Ocasio-Cortez endorsez Schumer primary challenger

[Rukh]

Just becease the supposed US conservative party has turned into a fascist party does not mean the US has your standard centre-right conservative-liberals

That's very nice. Chuck ain't a conservative.

[Elegiac]

Hmm, who is pushing ideological uniformity? Guess we've caught up to what I already said.

You.

Endorsing people you agree with ideologically is not the same as bitching about primary challenges. The former is a matter of preference, the latter is being uncomfortable with a lack of control.

Which really all it is.

[JohnBrown1917]

It's from here: https://senate.ontheissues.org/Senat...es_Schumer.htm

It has details of his positions and the position is relative to everyone else in congress. Thanks for asking.

What a joke of a site. That whole graph makes no sense at all.

[Rukh]

Now that's not really fair. The Tea Party have been proven to be frauds who didn't really care about anything they claimed to. Justice Democrats haven't done that yet.

I wonder. Shouting their virtues seems to take priority over any actual progress. And seems to in fact be running contradictory to it.

[JohnBrown1917]

That's very nice. Chuck ain't a conservative.

lol keep on dreaming, you're just not used to centre-left politics.

[Kronik85]

Nah that's bullshit. When democrats have had the majority in the past, they strongly move the country leftward. Yeah it doesn't literally all happen at once, but expecting it to is nonsense. This is exactly what I was talking about that no amount of ACTUAL movement is good enough for some people, and I wonder if being able to complain is more important than actually achieving goals.

Skroe's assessment of a potential President Sanders in the other thread is bang on. With the current state of your governing chambers there is no winning for actual progressive policy. Progressives do indeed have to change the party first, then they can worry about winning elections in the Houses and for the White House.

[Rukh]

What a joke of a site. That whole graph makes no sense at all.

Thank you for your opinion. I'll put it on a shelf in a nice little box.

[draynay]

So the progressive former underdog primary challenger is endorsing other progressive underdog challengers? What a shock, say it ain't so!

[JohnBrown1917]

Now that's not really fair. The Tea Party have been proven to be frauds who didn't really care about anything they claimed to. Justice Democrats haven't done that yet.

Anything left of center is complete evil to Skroe.

[Rukh]

lol keep on dreaming, you're just not used to centre-left politics.

Ahh yes, this is an assertion you can make with your in-depth knowledge about me.


Perhaps it's just I actually want to see things get done.

[JohnBrown1917]

Thank you for your opinion. I'll put it on a shelf in a nice little box.

Don't have anything better to say? Or are we going to pretend that not putting libertainism on the right, putting it opposite to populism[which is not even an idealogy] and putting liberalism on the left makes any sense?

[Rukh]

So the progressive former underdog primary challenger is endorsing other progressive underdog challengers? What a shock, say it ain't so!

One would hope said challenger understands the value of not attacking your party from the left and actually gaining power so the things she CLAIMS she wants to get done can get done? Maybe she doesn't want that at all and just wants to keep shouting how unfair things are. I mean it's good business. Much harder to shout how evil The Man is if your party is in the majority.

[Elegiac]

So the progressive former underdog primary challenger is endorsing other progressive underdog challengers? What a shock, say it ain't so!

Literally. The second coming of Stalin.

And they'd bitch about it even if it weren't this particular electoral year because "it puts the Democrats as a disadvantage".

And then we wonder why people don't vote.

[Rukh]

Don't have anything better to say? Or are we going to pretend that not putting libertainism on the right, putting it opposite to populism[which is not even an idealogy] and putting liberalism on the left makes any sense?

To be honest your comment didn't deserve anything better to say.

[JohnBrown1917]

Ahh yes, this is an assertion you can make with your in-depth knowledge about me.


Perhaps it's just I actually want to see things get done.

Clearly I was spot on if you think Shumer is centre-left and you find it strange an actuall centre-left politician would endorse other centre-left politicians.

