Elder helped solidify corporate Democrat Newsom's power

[Surrealistik]

Whether it's intentional or not.

This might be conservatives' latest strategy: help corporate Democrats so progressive policies are minimized.

That was certainly, clearly and demonstrably the case in the event of Nina Turner's defeat, where notable Conservative and GOP donors flocked to her main corporate Dem opponent Shontel Brown (https://theintercept.com/2021/07/27/nina-turner-shontel-brown-ohio-gop/ ; she also happened, much to the deafening silence of her generally pro-establishment supporters and endorsers, to be facing serious and credible ethics probes for millions of dollars at the time concerning the self-dealing contracts to her boyfriend: https://www.newsweek.com/hillary-cl...el-brown-faces-potential-ethics-probe-1613460).

This notable example in mind, it certainly happens that the GOP can and does side with corp Dems in the event their candidates have no chance of winning in deference to what they view as a 'lesser evil'. In this specific case however, that idea is much less compelling and evidentiary.

 

[Surrealistik]

By “keeping them in check”, I meant not allowing their minority ridiculous and unreasonable far left socialist demands to get in the way of majority Democrat Party goals.

Frankly and objectively, it's 'moderates' like Manchin and Sinema that have been getting in the way of majority Democrat Party goals, not progressives.

If you're referring to actual tankies and literal socialists specifically, not social democrats, while I generally agree with your sentiment, they're never going to be in a position of power to menace the party or its goals in the way those hamstringing moderate Democrats currently are.

 

[Antiwar]

Projecting isn't going to help you, Trump tried it and now you're trying it, everyone sees that's what you're doing...right now.
Also, your continuing ageist discrimination isn't good optics for a progressive - - see, you've already begun your headlong rush into the arms of the Right by adopting their bigoted values, perhaps you will begin attacking women next?

If I had power, real actual power, do you seriously believe I'd be spending time on a debate forum arguing with someone who's been having a pissant temper tantrum ever since they joined?
The only reason I ever even took a deeper dive into politics is because I ended up an instant Daddy to an abandoned daughter, a disabled son and disabled Navy veteran wife.
Each and every policy decision attempted by Trumpers affects the lives of my family in profound ways, and to add the tantrums of a hypocritical Green Party accelerationist does nothing except up the ante for the Trumpers you help empower with your approach to politics.

See? Turns out you really ARE one of those "shitty white progressives" Justin Rosario talks about.
You insult real actual progressives with your actions, thought, word and deed.
And in the end, you help fascists by helping hand them more power.

Yup, Rosario has been right about folks like you all along.
And, to close...if YOU had any real actual power, you'd be sitting right next to Glenn Greenwald on Fox News right now, doing what he does: attacking Democrats and helping Trump.

Your commentary is such hackish trolling you have to try turning me into Glenn Greenwald, Rose McGowan, and whoever from the 60s instead of actually addressing what I post. And you do it in an abrasive way with bullshit like "shitty white progressives" and "pissant temper tantrum," when it's you that's acting like that. You're like a rabid Raiders fan for the Democratic Party; no one is allowed to criticize your team, and if they do they're playing for the other team. And the whores you rode in on.

 

[TheParser]

The Republicans did so badly against soft-on-crime Newsom because the Republicans were more interested in themselves than in the Republican Party or the people of California.

The Republicans should have gotten together and chosen one candidate. Someone attractive in the sense of a moderate agenda (Mr. Elder, for whom I voted, was too extreme).

The Democrats in 2020 were wiser. They realized that only a so-called "moderate" could win, so they all agreed to give up their personal ambitions and let that frail gentleman from Delaware be the candidate. And if the election results are to be believed, it worked.

California will never have another Republican governor, unless some beloved celebrity or war hero runs. And if s/he is Hispanic, so much the better.

 

[Surrealistik]

The Democrats in 2020 were wiser. They realized that only a so-called "moderate" could win, so they all agreed to give up their personal ambitions and let that frail gentleman from Delaware be the candidate. And if the election results are to be believed, it worked.

