Page 13 of 14

Re: The Future of the Democratic Party

Posted: 31 Jul 2017, 1:30pm
by Dr. Medulla
Flex wrote:
31 Jul 2017, 1:07pm


Honestly, there is actually a case to be made for supporting pro-life Dems occasionally. It's a Harry Reid situation: he was technically pro-life but the party position was so firm he consistently voted the pro-choice positions most/all of the time anyways. Poaching a few seats in red states with pro-life dems probably does more to protect female autonomy than jettisoning those seats to republicans. But there's, what, a few of these seats AT MOST in congress? Where the area is culturally conservative but economically liberal enough that a conservadem could win? That just doesn't seem to happen much anymore. Still, you could fund those folks on a case-by-case basis. but just say "the democratic party is the pro-choice party. the end" without jettisoning the commitment to the position at the highest levels. I mean, jesus christ.
Canada legalized same-sex marriage under Prime Minister Paul Martin, a Catholic who said that he was personally opposed to it based on his faith, but said that his job was not to enact his personal beliefs but to work with public opinion. There can be a distinction between a candidate's personal views and what they acknowledge to be their political obligations. Strict purity tests just doesn't result in intelligent and conscientious candidates. The anger from the left end of American politics risks producing the same kind of bozo candidates that the far right does. That's not advocating for centrism, but realizing that dogmatism isn't healthy in a pluralist society and/or system.

Re: The Future of the Democratic Party

Posted: 31 Jul 2017, 1:45pm
by Flex
Dr. Medulla wrote:
31 Jul 2017, 1:30pm
Canada legalized same-sex marriage under Prime Minister Paul Martin, a Catholic who said that he was personally opposed to it based on his faith, but said that his job was not to enact his personal beliefs but to work with public opinion. There can be a distinction between a candidate's personal views and what they acknowledge to be their political obligations. Strict purity tests just doesn't result in intelligent and conscientious candidates. The anger from the left end of American politics risks producing the same kind of bozo candidates that the far right does. That's not advocating for centrism, but realizing that dogmatism isn't healthy in a pluralist society and/or system.
Well, I think the reality is that Dem establishment does have purity tests it runs, it's just all on disallowing left economic positions. They obviously don't do purity tests on social issues. It's ironic that the socialist left gets lambasted by social progressives for being insufficiently woke on this stuff when it's the HillaryDems who sell out on these things every time.

The party - its platform, its non-elected leadership - should be consistent and unwavering on these issues in terms of what the party will stand for for its constituents and what it expects from its caucus. Which is why this "announcement" is deserving of scorn. Again, that doesn't rule out tactically supporting more conservative Dems in strategic areas, but it keeps the institution as a whole committed and less likely to bend on critical human rights issues. That's how to thread the needle between staying committed to just causes and not forcing purity tests where it doesn't make sense, imho.

Re: The Future of the Democratic Party

Posted: 31 Jul 2017, 2:09pm
by Dr. Medulla
Flex wrote:
31 Jul 2017, 1:45pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
31 Jul 2017, 1:30pm
Canada legalized same-sex marriage under Prime Minister Paul Martin, a Catholic who said that he was personally opposed to it based on his faith, but said that his job was not to enact his personal beliefs but to work with public opinion. There can be a distinction between a candidate's personal views and what they acknowledge to be their political obligations. Strict purity tests just doesn't result in intelligent and conscientious candidates. The anger from the left end of American politics risks producing the same kind of bozo candidates that the far right does. That's not advocating for centrism, but realizing that dogmatism isn't healthy in a pluralist society and/or system.
Well, I think the reality is that Dem establishment does have purity tests it runs, it's just all on disallowing left economic positions. They obviously don't do purity tests on social issues. It's ironic that the socialist left gets lambasted by social progressives for being insufficiently woke on this stuff when it's the HillaryDems who sell out on these things every time.

The party - its platform, its non-elected leadership - should be consistent and unwavering on these issues in terms of what the party will stand for for its constituents and what it expects from its caucus. Which is why this "announcement" is deserving of scorn. Again, that doesn't rule out tactically supporting more conservative Dems in strategic areas, but it keeps the institution as a whole committed and less likely to bend on critical human rights issues. That's how to thread the needle between staying committed to just causes and not forcing purity tests where it doesn't make sense, imho.
And that's a problem that the Democrats are so dogmatic on economic policy, the ugly result of Bill Clinton's acceptance of Reagan. Of course any party is going to have basic positions on any number of issues, but it's much healthier for internal debate for a variety of views within those positions. It's clear how lethal it's been to the Republicans, especially as they keep moving the line of True Conservative farther and farther to the right. Democratic leadership is stuck in a mindset of keeping open its right flank while being dogmatic on its left. There's an irony that even as the Republicans are doing all they can to limit voting in structural ways, the Democrats are doing the same by limiting admission to their club.

