Author Topic: The growing DNC civil war  (Read 2022 times)

The growing DNC civil war
« on: April 18, 2021, 04:59:09 PM »


Important points:

1. The DNC officially blacklisted and continues to unofficially blacklist political consultants working for non-establishment DNC candidates working to unseat Democratic incumbents.

2. The Nevada Democratic Party had most of its elected seats taken over by Democratic Socialist of America types, which resulted in all the executive staff embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars and then resigning, effectively dissolving the party. The Nevada Democratic Party was in the running to being allowed to hold the first Democratic primary elections, giving them great power to nominate candidates. That power is now gone.

3. A new book, "Lucky, How Joe Biden Barely Won the Presidency", details the extraordinary lengths to which the DNC went to stop Bernie Sanders and push up Biden, to the point of ordering candidates to drop out to unify opposition to Sanders.

Obama privately said he would speak up to stop Sanders: report
« Last Edit: April 18, 2021, 05:11:30 PM by arch warmonger »

Offline Mr.Obvious

  • Atheist Mantis
  • Jacuzzi Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4082
  • Total likes: 2695
  • The rules are made up, and the points don't matter
Re: The growing DNC civil war
« Reply #1 on: April 18, 2021, 05:41:06 PM »
Care to make an intro thread before doing anything else?

It's custom to make one. Not even supposed to start different threads before you've posted at least ten times and made your own thread. Let alone share media.

Don't mean to come across as crude; but it would give us a chance to get to know you. Go on, make an intro thread and say hi.
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, requesting 69 last night.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.

Re: The growing DNC civil war
« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2021, 03:07:17 AM »
my bet is that op posted that and will never come back

Offline SGOS

Re: The growing DNC civil war
« Reply #3 on: April 19, 2021, 06:50:10 AM »
Sanders has a lot of support, and I do remember back when one primary debate was scheduled at a time when Sanders had obligations elsewhere, and I thought it was a great way to keep Sanders quiet and out of the public eye when fans of the democratic process were thirsty for his presence.  Was this establishment Democrats monkeying with the process, or just an unavoidable circumstance?  It looked fishy, but I doubt that we will ever know.  Although, I hope we will always care.  It would be a threat to the democratic process, and as offensive as establishment Republicans trying to exclude voters from the polls.  But the media has not made an effort to examine the issue of Democratic Party insiders tampering, partly because Republicans are currently stealing all the headlines with their own manipulations to override the democratic process.  Or maybe there is nothing there.  But I'm cynical enough to believe  that there is always something there.  It is, after all, politics.

Re: The growing DNC civil war
« Reply #4 on: April 19, 2021, 02:19:09 PM »
And a link I forgot to post above: DNC chair Jaime Harrison says Democratic brand is tarnished, in an obvious reference to BLM and antifa.

Offline SGOS

Re: The growing DNC civil war
« Reply #5 on: April 19, 2021, 03:01:31 PM »
I'm still wondering where this thread is going.  I sense an agenda, but I don't know if it's going to have a clear logical conclusion.

Re: The growing DNC civil war
« Reply #6 on: April 19, 2021, 04:15:02 PM »
I guess if there's any point to take from this, it's that the left has to mind its own house before it can get anything done, especially with a 50/50 Senate balance and a weakening hold on the House.

An old article, but worth re-reading:
The Democratic Party's deceitful game: They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass

Quote
Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing (sadly, we just can't do it, because although it has 50 votes in favor, it doesn't have 60).  But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process -- which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option -- Rockefeller is suddenly "inclined to oppose it" because he doesn't "think the timing of it is very good" and it's "too partisan."  What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldn't pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he "would not relent" in ensuring its enactment. 

Portland Police Charge 8 After Demonstrators Vandalize Democratic Party Offices
« Last Edit: April 19, 2021, 05:43:31 PM by arch warmonger »

Offline SGOS

Re: The growing DNC civil war
« Reply #7 on: April 19, 2021, 07:29:53 PM »
I guess if there's any point to take from this, it's that the left has to mind its own house before it can get anything done, especially with a 50/50 Senate balance and a weakening hold on the House.
Of course that's the point.  It doesn't want to mind it's own house to get certain things done if it doesn't want to get them done.  What would be the point?  I'm not disagreeing with you, because it's true, and has been for years, as your following link points out so very well.