Lol, oh come off it. COVID was the only reason Biden managed to prevail; the definition of a grim silver lining to all of this pandemic misery. And Biden's win in the primary had nothing to do with Dems collectively realizing that he was the only way, and everything to do with the desperation last minute coalescence of the moderate wing just before Super Tuesday (which Biden won by less than the total delegates Buttigieg and Klob were expected to take down), and the momentum established thereof.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Your commentary is so hackish you have to trying turning me into Glenn Greenwald, Rose McGowan, and whoever from the 60s instead of actually addressing what I post. And you do it in an abrasive way with bullshit like "shitty white progressives" and "pissant temper tantrum." You're like a rabid Raiders fan for the Democratic Party; no one is allowed to criticize your team, and if they do they're playing for the other team. And the whores you rode in on.

Threads seem to have popped up since the second impeachment happened that are superficial criticisms of the Trump supporters that sieged the Capitol. I suppose some liberals are feeling empowered to do this. It doesn't do anyone any good to try to boost themselves up by trying to put others down.

I apologize on behalf of them for their behavior.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Elder lost because he went full Trump. Simple as.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Frankly and objectively, it's 'moderates' like Manchin and Sinema that have been getting in the way of majority Democrat Party goals, not progressives.

If you're referring to actual tankies and literal socialists specifically, not social democrats, while I generally agree with your sentiment, they're never going to be in a position of power to menace the party or its goals in the way those hamstringing moderate Democrats currently are.

One of the big reasons Biden is in office now is because he accepted conditions demanded by progressives (https://www.npr.org/2020/07/08/8891...iden-a-blueprint-for-a-progressive-presidency) to gain their support.

Many of their demands are included in Biden’s $3.5T budget reconciliation bill.

Frankly and objectively, if Biden proposed a much smaller bill, he’d be fighting more than 2 moderate Dems in the Senate.

 

[Surrealistik]

One of the big reasons Biden is in office now is because he accepted conditions demanded by progressives (https://www.npr.org/2020/07/08/8891...iden-a-blueprint-for-a-progressive-presidency) to gain their support.

Many of their demands are included in Biden’s $3.5T budget reconciliation bill.

Frankly and objectively, if Biden proposed a much smaller bill, he’d be fighting more than 2 moderate Dems in the Senate.

Exactly.

That should tell you where the majority of the Democrat Party goals are then, by definition, and just how in the wrong these moderates are (whose opposition probably has far more to do with where they're spending their nights/getting their dolleros than principle: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us...inema-with-campaign-contributions-2021-04-15/ ) for hamstringing them come hell or highwater in favour of vastly smaller infrastructure spending that would be domineered by corporate pork per such nonsense like asset recycling: https://prospect.org/politics/bipartisan-senate-infrastructure-plan-privatization-asset-recycling/

And it's not just the progressive caucus alone that is pushing for the bigger bill.

 

[Antiwar]

...

You're hurt because I apologized on behalf of liberals (for being over-the-top pricks) after 1/6/21 so hopefully no T**** supporters had a heart attack or stroke.

 

[Antiwar]

Abolish militarism, which is codespeak for "Abolish the military"...yeah good luck with that.

You make so many errors in your commentary it's not worth the effort to address all of them. And you're always hostile. Imagine if, in response to your hostility, I was a tenth as hostile as you are.

Militarism and the military are two very different things. "Grow up" by addressing what I actually post, not what you imagine I posted.

the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Exactly.

That should tell you where the majority of the Democrat Party goals are then, by definition, and just how in the wrong these moderates are (whose opposition probably has far more to do with where they're spending their nights/getting their dolleros than principle: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us...inema-with-campaign-contributions-2021-04-15/ ) for hamstringing them come hell or highwater in favour of vastly smaller infrastructure spending that would be domineered by corporate pork per such nonsense like asset recycling: https://prospect.org/politics/bipartisan-senate-infrastructure-plan-privatization-asset-recycling/

And it's not just the progressive caucus alone that is pushing for the bigger bill.

Factually, the majority of Democrats in either/both Houses aren’t progressives.

Not agreeing on $3.5T doesn’t mean “vastly smaller infrastructure spending” either.

 

[Surrealistik]

Factually, the majority of Democrats in either/both Houses aren’t progressives.

Just to be clear, you do understand that you're making my point for me, right?

That Manchin and Sinema are moderates who are, unlike the progressives, hamstringing the clear majority (i.e. favoured across both progressive/non-progressive caucuses) Democrat position.

