It does though, and the longer we pretend that garbage stop gaps like this
Then take this opportunity to organize primary votes for someone who you think will pick a chair you want.
But this has been going on for two days, if I haven’t helped by now, my time is best spent elsewhere.
I hope you vote in every primary tho
Pay morally bankrupt actresses to dress up as a videogame chare ter for sex work then leak the photo to brag about it…
Then probably all the shit Dubai princes do.
That level of money will fuck you up, because not just the human brain, but damn near every living organism is wired to always want more.
No matter what kind of thing you find enjoyable, if you have acces to it 24/7 then your going to get bored and move onto something more extreme.
Why do you think all these old rich/powerful people become rapists and child molesters?
It’s not that they were necessarily born evil, this is just the “natural result” of someone having this insane level of wealth inequality. Which honestly doesn’t even.make the top ten lists of why we need to address wealth/power inequality, but like…
Certainly topical when trump won’t release the Epstein list because it says he raped kids.
you have a fundamental and comically naïve misunderstand of what/how American style democracy works and the function of political parties to where I have a hard time knowing where to start.
The confusion is I’m talking about how they should work, and how Martin ran Minnesota for a decade…
You’re talking about how it’s corrupted and how the DNC was ran for 50+ years.
But the thing is it doesn’t take a crazy amount of work to fix it, we just needed a single good chair because the chair has 100% power and 0% accountability. It’s a terrible system and we should change it, and the progressive Dem that Martin allows to the general should appoint a chair willing to fundamentally change the structure to distribute power from the chair to some kind of governing body that is obligated to kick big moves to full member votes.
What is the distinction between liberal and neoliberal?
An American neoliberal is someone who is pro-corporate (essentially pro-billionaire because they own the corps) and tries to appease voters by not wanting to exterminate minorities directly.
If you’re trying to start using 27 different labels for various groups, that leads down a dangerous road to tribalism and no one understanding exactly what anyone else means. And you’re falling into the neoliberal’s trap where they just change their self identified label every 5-12 years and pretend they’re not a countable for the last group and totally different.
If you need to break it down more than:
Then it’s worth the time to at least break it down along fiscal/so ial policy lines, so:
You realize “the DNC” is just the chairperson right?
There’s ~400 voting members who pick the chair, except when a Dem wins the presidential they go with the pick.
So 2016 they fucked up and picked a shitty chair.
2020 they went with the presidents pick.
And 2024 they realized that wasn’t working and didn’t pick a neoliberal.
Those ~400 people have turnover too. The ones who voted in February this year weren’t the ones who voted in 2016.
Change can happen very quickly because of how it’s structured. We have a non biased chair for the first time in like 50 fucking years bro. Because Obama abandoned the DNC instead of appointing a progressive or at least someone unbiased
Since the party put it’s fingers in the scale for Carter because even Jimmy Carter was further right than voters if his time wanted.
Like, we won the war over the party months ago, and you’re like one of those Japanese soldiers that kept “fighting” on an island for decades because they never got the surrender order.
The closest thing to pro-billionaire Martin’s ever said is:
Yeah, we’ll take their money if they give it, but we won’t be biased for it.
And yeah I know what your response will be “they’ll only give it if they get something!!!”
Which logically…
Means billionaires aren’t going to give to the DNC under Martin.
Exactly what you want. Martin just said it diplomatically because it was during his campaign for chair, and he was making it clear that if billionaires stop giving, it’s not because he’s be rejecting their donations, it’s because they’d only give if it’s a bribe instead of a donation.
All the more reason to start making sure people know they can vote in D primaries without any obligations in the general.
The only way Newsom gets the nomination, is if billionaires convince people not to vote in the Dem primary. And they’ve already started their propaganda.
So we absolutely need to make sure Dem primary turnout is as high as possible.
The neoliberal voters will show up in the primary, we can’t just let them have it.
Great news!
