No, the defense is that Biden won the primary and therefore gets to choose if he wants to be the nominee. That's what a primary is for.So the defence is that the basic structure of the Democratic Party is disastrously flawed?
Well, there was a concerted effort at the White House, and among Democrats in general, to lie to us about Biden's health, condition, and overall fitness to BE President.The voters did have a say - absolutely no one was prevented from running against Biden, they CHOSE not to. The reason they didn't isn't that the (lol) all-powerful DNC stopped them, it's that they correctly determined they would lose. This is not complicated.
The primary literally had a congressman running who would have just been "younger, generic Democrat" - just about as close as you could get to Biden or Some Other Democrat polling - and that dude was crushed in the primary.No, the defense is that Biden won the primary and therefore gets to choose if he wants to be the nominee. That's what a primary is for.
Bill Clinton, Obama, Biden, Harris - they are definitely not the same, and to suggest that their policies are is to ignore 20 years of the party becoming more progressive after Clinton.It's not a meaningless term. It's a term fitting the Democrats since they built themselves in Bill Clinton's image. I know you were one of the ones laughing at me when I told you a year ago the Democrats were in trouble because of inflation and the economy and that Biden was dead in the water so it's kind of funny seeing you and others here who piled on me still stubbornly standing by the DNC.
Yes, there was a concerted effort by the Biden campaign to promote Biden.Well, there was a concerted effort at the White House, and among Democrats in general, to lie to us about Biden's health, condition, and overall fitness to BE President.
Even if it's just tribalism and group-think, there was mighty push back against transparency until Biden unwittingly chose to reveal his condition on public stage.
Candidates may have stepped up if we helped Biden step down earlier.
They incorrectly determined Harris would win. Or maybe they didn't give a shit and punted.And if Biden had simply said 'no' - what would have happened?
Exactly. Biden had the delegates and that was the end of it. He chose to step aside but if he hadn't there's nothing the DNC could do about it because again, it's a very weak organization. People only even know it exists for the most part because Bernie Bros couldn't accept their candidate lost fair and square.
The voters did have a say - absolutely no one was prevented from running against Biden, they CHOSE not to. The reason they didn't isn't that the (lol) all-powerful DNC stopped them, it's that they correctly determined they would lose. This is not complicated.
What if I told you that you can disagree without saying "go fuck yourself" to people that agree with you on 90% of things?Let's not disagree with people that want to continue pushing falsehoods and plenty of discredited ideas about how super duper important elections were lost vs won, and help cause us to lose the next election also and it's not nice to be mean to people that helped cost us the most important presidential race in our lifetime! Just because we agree on some things!
What a great fucking mentality. NO DISSENSION!
Literally the definition of a loser's mentality. Bigly sad.
I'm not ok with losing the next election, if we have a free and fair one, so I will continue to call out the nonsense of the people that will cause us to lose it if we do. I'm sorry that seems to bother you.
So you like Pelosi and Clyburn? God I hate those two pieces of shit for campaigning for right wing Henry Cuellar in the 2022 primary in my house district when we had a great candidate in Jessica Cisneros and they barely got Cuellar over the finish line by about 300 votes. And Schumer? Brilliant strategy, for every working class scrub we lost we gained two GOP votes in the suburbs.Bill Clinton, Obama, Biden, Harris - they are definitely not the same, and to suggest that their policies are is to ignore 20 years of the party becoming more progressive after Clinton.
But do go on about ThE eViL dNc...
So with all this rage towards the DNC are you actually involved in party politics or just pissed they don't do what you want?So you like Pelosi and Clyburn? God I hate those two pieces of shit for campaigning for right wing Henry Cuellar in the 2022 primary in my house district when we had a great candidate in Jessica Cisneros and they barely got Cuellar over the finish line by about 300 votes. And Schumer? Brilliant strategy, for every working class scrub we lost we gained two GOP votes in theJu suburbs.
And then fucking Jeffries who isn't even a dinosaur like them still doing appearances with Liz Cheney and talking about how important the institutions the voters just gave the middle finger to are. DNC liberals are so out of fucking touch.
