am I wrong in assuming this is all wholly anecdotal based on your own personal experience in whatever local area you work in? legitimately asking, no need to jump to petty name calling
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT2 | Warren's college tuition plan includes cancelling college debt
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
am I wrong in assuming this is all wholly anecdotal based on your own personal experience in whatever local area you work in? legitimately asking, no need to jump to petty name calling
It is not wholly anecdotal, but backed up by a lot of personal experience.
It's really despicable seeing Buttigieg attack the Democratic Party's frontrunner for 2020. If Bernie loses in the general, we can blame the loss on Buttigieg the Divider!
/s
In all seriousness, Buttigieg says some things that are concerning, and I'm less inclined to think that they are unintentional, because he's very well-spoken. This soft equivalency between Bernie Sanders and Trump has to be by design, and I don't care for that.
And here is what im talking about. Why in your mind is the democratic party "capitalism and capitalist organizations?" And why seek their endorsement if so?
Bernie continually pits his supporters against the "democratic establishment" so it's not a surprise his supports don't want to help Democrats. Media outlets interview people at his rallies and alot of them still think the system was rigged against Bernie in 2016.
If you can't win, know you can't win, why are you still taking people's money?
And I'm saying this HAS been noticed, it IS a problem downballot and many people who put the work in are sick of it.
Democrats literally call themselves capitalists. Pelosi did it recently. And the DSA is not seeking the Democratic endorsement all of the time. At the moment, they seek to use the Democratic party to gain more power through electoral means, but they also engage politically through other means.
Because they want the democrats to be better so they want to reform the party from inside. The republicans are lost but since the democratic party is a big tent then there is a more left-wing branch of it. DSA and other groups want that branch to have more and more power so that they can push for further reforms.
The solution for socialist and dem-socialist organizations (mostly) isnt to just run alone because the US is a two-party system. Aside from very specific cases, its better to just try to change the party that is already showing support for your ideas.
I hate to tell you, but most people here don't care about what was actually said. They spin it how they want it.
what you call leeching other people call the ability to exert influence towards their class interest over the people who have 10K+ to spend on a cycle
Demonizing grassroots fundraising seems like a particularly desperate move. Save that one for later on in the year at least.
People seek endorsement from them because it is the better of the two party system that our country has. Do you want bernie and people like AOC to run as independents and split voter bases? Would that be better in your mind, or would you then just accuse them of causing party infighting and giving the win to republicans? They can't win either way with establishment democrats, so they might as well go for the option that gives them a chance to be elected and make change from within. Just say you want them to go away, but don't pretend you want them to run as independents when you know you would criticize them for that as well.
Because they take money from, and in turn protect and enable, capitalist organizations that hurt people from the middle and lower classes. All while calling themselves capitalists. Why in your mind are they not?
People seek endorsement from them because it is the better of the two party system that our country has. Do you want bernie and people like AOC to run as independents and split voter bases? Would that be better in your mind, or would you then just accuse them of causing party infighting and giving the win to republicans? They can't win either way with establishment democrats, so they might as well go for the option that gives them a chance to be elected and make change from within. Just say you want them to go away, but don't pretend you want them to run as independents when you know you would criticize them for that as well.
So the big tent the Democratic party built is a corrupt tool for capitalism, but the Sanders wing is happy to use the infrastructure it built to get its preferred candidate for president elected while doing nothing else for the party in exchange?
Can you see how this approach MAY have pissed people off?
It's an equivalency built on Bernie's own rhetoric.
Bernie has said that Trump voters were just "expressing their fierce opposition to an economic and political system that puts wealthy and corporate interests over their own."
Bernie and his supporters also attribute his success largely in part to his economic policies (which seems reasonable to me).
Put those two together and you have "Trump won because of the economy and Bernie is popular because of the economy," which is what Pete was saying.
I get it, but this is the first time I can remember people criticizing a candidate for saying the same things their favored candidate has said (at least as far as this thread goes). It goes beyond misinterpretation and into a persecution complex.
Bernie has done tons for the party. I think your focus should be more so on the massive disconnect between the policy people want vs what the party establishment want.
Also, that's the point for the party infrastructure, to get elected. It's not some infallible hierarchy. Taking that approach takes the approach that they could do no harm.
You use the tools available to make change. The democrats don't get to play the "we're better, therefore we're good" card. Especially when they are actively trying to stifle progressive people from their own party. This is basically a "you criticize society, yet you still exit within it. Interesting" level of argument.
Do you see how your claims of them doing nothing for the party MAY just be your personal anecdotal feelings?