The DNC agrees with us now on that:
Following years of pressure from progressive advocates, the Democratic National Committee’s resolutions panel on Tuesday unanimously approved a measure aimed at limiting dark money—undisclosed independent campaign contributions—in presidential primary elections.
The resolution, which was introduced by Chair Ken Martin, was approved during the DNC’s summer meeting in Minneapolis. The measure calls for creating a panel tasked with pursuing “real, enforceable steps the DNC can take to eliminate unlimited corporate and dark money in its 2028 presidential primary process.”
https://www.commondreams.org/news/dnc-dark-money-resolution
Keeping that out of the primary, means the deciding factor is just who voters want, not who donors want.
It’s not as easy as it sounds, and I fully get any hesitation or doubt that they’re “looking into it”, but shit man…
It’s huge they’re even putting in a good faith effort to figure out how to do it and hold candidates accountable
I mean, it makes sense…
Billionaires own the media, but not the DNC anymore.
That’s why Pritzker and Newsom’s names are constantly in the news. They can’t rig the big primary anymore, so they’re gonna spend the next three years acting like only neoliberals are doing anything, and they’re all super progressive.
But they all have “experience” so if they were really progressive, wed already know.
Nah you trying to say that my grievances aren’t real or valid
I haven’t said that at all…
I’ve explicitly agreed with you multiple times about prior DNC chairs…
Can you just tell me why you don’t want to vote in the Dem primary?
Because I legitimately don’t understand why people are acting like that’s worthless
If Newsom wins the nomination, he’ll probably win the general…
But that means he’d get to appoint a neoliberal as DNC chair, and they’re sure as shit not going to let a progressive get the nom in 2032, Newsom would run again. Then he’d be out or name a new DNC chair again…
And 2036 we won’t get a fair primary either.
We can’t afford to go back
I don’t care if you’re a lifetime green party voter, anyone that considers themselves left of the Dem party still needs to vote in Dem primaries to drag the party left.
There aren’t even Green primaries. You lose nothing voting in the Dem primary, and are not obligated to anything in the general.
I don’t give a shit about stroking my ego, I give a shit about progressing leftism in America
Then stop turning people off the Dem party, and start getting people “as left as you” to get in the mindset of voting in the Dem primary…
It’s not going to be easy, because like we’ve both been saying, the prior DNC chairs were biased neoliberal pieces of shit.
But…
Even if the new chair still was, wed still want people to vote in the Dem primary. If you feel the resulting candidate isn’t left enough, don’t vote for them in the general.
But we fucking need everyone in the primary. Because if primary turnout is depressed, a neoliberal like Newsom could sneak thru, and if he becomes president he will 100% appoint a biased neoliberal as chair.
No one is trying to get you to hold your nose in the general.
Just trying to get you to vote in the primary to help a progressive get the nomination.
What is so wrong about that?
What do you disagree with?
Because there’s going to be a shit ton of nefarious accounts doing just what you are soon, and I don’t want innocent people lumped in with that because it will divide the party, which again is what neoliberals and trump want.
but he’s still extremely, and fundamentally a capitalist liberal.
His personal political beliefs don’t matter, because he believes in a bottom up party structure where: the party’s purpose is getting Dems elected, elected Dems purpose is to represent the will of Dem voters, and Dem voters set the party platform mainly by selecting a candidate in a fair primary…
The shit part is, everyone is so used to a biased DNC that uses corruption and threats of defunding state parties to make politicians represent the DNC chair and not the voters.
You fundamentally don’t know how this works, and you need to at least admit that before you change it. And if you don’t change it, all you’re doing with these comments is convincing people left of neoliberls to give up on the party, which depress Dem primary turnout…
And could lead to the only way neoliberls take the party back and we lose it
I’ll never forgive the DNC for forcing Hillary or Kamala
This is like if AOC gets elected president, and you act like she’s trump, and you say you can’t forgive her for trump’s executive orders …
You fundamentally don’t understand what “the DNC” is.
I’ve been bitching about them for 30 years. Because we’ve had 30 years of biased neoliberal chairs.