[Skroe]

Piss off with this nonsense, Skroe. The two situations are not comparable because the US has not had a left wing for nearly half a century now - Corbyn specifically is representative of actual far left politics in the vein of Tony Benn or Gough Whitlam. Not even Saint Sanders is that far gone.

Y'all are freaking out about the reemergence of New Deal Democrats as the second coming of Stalin. It's pathetic, and sad.

It's not about the policy. It's about the approach to politics. You keep missing this. By missing it, you're missing the leading problem in American politics.

The politics of conquest - subjugating all challengers, to the sides and infront of you - is the politics of deadlock and failure. Jeremy Corbyn found this out. His takeover of the Labour Party spent far more time creating ideological conformity within, especially institutionally, that they paid no attention to the swelling ranks of the Conservatives. And also ineffectually fought Brexit at that.

He could have been for free lunches for dogs for all it mattered. It's not about the policy. His refusal to to take the broad coalition of his party and expand its reach to regain a majority, and instead focus on making a more centralized party, lead to the biggest electoral defeat in 80 years. How much bigger a failure of the approach do you need?

Sanders and Justice Democrats are repeating that mistake. They don't see it like that, because in the rational of Justice Democrats, they become kingmakers win or lose. But for the American people, they lose big if the one opposition to Trump is curtailed because of an insane quest for ideological conformity.

So shut it about objection to "New Deal Democrats". It's not about that. It's that AOC and Justice Democrats spend the entirety of their time trying to pull their party to the left, rather than putting all that money and energy in taking more seats held by Republicans, whatever the way.

Because it's a primary, Ramirez here may win. In the general, she is likely to get clobbered worse than a centrist Democrat with cross over appeal. Because it's fucking Texas and not the Bronx and the only way Democrats can win in Texas right now is with crossover appeal and not "getting the base out".

Anyone who thinks "getting the base out is the winning strategy" is basically just a sucker for political action groups and special interests who have pushed that strategy to advance their own ideological power within their respective policies, since that approach first emerged in 2004.

[JohnBrown1917]

To be honest your comment didn't deserve anything better to say.

Well, good to know you also have no idea how that political chart is supposed to work.


The first step is admitting it.

[Rukh]

Literally. The second coming of Stalin.

And they'd bitch about it even if it weren't this particular electoral year because "it puts the Democrats as a disadvantage".

And then we wonder why people don't vote.

People don't vote for democrats when a very loud portion of the democrats are shouting DEMOCRATS BAD even when they're trying to run as Democrats. Do they think this is going to help them in the general even if they win the primary? How short-sighted.

[Skroe]

Skroe's assessment of a potential President Sanders in the other thread is bang on. With the current state of your governing chambers there is no winning for actual progressive policy. Progressives do indeed have to change the party first, then they can worry about winning elections in the Houses and for the White House.

Bingo.

I'm glad I'm not the only one able to do Math. With 48 seats in the Senate - and likely 47 when Alabama goes back Red in November, the way to a majority is to take out 4 Republicans by any means necessary - a candidate that can win in the State with whatever voters there are (not just progressives).

But no. Justice Democrats and the Progressive Circlejerk Squad wants to reduce those changes to create ideological conformity.

This is why Trump will win and people like AOC and those who agree with her deserve to lose. People who fight stupid fights win stupid prizes.

Somewhere in America, Senator John Cornyn, who gets this, is toasting AOC. Why do you think he, one of the most Senior Republicans in the Senate, stepped down from being the #2 Republican 6 years? Because he's running for re-election in a somewhat tougher climate and to protect him, McConnell made him rank-and-file Senator so he could vote against the Whip - Republican Whip being his old job - and sell himself as having an independent streak. So he can vote against Trump sometimes. Crossover appeal. It's going to work.

And that's why he's going to win again too.

Democrats are absolute gutter trash at politics and it's extremely obnoxious trying to do something about Trump with them. They don't understand it. They don't think strategically. And they think their passion for their issues supersedes the need to be good at politics.

And that's why Donald Trump will win in November.

[starlord]

i guess you can't fault AoC for capitalizing on all the clout the right gives her lol.