Just because Hillary would have won legitimately doesn't mean that a thumb wasn't put on the scale by the DNC.
Despite what happened in 2016, all three wings of the Dems have to accept each other's differences, or we end up with Trump.
Last edited:
This may shock you, but it takes money to get elected- thanks in no small part to decisions like Citizens United that flooded elections with corporate dark money. Accepting that corporate donations are NECESSARY to compete in this environment is realistic until laws and decisions are changed, and money is no longer speech. You disagree with that? you're free to try to run a state or national election without it and get obliterated.
Also, it's a common fallacy that money from "goldman sachs" or whatever is goldman writing a gigantic check to the democratic party- it isn't. Individual people who work FOR that company make those donations, and it shouldn't be all that surprising that capitalists who work for gigantic corporations write some pretty big checks when their interests are catered to.
AOC does not engage in the kind of democratic party demonization that Sanders does, by a long shot.
Yea, it's very concerning (and ironic). Luckily getting out of the Era/Twitter verse reminds you that these people are the vocal minority.
How is it leeching when several of the candidates made it a statement to mainly going after small dollar donations and the one with the smallest average has the most donations and is the frontrunner? You can't really say this is simply a purity test because the emphasis on small dollar donations is relatively new arguably starting in 2016. All signs this election cycle points to it being ideal and there is support for it.
The only reason why someone would be mad is if they are party loyalists.
about that:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/clinton-sanders-differ-down-ballot-democrats
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a..._will_assist_in_down-ballot_races_130895.html
https://www.governing.com/topics/el...ndidates-down-ballot-races-trump-sanders.html
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bernie-sanders-fundraise-down-ballot-democrats-maddow
https://www.npr.org/2016/04/17/4745...-money-difference-between-clinton-and-sanders
That's not anecdotal. Sanders was TERRIBLE for downballot fundraising, as were his supporters. You wanted receipts? Those are the reciepts. I can do this all day.
My "defense" for why "they aren't capitalists" are the vast majority of "democrats" within the party are volunteers putting their work in for free. You want to tell a guy working 30 hours a week to run for an unpaid position for schoolboard that he's a spineless capitalist working for goldman sachs?
get out of here with that.
Democrats are democrats for a lot of reasons. that's literally the definition of "big tent." Some people are concerned about racial issues, some people about LGBT issues, some people about fairer tax policy, some people about immigration issues- writing them all off as "Capitalists!" because they have to fundraise to stay viable is an asshole thing to do.
Right after the citizen's united case happened, there was push back for it from the party, which some of that push back remains today, but it is mostly from people not in control of the party. Me thinks that the leadership actually kind of like the excess money flowing in, and in a result you get defenses like "well we have to..."
lmao. When people are calling the Democrats capitalist, they mean the ones in power who very much want and like capitalism. That critique isn't really levied at the volunteers.
Literally no one in the democratic party thinks Citizens United is a good idea. Citizens united is the sole reason we have billions in untraceable money flooding in from the Mercers and the Sheldon Adelsons of the world keeping republicans afloat. The only equivalent on the D side is labor, and republicans are dismantling unions through the courts as fast as they can. It's not sustainable.
Then why don't they fight it more instead of being an apologist for the system?
Bernie is really the only candidate that constantly talks about CU.
At least wait until the first primary before you go mask off and just go "lol you dummies, you fucking idiots, why would you ever want tings to get better or politicians with an ideological consistency, you fucking rubes." seriously.
Are we arguing now that the interests of large, wealthy elites are now to br protected by allowing them to hurl money at people just in different ways? Then "campaign reform" is all meaningless dumbassery that gets us nothing and nowhere. Eventually things either change and change rapidly or we all die from preventable causes.
Last time I checked, the Democrats have been horrid down ballot for over a decade now, losing seats, states, and entire legislatures in the Obama years. Is that Sanders fault too or does that maybe speak to a disconnect between the party and what the people actually want from it?
The critique is structural, if you actually had spent any time with any socialist organization then you'd know that. You're just mad about 2016. Just admit you're still mad about 2016 instead of all of this meaningless charade.
Are we arguing now that the interests of large, wealthy elites are now to br protected by allowing them to hurl money at people just in different ways? Then "campaign reform" is all meaningless dumbassery that gets us nothing and nowhere. Eventually things either change and change rapidly or we all die from preventable causes.
So we're at the point where we're just still mad about 2016. Like always, like all of this always is.
Last time I checked, the Democrats have been horrid down ballot for over a decade now, losing seats, states, and entire legislatures in the Obama years. Is that Sanders fault too or does that maybe speak to a disconnect between the party and what the people actually want from it?
