Mark Blyth, the economist who's making sense

[Padawanbater2]

What does it matter if a moderate Democrat wins if they don't support Democratic values?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Come back later after you've cooled off and explain why you would post this shit if you didn't believe it
:

It is irrelevant to this conversation. If you want to discuss that, either start your own thread about it or PM me. Otherwise, stick to the substance of this thread.

 

[Fogdog]

It is irrelevant to this conversation. If you want to discuss that, either start your own thread about it or PM me. Otherwise, stick to the substance of this thread.

So @Padawanbater2 agrees with the idea of kicking social justice warriors to the curb, then.

sniveling coward runs away.

 

[Fogdog]

What does it matter if a moderate Democrat wins if they don't support Democratic values?

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/345536-california-gov-intelligence-should-be-litmus-test-for-dems

© Getty
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) on Sunday said intelligence should be the deciding factor for Democratic Party candidates, suggesting that abortion as a litmus test would not be helpful nationwide.

“Well, the litmus test should be intelligence, caring about, as Harry Truman or Roosevelt used to call it, the common man,” Brown told NBC’s “Meet the Press” when asked by host Chuck Todd if abortion should be the litmus test for his party.

“We're not going to get everybody on board. And I'm sorry, but running in San Francisco is not like running in Tulare County or Modoc, California, much less Mobile, Alabama.”


I always did like Jerry Brown. He's been a good governor for California too.

 

[Padawanbater2]

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/345536-california-gov-intelligence-should-be-litmus-test-for-dems

© Getty
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) on Sunday said intelligence should be the deciding factor for Democratic Party candidates, suggesting that abortion as a litmus test would not be helpful nationwide.

“Well, the litmus test should be intelligence, caring about, as Harry Truman or Roosevelt used to call it, the common man,” Brown told NBC’s “Meet the Press” when asked by host Chuck Todd if abortion should be the litmus test for his party.

“We're not going to get everybody on board. And I'm sorry, but running in San Francisco is not like running in Tulare County or Modoc, California, much less Mobile, Alabama.”


I always did like Jerry Brown. He's been a good governor for California too.

You criticized Sanders for endorsing Mello because he used to be pro life. Yet here you are now, saying Democrats should be open to candidates that oppose Democratic values just to win elections.

You are a joke. Nothing you say can be taken seriously.

 

[Fogdog]

You criticized Sanders for endorsing Mello because he used to be pro life. Yet here you are now, saying Democrats should be open to candidates that oppose Democratic values just to win elections.

You are a joke. Nothing you say can be taken seriously.

Nope, I did not criticize Sanders for openly endorsing Mello. Here's what I actually said: "Bernard quite possibly gave the worst endorsement statement ever", also:

I don't disagree with the sentiment although some of our histrionic impaired berners would rather swallow their tongues before reading the above out loud. But daaaaaaamn that is a shitty thing to say during a contested election. "

I openly criticized Bernie for making the worst endorsement statement ever. LOL what a stupid thing to say in public in a close election. Not that I'm now against Bernie but that's a clumsy action by your Saint Bernard.

Eat your own words coward:
"You are a joke. Nothing you say can be taken seriously."

LOL

Bernard quite possibly gave the worst endorsement statement ever:

Bernie Sanders Defends Campaigning For Anti-Abortion Rights Democrat
http://www.npr.org/2017/04/20/524962482/sanders-defends-campaigning-for-anti-abortion-rights-democrat

"The actions today by the DNC to embrace and support a candidate for office who will strip women – one of the most critical constituencies for the party – of our basic rights and freedom is not only disappointing, it is politically stupid," Hogue said. "Today's action makes this so-called 'fight back tour' look more like a throw-back tour for women and our rights."

Mello has co-sponsored several bills in Nebraska's unicameral legislature that would restrict abortion rights, including a 2009 measure requiring doctors to inform women seeking abortions about the availability of an ultrasound.

Sanders pushed back against the criticism. "The truth is that in some conservative states there will be candidates that are popular candidates who may not agree with me on every issue. I understand it. That's what politics is about," Sanders told NPR.

"The truth is that in some conservative states there will be candidates that are popular candidates who may not agree with me on every issue. I understand it. That's what politics is about,"

I don't disagree with the sentiment although some of our histrionic impaired berners would rather swallow their tongues before reading the above out loud. But daaaaaaamn that is a shitty thing to say during a contested election.


