clinton Hustle, I suppose that fine couple may qualify now)

one of the shrewder FDR bios is called Traitor to His Class.

Nelson Rockefeller was similar. That kind of noblesse oblige is dead.

yeah I've read that (on your recommendation!) and it is good - altho it did leave me with no real sense of *why* he became so committed to so many leftist policies. I can't help but conclude that - similar to Caro re: LBJ - it was the result of some mixture of deep, but often obscured, personal conviction + political expediency.

when asked once what he believed in, he said, "I am a Christian and a Democrat."

I'm guess getting wracked by polio had something to do with an appreciation of vulnerability

*guessing

https://twitter.com/matthewstoller/status/839508779737706497

Fav/Unfav (Suffolk)

Pence 47/35%
Trump 45/47
GOP 37/48
Media 37/50
Dem Party 36/52
Hillary 35/55
Congress 26/52

fun