Ocasio-Cortez endorsez Schumer primary challenger

[Rukh]

I remember a long time ago, in the early 90s, my family brought in woman and her two children who grew up in East Berlin (they traveled with my Uncle, who's from West Berlin at the time) and we thought how amazed they would be if they saw "Old Country Buffet" - a place where you can have unlimited food to your individual desire, as opposed to the minimalist rationing of food that they were used to. We thought we were showing them heaven on earth!

They weren't amazed. Instead, they were absolutely revolted and horrified by it. They stood dumbfounded, wondering why people were gorging themselves so much - and why there were so many options. They each had a small salad and that was it.

I also remember a time when I was talking to a friend of mine saying how interesting that there are so many men running cooking shows, and he turned to me saying "It's only natural that men like to cook, as men like to tinker and create things"... I began laughing at him, stating how not 50 years ago all men thought the kitchen was a "woman's place" and if he suggested that - he would've been laughed out of the room.

Finally, I remember a piece where John Oliver was interviewing Australian Governors about policy, and asked them what they thought was the mark of a good governor. They responded "If they publish good policy that helps the people", when he asked an American governor, he responded "If they get re-elected."

My point here is this: To say that they're "a part of humanity" is wrong - it's more accurate to say that they're "a part people in our capitalistic culture". That is something that can change. Please don't equate your own unchecked greed as something completely natural. It's really not. Even Velociraptors, one of the most terrifying of Dinosaurs, understood the concept of working together. That's what made them so terrifying, actually...

Nice parable. There will always be selfish people.

[JohnBrown1917]

You're looking for the Bernie Bros, comrade. They're in that direction. *points further left* I'm persona non grata in that circle for being critical of Saint Sanders.

Sanders himself is centre-left lol

- - - Updated - - -

Do you honestly think there are enough progressive voters in the United States to win the presidency? LoL you guys cant even win a senate seat against Ted fucking retard Cruz. . . . .


You guys better build some bridges, yesterday, or you might as well start work on the Trump second term DC Monument. I hear there will be a wall around it, and progressives will pay for it.

a centre-right liberal will never win against a hardcore religious nut in religous heavy states.
Good thing libs have nothing to do with centre-left(or further) politics.

[Ivanstone]

a centre-right liberal will never win against a hardcore religious nut in religous heavy states.
Good thing libs have nothing to do with centre-left(or further) politics.

You mean besides Joe Manchin, Doug Jones and Jon Testor? And that's just 3 current Senators.

[JohnBrown1917]

You mean besides Joe Manchin, Doug Jones and Jon Testor? And that's just 3 current Senators.

I would not consider any of those to be centre-right, and Jones winning against an outed pedohilie.. yea, i'm sure they wont unseat him next time.

[Ivanstone]

I would not consider any of those to be centre-right, and Jones winning against an outed pedohilie.. yea, i'm sure they wont unseat him next time.

They have all consistently voted for Dem policies. Just because they're not left enough for you doesn't change what they are. They're also not the only examples. If you did a little bit of homework I'm sure you can find more.

As it is the GOP that Jesse Helms wanted is drifting off into the sunset. Voter suppression, dark money, racism and propaganda won't change that. White America has gotten a little nicer, there are more minorities and the GOP's economic policies don't work.

[Jeb007]

Where did I say any of that?

It would help if you stuck with what people actually said, rather than making up weird-ass nonsense and claiming that's their argument. That's all you've done so far. It's a form of lying.

Neither Marx nor Engels were "saints", and I have a lot of criticism for Marx' views specifically. But if you think their vision of communism was authoritarian, you've never cracked open any of their writings, and you're knee-jerking based on someone else's propaganda, rather than educating yourself. Their position was antithetical to a large State apparatus. Deliberately.



It wasn't "corrupted". These are just ideas. Any idea can be abused and reframed. And later iterations do not retroactively "corrupt" earlier visions. They just build something new, using some of those ideas as the basis, but not others. This is how all ideas spring up.



