39
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2025
39 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10326 readers
66 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Right now, Sanders and AOC are making a lot of progress, and they're the ones I trust to be pushing for the changes to the party that we need. If anyone is splintering or diffusing progress, it would be someone other than them popping up and trying to do their own thing. If Sanders or AOC endorse Hogg, I would trust their opinion.
I'm not sure why you're trying to downplay Hogg's position in the DNC; he's literally the second-highest ranked person. And like I said, if he does push for progressives, that would be good.
So no one is allowed to "pop up" and start to try to make progress. Otherwise, they're "splintering." Got it.
Quick question: What is he doing, as the main topic of the article you're posting under?
You're the one who claimed that a splintering was occurring. I pointed out that there is a unified effort already happening.
He is making claims about his future actions. Nothing less, and nothing more.
Now, I am very interested in why you seem dead-set on immediately and unwaveringly and unquestioningly trusting him, to the point you're framing me saying "let's see if his actions match his words" as an unacceptable attack or evidence of malfeasance, all while repeatedly mischaracterizing what I've said? Because at this point you're starting to look like you're pushing an agenda.
Would have been a perfectly reasonable thing to say. On the other hand, you said:
... which is a load of puckey. He was elected by the full membership of the Democratic Party. He's trying to primary old and centrist leaders. Could it all be a smokescreen? Sure. Why are you comitted to shitting on him preemptively and immediately reacting to a story about him refusing to go along with the DNC's attempts at "party unity" with some of their centrist leaders, and trying to specifically make efforts to primary them, by saying he obviously has the support of centrist leaders so maybe we can't trust him?
Pretty sure I did nothing of the sort. When did I do that? Quote me.
Honestly, I'm just irritated at pointless fact free purity-testing of anyone who is left who is trying to accomplish anything at all. It had partly nothing to do with anything you said, it's just I've lost patience with this kind of harassment and questioning of anybody at all who has a realistic chance of doing something good. Let the fucking guy make some progress without immediately starting to bite your nails about what flaws he might have. Maybe he's a horrible centrist in disguise. Sure, could be. On the other hand, he could be somebody who is trying to do what you say you want to see happen. Let's see without starting to throw "centrist dems" "old centrists" "young centrists" at him for more or less no reason at all.
Sure:
So you literally referred to me saying I'd reserve judgement as "hyper-criticism" (when I in fact had at no point offered any criticism of him). If that's not unwavering and unquestioning, I don't know what is.
Pretty sure I did nothing of the sort. Unless you just think that being cautious of someone based on their associations is "shitting on" them, in which case that's a 'you' problem.
Yes, the full membership of the Democratic Party that has been doing almost nothing whatsoever to counter Trump, the same full membership of the Democratic Party that kowtowed to Biden deciding he was the best candidate instead of having a primary, and lost us 2024. That same full membership is exactly why I'm cautious. As you said,
Which is obviously not true, seeing as when I was, you then accused me of being "hyper-critic[al]".
At this point, it feels like arguing for the sake of arguing, because my second comment, after you came right out of the gate accusing me of being a right-wing stooge, clearly stated:
clarifying that "reserving judgement" meant I was/am perfectly open to him actually being good, and supporting him!
But that was apparently not good enough for you.