• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing Dem Debacle Thread: Commander will kill us all

Ph: Let's develop a theory of change by which progressives and voters of color can take over the Democratic Party.
MDMH:

Ph: MDMH likes to argue about political identities.
myDeaconmyhand said:
To be specific I identify as a Socialist/Communist, but I caucus with leftists and progressives.
Click to expand...
 
PhDeac said:
Yep. Both of them like to repeat the same argument moderates vs. leftists. It’s not about policy or even tactics, just weird political identity.

It’s fitting that MDMH describes himself as a leftist instead of progressive. He defines himself by his opposition to others instead of his political beliefs. If you’re “left,” you can also carve out space by yourself even as others start to agree with you.

It’s not much better than “moderate” or “centrist” in terms of defining politics in relation to others.
Click to expand...

This makes no sense.
 
Ok? And that means someone who is a communist, socialist, anarchist, aren’t defined by their political beliefs?
 
MHBDemon said:
Ok? And that means someone who is a communist, socialist, anarchist, aren’t defined by their political beliefs?
Click to expand...

MHB likes to have ridiculous arguments about political identities instead of discussing policy and tactics as well.

Look, I'm just calling out how some people would rather maintain their identity as a political outsider than change the system.
 
There isn’t much policy discussion on here from the centrists. Tactics and policy are all tied up in what makes political identity. I love to talk policy and tactics, i just don’t happen to believe the Democratic Party is worth saving/reforming. It’s why i choose to organize outside of it.
 
There isn’t much of a home for abolitionist thought/policy in the Democratic Party.
 
I don’t think progressives and voters of color can “take over the Democratic Party”. I think the two party American system is doomed, and the two parties are so codependent and intertwined that neither could exist without the other, so they both have to be disbanded. My theory of electoral-political change is:

1. Compulsory voting for all state and national elections, and compensation for voting in local elections, with mail
In voting + local ballot boxes + a national voting holiday.

2. Creation of Independent National Department of Elections - disbandment of electoral college.

3. One year of publicly funded primary campaigning - Compulsory National Open Primary Election (ranked choice) 1 year before Election. - One year of federal election campaigning before election

2. All Government Races are ranked choice.

3. All national/state/local campaign financing is public-federally provided, illegal to accept outside funding or use personal funds

4. Mandated political retirement age of 75, no candidate eligible if their term would last beyond 75.

5. 3 Term limit for all congressional
seats (5 year terms) and POTUS (5 year terms) - 20 year term limit for Supreme Court, Federal Judges, and State Supreme Courts

6. Congress, POTUS, Supreme Court, White House appointed roles all legally forbidden from personal stock investment or personally profiting from company ownership or tax manipulation.

7. Puerto Rico & Hawaii both given referendums for independence or statehood, Washington DC granted statehood, California divided into 2 states: North & South.

8. Reform of House Representation based on population so that current census population directly corresponds with house representation.

8. All non-US citizens with 10 years of continuous residency documentation eligible to vote
 
MHBDemon said:
There isn’t much policy discussion on here from the centrists. Tactics and policy are all tied up in what makes political identity. I love to talk policy and tactics, i just don’t happen to believe the Democratic Party is worth saving/reforming. It’s why i choose to organize outside of it.
Click to expand...

If you read my post above, you'd see that's at the heart of the theory of change. The key is organizing to impact the system, not just organizing for the sake of organizing. If right-wingers control the system, organizing doesn't matter in an authoritarian regime.

MHBDemon said:
There isn’t much of a home for abolitionist thought/policy in the Democratic Party.
Click to expand...

So you make room for it.

MDMH, all of the stuff you listed is doable after having the power to do it. I'd say those are policy goals after taking over the Party. I'd argue that all of them would already have a solid base of support in the Democratic Party even though there's no mainstream discourse calling for it. I think most of them would be like ending the filibuster. It was a fringe idea just a few years ago. Now even Biden is for it.
 
What is “organizing for the sake of organizing?” Who in your mind is doing that?
 
