Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

House Dem Shreds AOC and Colleagues for Playing the ‘Race Card’

Collapse

Google Ads

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by TTURedRaider View Post

    The goal should be defeating Trump. That doesn't appear to be the goal of the Democratic primary or Democrats in Congress at the moment. But you can't tell them anything right now.

    I've come to the conclusion Trump must be defeated. I would prefer it to be by Joe Biden or Kamala Harris. Rather than say Warren or Sanders. But if we can survive 4 years of Trump we can do it with those people.

    I think Bill Weld is trying to primary Trump. Which is good because normally primaries weaken incumbents for the general.
    Weld is a legit candidate, problem is that moderate, sane policy stances won't get you through any primary. I liked him when he ran with Gary Johnson in 2016(Honestly, Johnson should have been second on that ticket, Weld should have been the top guy).

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by General_Grantlocks View Post

      I know a lot of people who have moved down there from California/Oregon/Washington because of housing prices being so bad up here. I really enjoyed San Antonio and Austin(Dallas, not so much, but it wasn't BAD).

      My main guess at this as an outsider is that demographics in Texas are changing, combined with that Trump's main message doesn't appeal to a lot of traditional Texas values like Reagan/Bush did. Also, Ted Cruz doesn't help Republicans there much.
      You just don't know where to go. I like most Texas cities except Houston and College Station.

      No its not just demographics. The values thing is big. His whole shtick doesn't play well to Texans they just were not going to sign up for Hillary. Most people are against the wall and nobody wants to see the federal government come build a wall through their land on the border. We don't particularly want open borders or to abolish agencies that enforce immigration law but building detention centers in Texas isn't popular. Screwing up the trade relationship with Mexico also doesn't play well.

      On the other hand. Not really fans of Democratic Socialism, Nancy Pelosi, DPR & SCTrojan telling us what to do but other than that we are very live and let live people. A lot more libertarian in ways than we get credit for.

      Ted won the seat by 16% when Democrats didn't even try. He beat Beto by 2.56% percent the closest Senate race in Texas since 1978 when they made an effort. Beto got more votes than Hillary ever did.

      Comment


      • #18
        Jonathan Martin@jmartNYT· Jul 11
        ON BACKGROUND AS A SENIOR DEMOCRATIC AIDE ASSOCIATED WITH THE BLUE DOG COALITION: “Let’s not forget the fact that AOC’s CoS called a group of members racist. This is a group of members led by an immigrant woman of color, and this group includes several other people of color 1/

        including two black men who actually experienced the segregated South.” 2/2

        ^ the above sent as mass email.
        I believe it was Freud who talked about the narcissism of small differences.

        Rick Wilson@TheRickWilson · Jul 11
        "How can Trump *possibly* win?" ask the Democrats. Y'all are so bad at this it fucking hurts.

        1/ Tough love: You know who benefits from the House civil war being waged by AOC? Donald Trump, that's who. The new class of Democrats has more Katie Porters and Conor Lambs than AOCs, but hey, it's just the majority of the only body you control at stake, and the Presidency.

        2/ You don't want to hear it. You don't want the understand it. I promise you, my TL is about to turn into a tu quoque nightmare. And yet, I persist. You control *one* house of *one* branch and that one house needs to be absolutely unified and focused.

        3/ So choose one: A) a grinding legislative and strategic program where no one gets everything they want but that holds together a caucus full of new members from swing districts and serves as a counterweight to Trump. B) Burn down Pelosi, feed Trump, and lose.

        4/ The choice isn't "AOC or Nancy"...the choice is "Nancy or Trump." But by all means, y'all do you.

        5/ And before you accuse (which you will, no matter what I say, but here's to it): This isn't me being critical of a progressive or a woman or a woman of color or blah blah blah. This isn't a conservative or GOP critique. This is *just* politics.

        Comment


        • #19
          Democrats couldn't do a better job of fucking this up if they tried. WTF is going on with the DNC? It's one giant clusterfuck.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by daCat View Post
            Democrats couldn't do a better job of fucking this up if they tried. WTF is going on with the DNC? It's one giant clusterfuck.
            I don't think that this is the Democrats' biggest problem, but it is a significant one. This is the political pendulum you like to talk about so much. The Democrats have been controlled by the Clintonian "Third Way" for the past 30 years. Notice how so many of the people who oppose Pelosi are right around that age. They have not had representation in Washington during their lifetimes. I can understand why they would believe that picking a fight with the establishment would be desirable during the lead up to an election against a beatable President. It's almost the inverse of McConnell's political theory. What does it matter that your party holds power if your views aren't represented in their platform? I think that their gamble is that purifying the party in their image will have more long term benefits than electing whatever corporatist makes it out of the primary this time around.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Spartan View Post

              I don't think that this is the Democrats' biggest problem, but it is a significant one. This is the political pendulum you like to talk about so much. The Democrats have been controlled by the Clintonian "Third Way" for the past 30 years. Notice how so many of the people who oppose Pelosi are right around that age. They have not had representation in Washington during their lifetimes. I can understand why they would believe that picking a fight with the establishment would be desirable during the lead up to an election against a beatable President. It's almost the inverse of McConnell's political theory. What does it matter that your party holds power if your views aren't represented in their platform? I think that their gamble is that purifying the party in their image will have more long term benefits than electing whatever corporatist makes it out of the primary this time around.
              I understand why you would find the new progressives refreshing, but for the majority of America, including liberals, going the way of socialism or even communism won't sell for shit. I'm all for going against corporatists, entrenched establishment types. But there is no way I can support Democratic Socialism and it's radical agenda. I see your pendulum and raise you massive base abandonment. Too radical, too fast.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Spartan View Post