As if he said: "Despite all the negative press about Shmiegal Schmaker's unverified sexual use of termites, I can quite candidly say that I don't believe my friend Shmiegal ever harmed a termite. Or that he ever had non-consensual relationships with a termite queen."

In spite of his histrionc statement, Mello lost by a landslide.

I wonder why berners weren't energized? Histrionic even.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Not that I'm now against Bernie

Eat your own words coward

 

[ttystikk]

You criticized Sanders for endorsing Mello because he used to be pro life. Yet here you are now, saying Democrats should be open to candidates that oppose Democratic values just to win elections.

You are a joke. Nothing you say can be taken seriously.

The best word to describe him is 'hypocrite'.

 

[ttystikk]

It has nothing to do with me. Objective interest, by definition, means what is objectively better for them, regardless of their belief. I'm sure you would agree a diet consisting of sugar and fat is objectively worse for someone than fruits and vegetables. You wouldn't argue someone living in rural Mississippi earning below the poverty line who voted for Trump voted in their objective economic interest because it wouldn't be true. Our job is not to cater to what these people think is best for them, because what they think is best for them is diametrically opposed to Democratic values. Our job is to convince these people why our positions are better for them in real ways that affect their lives and to explain how Republican values only support big business and the wealthy. Bernie Sanders has been campaigning across the country since the election doing exactly this with expected results: conservatives support his policies, progressives support his policies. He has political appeal across the spectrum. It would benefit you to understand why.

I don't believe the Democratic party should cater to non democratic values just to win elections. There is no point to winning the election if the representative isn't going to support Democratic values.

Objective interest is knowing what is objectively best for the voter.

That's what we're working on. That's why public perception has shifted towards single payer in the last few years, especially in light of the Republican option.

Yes, but they don't vote Democratic, regardless of the candidate. If they did, election results would show that. The Democratic party has been running such candidates since Clinton was president and it has resulted in extremely poor results. You can't deny the record. Look at Alison Lundergan Grimes campaign in Kentucky against one of the most unpopular Senators in the US. She campaigned catering to the right, lost. Ossoff, campaigned as a moderate, lost...

How would you go about working with a moderate Democrat who opposed abortion rights on a vote in a Republican majority congress seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade?

That's exactly what I've been saying, and the establishment wing of the Democratic party has complained by saying it's dividing the party. Manchin even urged his colleagues in the Senate to take a pledge not to primary any sitting incumbents after he took heat for not endorsing single payer. They're scared because they know the gravity of it. McCaskill did the same thing, begging Sanders supporters not to primary her. They know they're in trouble.

Seemingly only when they disagree with your narrative though..

This.

Excellent post!

The movement is building and Establishment Democrats are right to be scared.

 

[Fogdog]

Eat your own words coward

wtf?

You talk about squelching people who oppose racist bullshit. Because it will hurt conservative racists feelz. "kick sjw to the curb" my ass. You can't even own the fact you said it. Now you talk as though somebody in Mobile Alabama why isn't totally in line with all the DNC platform should align themselves with fascists. It's ok to reverse your position. Just say it.

I advocate that people should run for the Democratic party position if they pay the filing fee in their district and let ideas compete for Democratic primary votes. I'm not a fucking authoritarian like you.

The best word to describe him is 'hypocrite'.

Oh, hi Wrenfield.

I'm a hippocrite for criticizing Saint Bernard because he absolutely made the dumbest statement ever in an endorsement? I think it's funny and still I support Bernie, unlike you. You guys don't even agree with him that the Democratic party should pull together. Its you who needs to eat your words. How's it going at histrionic anonymous?

While you are here, can you please tell me why you said firing Flynn and the Russia investigation is a distraction?

 

[Padawanbater2]

You talk about squelching people who oppose racist bullshit. Because it will hurt conservative racists feelz.

No. That's another example of you assigning a position I don't actually hold to me in order to defeat that because you think it's easier to defeat than what I actually believe

"kick sjw to the curb" my ass. You can't even own the fact you said it.

But I didn't say that.. Why do you insist on lying about what I said when the proof is readily available?

I advocate that people should run for the Democratic party position if they pay the filing fee in their district and let ideas compete for Democratic primary votes. I'm not a fucking authoritarian like you.

So you support the idea of the Democratic party financially supporting a candidate in Mississippi who opposes abortion rights, wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, is against gay marriage, etc., so long as the Democratic voters in that district support them?