Not agreeing on $3.5T doesn’t mean “vastly smaller infrastructure spending” either.

Manchin's stated ceiling is $1.5-1.6 Trillion which is, being less than half of the already negotiated down $3.5 Trillion, by any reasonable and objective measure, vastly smaller infrastructure spending.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Factually, the majority of Democrats in either/both Houses aren’t progressives.

Not agreeing on $3.5T doesn’t mean “vastly smaller infrastructure spending” either.

$3.5Tn boils down to Joe Manchin.
Take him out of the equation and you would likely see the 3.5Tn pass.
Am I wrong on this?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You're hurt because I apologized on behalf of liberals (for being over-the-top pricks) after 1/6/21 so hopefully no T**** supporters had a heart attack or stroke.

Uhhhhh...yeahNO.
I laughed, but here's who LIKED that post.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You make so many errors in your commentary it's not worth the effort to address all of them. And you're always hostile. Imagine if, in response to your hostility, I was a tenth as hostile as you are.

Militarism and the military are two very different things. "Grow up" by addressing what I actually post, not what you imagine I posted.

Ever notice that I am only hostile to certain people and not in general?

 

[Surrealistik]

$3.5Tn boils down to Joe Manchin.
Take him out of the equation and you would likely see the 3.5Tn pass.
Am I wrong on this?

And mind, it would have been closer to 6 trillion without this Chamber of Commerce sponsored child throwing his constant petulant tantrums on behalf of our corporate elite; it's already been negotiated down by half, and this asshole keeps pushing to cut it in half yet again.

Also Kyrsten '**** the Poor' Sinema is the other insufferable obstacle.

 

[Lovebug]

Ever notice that I am only hostile to certain people and not in general?

You are hostile?

 

[Felis Leo]

That only works if you can locate Feinstein's phylactery.

Props for the D&D reference.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Just to be clear, you do understand that you're making my point for me, right? That Manchin and Sinema are moderates who are, unlike the progressives, hamstringing the clear majority (i.e. favoured across both progressive/non-progressive caucuses) Democrat position.

Your point is because most of their party, including those they are normally inline with, support a gargantuan bill, Manchin and Sinema are obligated to go along.

Not much of a point.

Manchin's stated ceiling is $1.5-1.6 Trillion which is, being less than half of the already negotiated down $3.5 Trillion, by any reasonable and objective measure, vastly smaller infrastructure spending.

Apparently, you’re new to American politics.

Do all Canadian politicians start negotiations by setting an absolutely inflexible bottom/top dollar limit?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You are hostile?

Sometimes, mostly to folks who are welded to a "my way or the highway" approach to politics.
Politics is the art of the possible and although I actually do wish for a bit more progressive values (a bit, not the whole hog) I realize that many progressives are either shooting themselves in the foot or identifying Democrats as worse opposition than the Right, and so they're more than happy to sink Democrats beneath the waves.
Well, that is how we get Trump, it is how we GOT Trump.

If the GOP was more like the Barry Goldwaters and the Trent Lotts and Tom Daschles, the old school connies, it would be an entirely different picture.
But we have to play the cards in our hands, not the cards we fantasize about.

I don't hate progressives, I just think about a third of them are unrealistic, another third are hell bent on destroying Dems and the remaining third are good people.
You (or anyone) can turn that around and apply it to the Democratic Party, too.
I won't argue.

 

[Antiwar]

You are hostile?

@Checkerboard Strangler is hostile. Just look at his comments in this thread.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

@Checkerboard Strangler is hostile.

Yes, and maybe someday you will unlock the secret as to how to disarm that...or not.
I'm not hostile to you personally, I don't know you.
I am hostile to the way you present your ideas, it's all "my way or the highway" and "Democrats suck".
So...what'd you expect, roses and a bottle of wine and a reacharound?

Try sucking less and not hating on all Dems and you may see a change.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

@Checkerboard Strangler is hostile.

Was I hostile in THIS post?

 

[diz]

California should be allowed to serve as a shining example of Democrat rule.

I would like to see all Democrat policies piloted there first. High taxes, free government healthcare, hostility towards business, banning of oil wells and pipelines, high minimum wages, paying people not to work, etc.

The people of California know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.