Ongoing Dem Debacle Thread: Will Smith getting his 15 minutes

Read what I wrote. Organizing not to impact the system. OrganIzing without realizing that organizing within an authoritarian regime won’t matter.
 
Most of what he listed will require constitutional amendments so you'd have to have a super majority.
 
I don’t think PH understands how absurd he is being. Yeah, I’ll just show up to a Kansas Democrats meeting and “make room for it.”
 
A Democrat calling for progressive evangelism and bottom up organizing right now just seems extremely extremely disingenuous. We all saw hundreds of thousands of protesters and activists on the streets in every major city in the country calling for racial justice, a “rainbow coalition” of every ethnicity and minority group marching, (rioting) chanting, getting maimed, tear-gassed, killed by police on live tv. A “black lives matter” movement that was “adopted” by every liberal in the country.

How did Democratic voters (including Black voters) respond? How did Democratic politicians (including Black politicians) respond? By raising police budgets, by proposing tepid do-nothing reforms, by prohibiting chokeholds which were already illegal. They responded by mostly doing nothing besides dismissing the protestors as white troublemakers and rioting villains.
 
Oh yeah, they mostly responded by blaming their election losses on the protestors and “defund the police”. Somehow we have a huge contingent of reactionary swing voters in this country with no loyalty or allegiance to anything, and yet this contingent is never accounted for or criticized by the party. Democrats treat these motherfuckers like a sleeping baby in the next room, and activists like a creaky floorboard.
 
Those activists shouldn't have blocked me on the freeway that one day. Cost me like 15 minutes
 
MHBDemon said:
I don’t think PH understands how absurd he is being. Yeah, I’ll just show up to a Kansas Democrats meeting and “make room for it.”
Click to expand...

You’re claiming there’s no room for abolition in a Democratic Party in which maybe 15% of voters even know about police abolition. You’re claiming people have summarily rejected ideas they haven’t heard.

Protests against something leave a lot of room for policy. There was not much of a progressive policy base taking hold of these issues during or after 2020. That’s part of the problem. “Democrats” don’t really like the Democratic Party, but the only people running the show are the people who do. There’s a leadership void and an ideas void. People want change within a party run by institutionalists. So promote a theory of change instead of complaining that no one wants change.

Change must come from outside organizations pressuring candidates and politicians to counter the internal and corporate pressure. It won’t happen by just voting without adding that systemic pressure.

Progressive ideas that have gotten into the mainstream have become popular among Democratic Party voters like $15+ minimum wage, legalization, and ending the filibuster. Even SCOTUS reform is gaining momentum.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
I don’t think progressives and voters of color can “take over the Democratic Party”. I think the two party American system is doomed, and the two parties are so codependent and intertwined that neither could exist without the other, so they both have to be disbanded. My theory of electoral-political change is:

1. Compulsory voting for all state and national elections, and compensation for voting in local elections, with mail
In voting + local ballot boxes + a national voting holiday.

2. Creation of Independent National Department of Elections - disbandment of electoral college.

3. One year of publicly funded primary campaigning - Compulsory National Open Primary Election (ranked choice) 1 year before Election. - One year of federal election campaigning before election

2. All Government Races are ranked choice.

3. All national/state/local campaign financing is public-federally provided, illegal to accept outside funding or use personal funds

4. Mandated political retirement age of 75, no candidate eligible if their term would last beyond 75.

5. 3 Term limit for all congressional
seats (5 year terms) and POTUS (5 year terms) - 20 year term limit for Supreme Court, Federal Judges, and State Supreme Courts

6. Congress, POTUS, Supreme Court, White House appointed roles all legally forbidden from personal stock investment or personally profiting from company ownership or tax manipulation.

7. Puerto Rico & Hawaii both given referendums for independence or statehood, Washington DC granted statehood, California divided into 2 states: North & South.

8. Reform of House Representation based on population so that current census population directly corresponds with house representation.

8. All non-US citizens with 10 years of continuous residency documentation eligible to vote
Click to expand...

This communist numbering system is LOL bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top