 

[Fogdog]

No. That's another example of you assigning a position I don't actually hold to me in order to defeat that because you think it's easier to defeat than what I actually believe

But I didn't say that.. Why do you insist on lying about what I said when the proof is readily available?

So you support the idea of the Democratic party financially supporting a candidate in Mississippi who opposes abortion rights, wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, is against gay marriage, etc., so long as the Democratic voters in that district support them?

I say you said kick sjw to the curb because that's what you said in your post:

• Kick SJWs to the curb. When ordinary people see liberals wasting our time arguing about pronouns, and turning racial and sexual differences into a grievance culture victim badge for every shitty little cry bully to polish with their own tears, Americans correctly reject the notion that that's what America needs. Liberals need to stop with this culture of coddling weakness and get real. We don't need a bunch of emotionally fragile screeching morons. They're an absolute drain on the liberal platform described earlier. Because according to them, creating a good economy and making sure everyone has healthcare and education is not as important as making sure no one is ever offended by anything that anyone ever says at any time.

I mean, fuck that. It pisses me off every time I read what you said.

YOU said that. No attribution in your post indicates anybody else did. On the other hand, that was a while ago. Do you refute the idea that "fragile screeching morons" are a drain on liberal platforms?

The Democratic Party is fighting for the rights of women and social equality for all. You are an adovcate of men's rights and can't explain what the difference is between men's rights and women's rights.

Personally, I think you have a valid point about not supporting people who are against Roe v Wade. In fact we agree. I wouldn't vote for one who opposed a woman's right to choose. What I'd like to know is what we should do if the people of Mobile Alabama, for example, were to vote in a Democrat who isn't in alignment with this plank of the platform. Should we cede control of Congress because we forced them to flip to Republican against his will? This is extremely hypothetical but I wonder what we should do if this were to happen. If most of his or her positions were in alignment with Democrats. If his electorate voted for him as a Democrat, well, he'd be an odd duck in the Democratic caucus but I'd assume he's a Democrat because he supports most ideals held by Democrats.

What would you do in this situation. He's the swing member of Congress. Should we cede control over his holding this one opinion? I'd figure out how to work with him and keep his vote on the Democratic Party ledger.

 

[Padawanbater2]

The Democratic Party is fighting for the rights of women and social equality for all.

You're advocating the Democratic party should support moderate Democrats who oppose abortion rights in order to win in socially conservative districts.

 

[ttystikk]

You're advocating the Democratic party should support moderate Democrats who oppose abortion rights in order to win in socially conservative districts.

They've already tried that, with dismal results.

Democrats now face a choice, forced upon them by a growing Progressive Movement fed the fuck up with their donor class driven bullshit excuse for a strategy; either actually start representing the needs of their constituents or just turn into a carbon copy of Republicans and lose what's left of their credibility.

The world is watching.

 

[SneekyNinja]

They've already tried that, with dismal results.

Democrats now face a choice, forced upon them by a growing Progressive Movement fed the fuck up with their donor class driven bullshit excuse for a strategy; either actually start representing the needs of their constituents or just turn into a carbon copy of Republicans and lose what's left of their credibility.

The world is watching.

You want a Kleenex, sweetheart?

You need to clean yourself up after that mental masturbation.

 

[ttystikk]

You want a Kleenex, sweetheart?

You need to clean yourself up after that mental masturbation.

Over one thousand seats lost in the last 8 years. Think about it... Not that I have any confidence left in your ability to do so.

If Democrats keep taking donor class money and their marching orders from same, they'll not just be out of a job, they'll be history as a party.

 

[SneekyNinja]

Over one thousand seats lost in the last 8 years. Think about it... Not that I have any confidence left in your ability to do so.

If Democrats keep taking donor class money and their marching orders from same, they'll not just be out of a job, they'll be history as a party.

Another Republican talking point, nice.

 

[ttystikk]

Another Republican talking point, nice.

A convenient way to explain away the truth?

Time to step up the game.

Or Progressives will take all the chips.

On second thought, please keep making excuses- it's less effort to just let you beat yourselves.

 

[SneekyNinja]

A convenient way to explain away the truth?

Time to step up the game.

Or Progressives will take all the chips.

On second thought, please keep making excuses- it's less effort to just let you beat yourselves.

Lol...how many of your candidates have won seats so far?

 

[ttystikk]

Lol...how many of your candidates have won seats so far?

Good things take time.

Instant gratification is for children.

Time for you to grow up.