I’m not bitching now, because we got someone who just ran a party without bias for a decade, even if you just heard his name today
Ignorance of a person’s track record doesn’t mean they never ran a mile
The best move is replacing Schumer as minority leader.
Dudes a wet blanket and everytime he opens his mouth he depresses Dem turnout, that’s how unlikable he is.
Find a young charismatic Senator, like, we’re an opposition party till midterms at least in the Senate. We don’t want someone who has buddies across the aisle and keeps talking about compromise.
I mean…
The head of the DNC said he wants a candidate like Mamdani, both in personality and policy, as the next presidential candidate. And he said that almost immediately after the primary.
Like, Martin has always been about listening to the voters, he seems to agree with Mamdani’s principles, but it’s more that he knows most Dem voters do.
He’s not going to put a finger on the scale for anyone, so yeah…
In a fair fight why do you think we won’t see someone like Mamdani? Are you just underestimating how biased the DNC was for the last decade that an equal playing field doesn’t feel like enough?
doesn’t change a decade of fighting progressive politics
It doesn’t make Aslam not a representation of Jesus Christ either, since at this point we’re talking make believe…
Where’s any kind of source about “a decade fighting progressive policies”?
It apparently happened for a fucking decade, so obviously you can quickly gather some big and obvious examples.
Nah, Penguins really do value shiny pebbles and they trade them, especially males wooing females.
De Beers would be like if I destroyed the artic and enslaved the penguins to find the pebbles and give them to me to hoard.
Then I only sold 10k a year so people thought they were rare when really any pebble is shinny if you shine it.
Like, De Beers is one of the most evil fucking companies, I’d have to be chopping flippers off all over the place to make that analogy work
except in the case there is no source or there assertion it is a genocide is “seriously contested”.
I think a big part of this, is how Wikipedia was never meant to be a source for developing news…
Like, 1943 the nazis would have seriously contested any of the multiple genocides that were committed. Or US/Canadian treatment of their Indigenous populations at the time.
But it’s “logic” like in actual logic classes in college.
They could have 37 different examples of how what Israel is doing meets a definition of genocide, with video evidence, and a list of everyone who says it’s a genocide…
But their job isn’t to draw the conclusion, it never was.
And I get wanting Wikipedia to say it is, because it undeniably is.
But the opposite of biased reporting isn’t biasing it the other way. It’s counterintuitive, but it’s easier to hold onto a nonbiased organization than one biased in your direction. The pendulum swings faster the higher up it is. You can’t push it the way you want it to go, you have to hold it as still as possible.
because only 30 or so countries have formally recognized it.
Since you couldn’t find a link I did
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide_recognition
30 is more than twice 14…
But that’s the gist of it.
Wikipedia can’t say Bob committed a genocide, they can’t “say” anything except “____ said ____”
Like that link, that lists every country who has said Israel is commiting a genocide…
which would also apply to other accepted genocides
Can you give me an example where despite lots of evidence of genocide, there’s not been an international ruling declaring genocide yet Wikipedia still says it’s a genocide?
To me, that would be the smoking gun that this was a biased move.
But what he is saying now is how it should always be. Throw all the evidence and sources up there, and make it clear that it hasn’t been ruled a genocide yet officially, maybe even have a section on how that process has been going and who’s opposing it.
That would be how to do it right.
Nope, the wealth inequality makes them sociopaths too…
It’s a hard reality, but if me or you had Elon’s net worth, we’d be just as fucking weird and just as dangerous to everyone else.
Like, as much as people say it, people don’t realize how much just a single billion is. Just a single billion is enough to fuck up anyone. Like 100 million, some people might be able to remain relatively normal. But a billion would get us all.
What you’re doing is the same as writing of the Nazi movement as Germans being intrinsically violent or sociopathic. When obviously that shit can happen anywhere.
It’s just a very hard truth to face, so we rationalize by saying “those people” were born evil.
No one is inherently good, just some people are properly socialized to be “good”. And we need to accept that so we stay vigilant against it.