That is not remotely part of "human nature" in any respect whatsoever. In fact, those who engage only with selfish interests and no empathy are literally mentally ill; that's one of the primary markers of sociopathy. That's a deviation from "human nature", not an example of it.

Where the hell did you get the idea that humans are innately sociopathic?

okay, fine, stick to theory then and ignore that every application of this theory to real life had the same consequence and ended in authoritarianism for reasons that you don't really understand because you're brainwashed into thinking that this time it's gonna be different.

What do they say of those who seek different results while doing the same thing over and over again....or maybe Bezmenov was right "they don't see even if you present evidence".
Evidence in this case is reminding you what happened in every single communist country, so you don't get too hung up on me not providing evidence and I get to read more floscules like that I'm lying.

Summa summarum....you're kinda clueless as is (a bona fide theoretician lol) and don't want to take lessons from history to get out of the state of cluelessness. We could say it's so thick it's exerting a gravity field of its own and you just can't get out lol.


l

[Toppy]

The democratic party is going the way of the labor party. The next election will be the largest margin of victory for republicans mostly because people were put off by radical leftists ideology

Just like in 2018 amiright?

[Adam Jensen]

The democratic party is going the way of the labor party. The next election will be the largest margin of victory for republicans mostly because people were put off by radical leftists ideology

Yep.

Universal healthcare, cheap colleges, good wages and action against climate change are "radical leftist ideology"

Or . . . a regular leftist in pretty much every other first world nation.

We don't have radical leftists in the US. We have regular leftists and an Overton window that was moved pretty much as far right as it can go.

[zenkai]

https://theintercept.com/2020/02/21/...-texas-senate/

I guess AOC feels that the democrats are in a strong enough position with one half of one branch of government to start eating their own.

Here's Schumer's relative issues map compared to others in congress.

[IMG]https://senate.ontheissues.org/images/s070_010.gif[/]

Schumer the vegan "radical liberal" according to Trump. Yeah he's just too moderate for Democrats.
.

You would think after the whole tea party thing Democrats would learn from Republicans and not split their base.

[JohnBrown1917]

You would think after the whole tea party thing Democrats would learn from Republicans and not split their base.

The Tea party is in controll now, so seems it works.

[Beazy]

The Tea party is in controll now, so seems it works.

Only 2 tea partiers remain in DC. Paul and Cruz.

Where do you come up with this crazy shit?

[cubby]

https://theintercept.com/2020/02/21/...-texas-senate/

I guess AOC feels that the democrats are in a strong enough position with one half of one branch of government to start eating their own.

Here's Schumer's relative issues map compared to others in congress.



Schumer the vegan "radical liberal" according to Trump. Yeah he's just too moderate for Democrats.




Sometimes progressives seem that they'd rather shoot themselves in the foot and let their causes get utterly destroyed if it means they can shout how ideologically woke they are. Smugness in defeat over partial victory and all that.

It does make me wonder how much hardline progressives actually care about causes or is it just something they base their identity on?

Is someone who will compromise with moderate elements to get most of what they want but not at all at once more moderate than someone who only cares about their virtue signalling and doesn't actually care if progress ever happens?

Edit: well you can't edit titles, dang.

She's off the fucking rails. Kudos to her for getting elected, but trying to primary a democratic senator is fucking insane.

- - - Updated - - -

If y'all are so interested in political and ideological uniformity might I remind you that the Republican Party is in that direction. *points to stage right*

That's not the issue. The issue is keeping the party unified amongst the YUGE fight we have coming. She's not doing anyone any good trying to primary Schumer. And if you disagree, then why isn't she trying to primary Manchin of West Virginia?

[draynay]

She's off the fucking rails. Kudos to her for getting elected, but trying to primary a democratic senator is fucking insane.