Quote
An old article, but worth re-reading:
The Democratic Party's deceitful game: They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass
I watched the big "switch" in Obama's healthcare bait an switch on the news when it happened in a townhall meeting in Montana.  All through Obama's election campaign and up to the passage of Obamacare, 99% of the population thought he was talking about universal care.  Why in the world did they think that?  Well, it was because that was exactly what he wanted people to think he was talking about.  In retrospect, I don't believe for a minute that is what he ever intended.  And why of all places, did Obama go to Montana to announce this?

The then Senator from Montana Max Baucus, who I had voted for many times, was the chair of a crucial committee that would shepherd that bill to the senate.  It was reported on MSNBC, I think maybe by Keith Olberman, that Max had received roughly 3 million dollars from the insurance industry.  Now 3 million may sound like chicken feed in most states, but in Montana with such a small population, it apparently buys a Democratic Senator, and Max announced that "We had to slow this health care thing down," god forbid it might gain any more momentum and, "we could never pass universal health care because it didn't have the Democratic votes," and the town hall began to boo.

At that time, Obama jumped to Max's defense and scolded the audience, "Now look people!" He said,  "Universal coverage is just one small part of health care," and he held up is finger and thumb to show the teeny-weenee hand signal, "We can still have health care without that one tiny part."

I was dumbfounded! "One tiny part?"  He just threw out the whole enchilada, half the Mexican rice, and all the beans on the grounds that there were not enough votes in the Senate, just as your article describes so well.

But Nancy Pelosi, countered that Obamacare could never pass the House, because they didn't have the votes, but in the end the stars aligned just as Salon reported, and we got Obamacare, and the constituents began to cheer, "We can do baby steps and eventually get good health insurance for everyone, the poor, the middle class, and the wealthy if the wealthy want it, but everyone else can have it too.

This was not a baby step.  It was a barricade that has locked us into dealing with private insurance for the last 16 years, and will continue be be nothing more than a political football used for posturing long into the future.  It is just to valuable to lose the issue by passing it.  I remember NPR pointing out a year ago, the Democrats were going to leave any attempts to fix Obamacare out of the campaign, because Republicans were hurting themselves by trying to get rid of it.  Like this as anything to do with what voters want.  It's just politics and Dems are as bad at it as the GOP.

I decided I wouldn't vote for Obama his second term after sending him $200 before his first term, and I wouldn't vote for any Democrats either, because they were all a part of the fiasco, and I didn't vote for Hillary.  I just wasn't going to vote, because I would never vote for the GOP.

But then came Trump and in the last election I finally voted, not for Biden, but against Trump, because the Republican Party is now officially insane, and had such an insane following of what's the word?  Deplorables?  Yes, that's the word, the exact word I'm looking for.  I voted just to be a part of that thin majority that was needed to stop an accelerating freight train of Trumps beloved but misguided following.  It was a dazzling turn out at the polls too.  Democracy in Action!  Albeit a Democracy in decline.

Now I'm still not sure if you are here to deflect from the failures of the GOP, or if you would like to see an improved Democratic Party.  Are you going to lay your cards on the table, or do we have to keep guessing?  Come on in and really get your feet wet  Nothing wrong with a little heartfelt participation.

Re: The growing DNC civil war
« Reply #8 on: April 19, 2021, 08:59:55 PM »
If you don't realize that they're basically both one party then you haven't been paying as close attention as you thought.

Offline SGOS

Re: The growing DNC civil war
« Reply #9 on: April 19, 2021, 09:06:31 PM »
If you don't realize that I figured that out long ago without your help then you don't know as much about me as you thought.  So are we good then?

Edit:  I have to take back a small part of that.  If the Republicans float much father off into nether lands of absurdity, there will no longer be just two of the same.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2021, 09:11:29 PM by SGOS »

Offline Shiranu

Re: The growing DNC civil war
« Reply #10 on: April 20, 2021, 02:48:45 AM »
Quote
...it's that the left has to mind its own house before it can get anything done...

Given the fact there is no left in the United States and you haven't really seemed to state your actual intentions, I am dubious about the sincerity of your argument or at the very least your understanding of it.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2021, 02:50:53 AM by Shiranu »

Re: The growing DNC civil war
« Reply #11 on: April 20, 2021, 12:15:33 PM »
I guess if there's any point to take from this, it's that the left has to mind its own house before it can get anything done, especially with a 50/50 Senate balance and a weakening hold on the House.