Re: The Future of the Democratic Party

Posted: 02 Aug 2017, 12:43pm
by eumaas
Was this pisted? Seems like the donors want to pull this crap again.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... r-hamptons

Re: The Future of the Democratic Party

Posted: 02 Aug 2017, 1:16pm
by Dr. Medulla
eumaas wrote:
02 Aug 2017, 12:43pm
Was this pisted? Seems like the donors want to pull this crap again.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... r-hamptons
Just do away with the primaries and caucuses then. This is just the old boss system seeking to get around rank and file input.

Re: The Future of the Democratic Party

Posted: 10 Aug 2017, 6:40am
by Dr. Medulla

Re: The Future of the Democratic Party

Posted: 10 Aug 2017, 12:05pm
by eumaas
I've been skeptical of this russia shit since the start
https://www.thenation.com/article/a-new ... -dnc-hack/
This is a weird article, though. Poorly written for one. Any thoughts?

Re: The Future of the Democratic Party

Posted: 05 Sep 2017, 7:04am
by Dr. Medulla
Centrist think tank recommends centrism. Film at eleven.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/0 ... rty-242308

Re: The Future of the Democratic Party

Posted: 12 Sep 2017, 8:15pm
by Dr. Medulla
My god but she's cynical and duplicitous to be peddling such bullshit. If she'd won, it would have been understood it was because the Republicans nominated one of the most toxic candidates of all time. If anything, her win would have been tainted, not proof of perfection, because she hadn't beaten a serious opponent. What a loathsome wannabe she is.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... s-if-i-won

Re: The Future of the Democratic Party

Posted: 13 Sep 2017, 12:47pm
by revbob
Dr. Medulla wrote:
12 Sep 2017, 8:15pm
My god but she's cynical and duplicitous to be peddling such bullshit. If she'd won, it would have been understood it was because the Republicans nominated one of the most toxic candidates of all time. If anything, her win would have been tainted, not proof of perfection, because she hadn't beaten a serious opponent. What a loathsome wannabe she is.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... s-if-i-won
Shes trying to exonerate herself and shift the blame.

Re: The Future of the Democratic Party

Posted: 13 Sep 2017, 12:56pm
by Dr. Medulla
revbob wrote:
13 Sep 2017, 12:47pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
12 Sep 2017, 8:15pm
My god but she's cynical and duplicitous to be peddling such bullshit. If she'd won, it would have been understood it was because the Republicans nominated one of the most toxic candidates of all time. If anything, her win would have been tainted, not proof of perfection, because she hadn't beaten a serious opponent. What a loathsome wannabe she is.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... s-if-i-won
Shes trying to exonerate herself and shift the blame.
There was never any doubt. As long as there's a denial or lie handy, a Clinton will never resort to honesty.

Tom Frank's review of her account: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ar-message

Re: The Future of the Democratic Party

Posted: 10 Nov 2017, 12:14pm
by Dr. Medulla
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... run-report

Yes, the future must be an elderly pro-military centrist because all possibilities must be wretched.

Re: The Future of the Democratic Party

Posted: 10 Nov 2017, 12:41pm
by Flex
Dr. Medulla wrote:
10 Nov 2017, 12:14pm
Yes, the future must be an elderly pro-military centrist because all possibilities must be wretched.
hopefully he'll net someone some death pool points ahead of 2020

Re: The Future of the Democratic Party

Posted: 16 Nov 2017, 1:31pm
by Flex
so long, al.

Interesting to see some establishment electeds try to deflect, but the rank and file seems pretty ready to immediately cut bait. Just shows how totally connected to their base and for sure sincere dems establishment is with all the #believewomen stuff.

Re: The Future of the Democratic Party

Posted: 16 Nov 2017, 1:33pm
by JennyB
Flex wrote:
16 Nov 2017, 1:31pm
so long, al.

Interesting to see some establishment electeds try to deflect, but the rank and file seems pretty ready to immediately cut bait. Just shows how totally connected to their base and for sure sincere dems establishment is with all the #believewomen stuff.
Yeah...the dems have, for the most part, been quick to call any of their guys out. Except for Clinton. Franken needs to resign.