- - - Updated - - -



That's not the issue. The issue is keeping the party unified amongst the YUGE fight we have coming. She's not doing anyone any good trying to primary Schumer. And if you disagree, then why isn't she trying to primary Manchin of West Virginia?

The OP is entirely incorrect, this isn't a primary of Schumer, this is AOC endorsing a candidate other than the one Schumer endorsed in Texas and nothing more. As for being "fucking insane" she defeated an incumbent in primary and now endorses candidates who are doing the same, nothing about this seems crazy to me.

[cubby]

The OP is entirely incorrect, this isn't a primary of Schumer, this is AOC endorsing a candidate other than the one Schumer endorsed in Texas and nothing more. As for being "fucking insane" she defeated an incumbent in primary and now endorses candidates who are doing the same, nothing about this seems crazy to me.

My bad - I took the OP for it's word. The OP ought to be reprimanded for posting a false tagline.

[Masark]

Only 2 tea partiers remain in DC. Paul and Cruz.

Where do you come up with this crazy shit?

There aren't any Tea Party members anymore because they call themselves the "Liberty Caucus" and "Freedom Caucus" nowadays.

[Deianeira]

Hey, back on focus. We're talking about Chuck Schumer not being "progressive" enough for these people. The fact is, he's a great guy, he's passionate about issues, and leads well.

What is the point of just endorsing every single challenger? That's real stupid.

id imagine that the point is to get some attention to that race and to the challnger. You think the one challenging Schumer will have any support in polls? No probably not. But if the challenger gets and endorsement from someone such as AOC people will check "huh whos this that AOC endorsed" and they might check up their policystances and so forth!

[cubby]

The democratic party is going the way of the labor party. The next election will be the largest margin of victory for republicans mostly because people were put off by radical leftists ideology

Maybe. And I see you're drawing from Britain for this analysis. However, there is also Obama to factor in. He's coming out hard for the nominee after the Convention, even Bernie, and that will be a huge factor.

Also - I know polls don't matter much, but did Labour poll this well and then tank?

[Deianeira]

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.

This is also something i find it amazing when i read some posters here when it comes to JD and TYT for instance. First time i heard them mentioned here i wantd se what all the ruckuz was about. So i watched the shows from TYT for a while and i cant for see where the "crazy" left radicals are. Sure they are progressive and they CLEARLY say this in their reporting, its not like the msm that claims to be "objective" when infact they are "neutral" wich are not the same. i have never had any problem with people having biases as long as they are honest with their perspective. Also everytime TYT have reported on anything and they have been wrong they have corrected themself on the next days show and sometimes even on the same show if the incorect statment was in one of their earlier segments.

So either we interpret (not the poster i quoted specifically) things differently or those that complain about TYT JD have not watched more then soundbites they have seen on YT or other podcasts where statments have been taken out of context.

[DocSavageFan]

Congressional lines are currently being redrawn in anticipation of NY losing a House seat after the 2020 census. AOC just might find that her district is being eliminated.

[Grapemask]

The OP is entirely incorrect, this isn't a primary of Schumer, this is AOC endorsing a candidate other than the one Schumer endorsed in Texas and nothing more. As for being "fucking insane" she defeated an incumbent in primary and now endorses candidates who are doing the same, nothing about this seems crazy to me.

Eh, I think she's helping shoot democrats in the foot in a few places. In the 2018 primaries, I noted that Kara Eastman, an AOC-style progressive, pushed out the moderate democrat running for the only purple district back in my home state of Nebraska - Omaha's district. As I said then, a progressive just isn't going to win in Nebraska. Omaha goes blue sometimes, but even Omaha's blue would be considered red everywhere else. And as it turned out, Kara Eastman lost, with enough of a margin that it was clear a moderate would have picked up the district in a landslide.

And now AOC is endorsing Eastman again for the 2020 seat. Omaha can turn progressive with some work, but not if a democrat doesn't even get in the door.