                I don't think that this is the Democrats' biggest problem, but it is a significant one. This is the political pendulum you like to talk about so much. The Democrats have been controlled by the Clintonian "Third Way" for the past 30 years. Notice how so many of the people who oppose Pelosi are right around that age. They have not had representation in Washington during their lifetimes. I can understand why they would believe that picking a fight with the establishment would be desirable during the lead up to an election against a beatable President. It's almost the inverse of McConnell's political theory. What does it matter that your party holds power if your views aren't represented in their platform? I think that their gamble is that purifying the party in their image will have more long term benefits than electing whatever corporatist makes it out of the primary this time around.
                Is climate change is an immediate threat to our existence or is it not? Is Trump an immoral man who is running "concentration camps" to dissuade people from seeking asylum who needs to be removed from power as soon as possible or is he not? Or should the strategy be to play the long game and possibly lose the 2020 election in an effort to try and remake the party in your image?

                What does it matter that your party embraces your views in their platform if it doesn't gain the power to enact anything? If your party achieves power and can expand it's power it can legislate then you can work to have your views represented in the legislation that is passed. Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

                Also if your squad consists of you and only a couple of people out of the 535 members of Congress perhaps it would be prudent to not pick a fight with the Speaker of the House.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by daCat View Post

                  I understand why you would find the new progressives refreshing, but for the majority of America, including liberals, going the way of socialism or even communism won't sell for shit. I'm all for going against corporatists, entrenched establishment types. But there is no way I can support Democratic Socialism and it's radical agenda. I see your pendulum and raise you massive base abandonment. Too radical, too fast.
                  These Reps are about as milquetoast as socialists get. There's not a single communist in US politics within spitting distance of the levers of power. Labeling anyone in the Democratic party a communist is about as stupid as labeling a Republican a Nazi because they support gun rights and oppose ACA.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Spartan View Post

                    These Reps are about as milquetoast as socialists get. There's not a single communist in US politics within spitting distance of the levers of power. Labeling anyone in the Democratic party a communist is about as stupid as labeling a Republican a Nazi because they support gun rights and oppose ACA.
                    Up jumped the purist.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by TTURedRaider View Post

                      Is climate change is an immediate threat to our existence or is it not? Is Trump an immoral man who is running "concentration camps" to dissuade people from seeking asylum who needs to be removed from power as soon as possible or is he not? Or should the strategy be to play the long game and possibly lose the 2020 election in an effort to try and remake the party in your image?

                      What does it matter that your party embraces your views in their platform if it doesn't gain the power to enact anything? If your party achieves power and can expand it's power it can legislate then you can work to have your views represented in the legislation that is passed. Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

                      Also if your squad consists of you and only a couple of people out of the 535 members of Congress perhaps it would be prudent to not pick a fight with the Speaker of the House.
                      Name a concrete step that the Democrats have taken in meaningfully addressing climate change in the past 30 years. Name the measures that establishment Democrats in the House or Senate inserted in the funding bill which will end up benefiting the children in the concentration camps. Given that, why would the leftists in the Democratic party expect anything different to occur with Harris or Biden in the White House, the House, and, at best, a narrow margin in the Senate?

                      There are supposed to be two prongs to the strategy. A top down approach which purifies a party for the left, and a bottom up approach which creates grass roots energy for leftist causes. I've seen more of the prior than the latter, but they might still be building support. I think that both they and the US as a whole would benefit from doing away with FPTP and having 4 or 5 parties including a true left party, but I don't think that there's support for willingly giving up a guarantee of power.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by daCat View Post

                        Up jumped the purist.
                        If you only knew how ridiculous that statement is you wouldn't have said it.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Spartan View Post

                          If you only knew how ridiculous that statement is you wouldn't have said it.
                          Statements like that have their purpose. How else can you be prodded to state your feelings and desires with such passion?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Spartan View Post

                            Name a concrete step that the Democrats have taken in meaningfully addressing climate change in the past 30 years. Name the measures that establishment Democrats in the House or Senate inserted in the funding bill which will end up benefiting the children in the concentration camps. Given that, why would the leftists in the Democratic party expect anything different to occur with Harris or Biden in the White House, the House, and, at best, a narrow margin in the Senate?

                            There are supposed to be two prongs to the strategy. A top down approach which purifies a party for the left, and a bottom up approach which creates grass roots energy for leftist causes. I've seen more of the prior than the latter, but they might still be building support. I think that both they and the US as a whole would benefit from doing away with FPTP and having 4 or 5 parties including a true left party, but I don't think that there's support for willingly giving up a guarantee of power.
                            Name a concrete step that the Progressives haven taken in meaningfully addressing climate change. Name the measures that the progressives wanted to insert in the funding bill that could have passed through the Senate that McConnell controls. What were they going to get in there that McConnell would agree to or that Trump wouldn't veto?

                            Sadly we can't call no confidence votes in this country. We have parties within parties but you just want something more akin to a multiparty parliament.

                            We have caucuses in Congress. For example: New Democrat Coalition (Clintonian 3rd Way) is the largest, Congressional Progressive Caucus (Progressive Social Democrats) 2nd, and Blue Dog Coalition (Centrist to Conservative Democrats) 3rd. That said the only Democratic Socialists of America in the House are I believe AOC and Tliab which are members of the Progressive Caucus.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X