Everything I don't like is "neoliberal". It's such a meaningless term.
No, in online discourse, it has effectively become a meaningless term the way it is bandied about and applied to anyone to the left of Stalin. It does however have a real, academic meaning.It's invariably right wing neoliberals who will deny their philosophy exists - it's one of their favourite ploys. I think perhaps you just outed yourself.
This guy's been saying the same lie and misinformation since the summer over and over and over again, and I went through the whole taking polite part segment of the conversation, but the lies keep coming, so who really cares at this point? If you explain things nicely, people remain willfully ignorant and spew nonsense, you have to be nice to them on the Internet?What if I told you that you can disagree without saying "go fuck yourself" to people that agree with you on 90% of things?
The 2024 Senate map was always looking kinda terrible for Democrats and a lot of people were already seeing a 48-52 months back. It's 47-53, so it wasn't some kind of blowout. I don't think Schumer could have done a lot with the 2024 map he was given, and to be fair, if Democrats had shown up in the states that I guess they just sat at fucking home or whatever, the Democrats might have held or picked up seats.My problem with the Dems right now is that after losing the Senate, they just vote the same leadership right back in. Schumer should be humiliated.
I consider myself a neoliberal, for what it’s worth. Some government functions should be privatized.It's invariably right wing neoliberals who will deny their philosophy exists - it's one of their favourite ploys. I think perhaps you just outed yourself.
Mitch is out at the end of this term. All he do is sit on his front porch and count the money.How fucked are we right now… hoping and praying that that ghoul Moscow Mitch can be an ally to minimize the damage the tangerine terrorist can inflict upon this country?!?!
I'm pretty sure he hates the future Felon-in-Chief.
I consider myself a neoliberal, for what it’s worth. Some government functions should be privatized.
I think people have called neoliberalism ‘things they don’t like’.Well we've had decades of that and pretty much none of them worked out as promised or delivered the improvements and efficiency the theory said they would.
Neoliberalism's been tried and it has failed. The purpose of it, after all, was to prevent any return to the totalitarian/authoritarian regimes of the '30s, and it's ended up coming very close to producing the very thing it was supposed to prevent.
Where has neoliberalism been a success? In Russia it led directly to Putin. In the US it's given you Trump. All over the world it's led to far-right anti-democratic despots gaining support.
I think people have called neoliberalism ‘things they don’t like’.
I am of the opinion that government is good at some things (health care) and bad at other things (provision goods).
I think there’s nothing inherent about that the same way there’s nothing inherent about the idea that government run health care leads to communism. These are all choices.I know what neoliberalism is, I 'came of age' as it took hold, and it massively affected my entire life. It's the intellectual movement that began with the Montpelier Institute and became politically dominant with the coming to power of Thatcher, and then Reagan. Though the real trail-blazer was Pinochet, something which illustrates the authoritarianism and amorality that has always been inherent in the ideology.
And it involved a determination to create an economic sphere insulated from political influence (granted, only much later did I understand that their motivations for this aim were partly idealistic - a desire to avoid the horrors of the 1930s - and not purely self-serving from the start), by 'rolling back the frontiers of the state' via deregulation, privatisation, and reducing union power. It's why every part of the state was progressively looted, and it's why class inequality has increased since reaching its low point in the late '70s, just before Thatcher came to power. It's why we now have a backlash that's led to the rise of a different kind of Right (though racism and xenophobia was always present in some strands of neoliberalism since the start).
The trouble with your comment above is that it turns out it's hard to have a 'little bit' of neo-liberalism. It ends up creating an elite plutocrat class that doesn't want to stop with privatising the things 'government is bad at' but pushes relentlessly to privatise everything, in pursuit of self-enrichment. It also turns out that the private sector isn't terribly good at many things either.
@SteveGrabowski I'm going to guess from the lack of response you are not involved in the party. If you want it to change start getting involved at the local level find people who believe as you do.So with all this rage towards the DNC are you actually involved in party politics or just pissed they don't do what you want?