Nobody does that to random working class people taking the time to do that, you've no idea what you're talking about.
The critique is structural, if you actually had spent any time with any socialist organization then you'd know that. You're just mad about 2016. Just admit you're still mad about 2016 instead of all of this meaningless charade.
I dont understand how running for the presidency doesnt benefit the party when the point of running is to get them in power.
Yes, leftists use the dem infrastructure to run. And when they win, that benefits the party. I dont see whats controversial about that. I dont understand the first part of your statement, are leftists not allowed to criticize the dem party if they run with it? Are they supposed to happily ignore when Democrats favor the interests of the Military Industrial Complex, Big Pharma or oppose gun legislation? Or when they funraise with billionaires?
Also, no leftist is making fun of interns or smth like that. Workers are workers, the left understands that pretty well. The problem is upper management, and you are not going to make anyone sorry for those people.
Pelosi can do what she wants, but doesn't speak for the tens of millions of people who identify as democrats, elected or otherwise, any more than I would judge all republicans by what comes out of Mitch McConnell's mouth.
Pelosi is playing a political game and says what she has to say to keep her caucus in line. She doesn't speak for everyone and pretending like she does is dishonest.
If you had to guess between democrats with power and control of the party getting corporate money and a guy working 30 hours a week in an unpaid school board position, which do you think DSA members are referring to as the problem within the party?
get out of here with that
Democrats are democrats for a lot of reasons. Some people like the overall idea that the party stands for, but think that the people with real power have a vested interest in keeping the exploitative and unfair systems in place because it personally benefits them, so they want to use their party infrastructure to make actual change from the top down
She is literally the Congressional Majority Leader.
Her JOB is to speak for everybody.
If I'm talking about downballot fundraising I'm going to use 2016, since that's literally the only applicable case we can use.
Why don't you sit down and have a seat until you're able to carry on an intelligent conversation, instead of accusing me of "being mad about 2016."
Absolutely not. Her job is to do what's necessary to keep the caucus together and productive. this is NOT "speaking for everyone" nor should her job be interpreted that way.
The elected ones are not anti-capitalist. I really wish they were, but they aren't, aside from one or two. As a whole, the Democrats are capitalist, including Bernie Sanders.
But like I said, the critique is levied at the ones in power, but the average person or volunteers.
I'm not the one advocating for people with an ideology I personally don't like to "die in a fire" but no for sure, you're the adult in the room.
Tell you what boss- since this discussion seems to be going nowhere- we'll see which one of us is correct. Either the sanders wing will gain support of establishment democrats for their agenda and win the primary, or they'll be sidelined and marginalized through the primary as the base becomes increasingly sick of them.
One of us will be correct, and the other will be eating crow in a few months.
I dont know in which world arguing in bad faith and misunderstanding what "capitalist" means is considered to be an intelligent conversation but Im not a Democrat so maybe I should just die in a fire
smh I expect Bernie to apologize in every single future debate, he is obligated to
Those damn Bernie supporters failed to support those who don't ascribe to their ideology. THEY SHOULD BE PUNISHED WITH HELLFIRE
Because when you mathematically can't win and you're taking money from people because you are telling them that you think you can win, it's a scam.
This... is ideology.
Rhetoric is ideology. Rhetoric is the framing of an ideological position using oration, that's literally how political rhetoric works. When people at your (non-existent) DSA chapter meetings are discussing these things, they are discussing ideology. Socialists have an ideological belief that is expressed rhetorically through these meetings, through advocacy groups, through their own fundraising, and through action organizations which the DSA is, they literally exist to be an electoral arm of the voice of socialists and social democrats to function as an ideological shunt for their beliefs into the party because the US is not a parliament and only has two parties.
That's literally basic ideological belief. It's like being mad when climate change organizations say the Democrats aren't doing enough at their meetings, because they aren't. We aren't.
But if you are a "big tent" then maybe don't just say 43% of your electorate should, you know, die in a fire.
This is disturbingly similar to the way some Sanders supporters frame the conversation around him for 2020. We even have that creepy "daddy Bernie" shit from his national press secretary.
I'm much more interested in change that addresses the structural issues that are messing up our society than I am in party loyalty or winning online bets. If Sanders fails, I will support whoever has the leftmost politics. Winning an election isn't the endgame for me, or for the people who you are criticizing.
But I'm happy to not continue this discussion, boss.
Bernie picks the worst people, ugh.
Clinton and Sanders have the same problem in hiring people for loyalty over merit.
- Status