If you don't realize that they're basically both one party then you haven't been paying as close attention as you thought.

If the Democrats and Republicans are "basically both one party" then why are you concerned about which party is in power?

Offline Hydra009

Re: The growing DNC civil war
« Reply #12 on: April 20, 2021, 04:28:18 PM »
Liberalism: a theory in crisis

/s

Re: The growing DNC civil war
« Reply #13 on: April 21, 2021, 02:14:23 AM »
Liberalism: a theory in crisis

/s

yes

Quote
I share with the majority of American Jews’ disgust toward Trump and Trumpism, which has normalized bigotry and cruelty in ways that have crippled American society. That truth doesn’t detract from another: There is another danger, this one from the left. And unlike Trump, this one has attained cultural dominance, capturing America's elites and our most powerful institutions. In the event of a Biden victory, it is hard to imagine it meeting resistance. So let me make my purpose perfectly clear: I am here to ring the alarm. I’m here to say: Do not be shocked anymore. Stop saying, can you believe. It’s time to accept reality, if we want to have any hope of fixing it.

To understand the enormity of the change we are now living through, take a moment to understand America as the overwhelming majority of its Jews believed it was—and perhaps as we always assumed it would be.

It was liberal.

Not liberal in the narrow, partisan sense, but liberal in the most capacious and distinctly American sense of that word: the belief that everyone is equal because everyone is created in the image of God. The belief in the sacredness of the individual over the group or the tribe. The belief that the rule of law—and equality under that law—is the foundation of a free society. The belief that due process and the presumption of innocence are good and that mob violence is bad. The belief that pluralism is a source of our strength; that tolerance is a reason for pride; and that liberty of thought, faith, and speech are the bedrocks of democracy.

The liberal worldview was one that recognized that there were things—indeed, the most important things—in life that were located outside of the realm of politics: friendships, art, music, family, love. This was a world in which Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg could be close friends. Because, as Scalia once said, some things are more important than votes.

Crucially, this liberalism relied on the view that the Enlightenment tools of reason and the scientific method might have been designed by dead white guys, but they belonged to everyone, and they were the best tools for human progress that have ever been devised.

Racism was evil because it contradicted the foundations of this worldview, since it judged people not based on the content of their character, but on the color of their skin. And while America’s founders were guilty of undeniable hypocrisy, their own moral failings did not invalidate their transformational project. The founding documents were not evil to the core but “magnificent,” as Martin Luther King Jr. put it, because they were “a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.” In other words: The founders themselves planted the seeds of slavery’s destruction. And our second founding fathers—abolitionists like Frederick Douglass—made it so. America would never be perfect, but we could always strive toward building a more perfect union.

I didn’t even know that this worldview had a name because it was baked into everything I came into contact with—my parents’ worldviews, the schools they sent me to, the synagogues we attended, the magazines and newspapers we read, and so on.

I was among many millions of Americans cosseted by these ideals. Since World War II, American intellectual and cultural life has been produced and protected by a set of institutions—universities, newspapers, magazines, record companies, professional associations, labor unions, cultural venues, publishing houses, Hollywood studios, think tanks, historical museums, art museums—that aligned, broadly, with those principles. As such, they had incredible power—power that demanded our respect because they held up the liberal order.

No longer. American liberalism is under siege. There is a new ideology vying to replace it.

No one has yet decided on the name for the force that has come to unseat liberalism. Some say it’s “Social Justice.” The author Rod Dreher has called it “therapeutic totalitarianism.” The writer Wesley Yang refers to it as “the successor ideology”—as in, the successor to liberalism.

At some point, it will have a formal name, one that properly describes its mixture of postmodernism, postcolonialism, identity politics, neo-Marxism, critical race theory, intersectionality, and the therapeutic mentality. Until then, it is up to each of us to see it plainly. We need to look past the hashtags and slogans and the jargon to assess it honestly—and then to explain it to others.

Offline aitm

Re: The growing DNC civil war
« Reply #14 on: April 21, 2021, 07:57:32 AM »
Or maybe. It’s the original dream finally coming to fruition, albeit with a couple pimples that will work itself out....perhaps.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust