Messages

[or even full right wing, working class voters support them]

At the same time, Congress is a numbers game. Which I think, like her or don't like her, is ultimately where Pelosi is coming from.  The Dems in the House can do shit if they are in the minority. With a majority, they may not be able to do what the liberal wing of the party wants done, but they can do more than zero. 

I think that is where the rub is.  Pelosi and establishment want to move the ball to see if they can smash their way to a first down, AOC et al want to get a touch down on first possession. 

Of course the reality is with an R Senate and White House, it's not like there's too much the D's can accomplish, but whatever possibilities there might be, it certainly isn't going to be with a red-meat liberal initiative.

So in other words, we have to accept a moderate centrist agenda to achieve the agenda we need a buck short and a day late.

Yes, because like it or not, the American electorate is, at best, center-left.  AOC will get re-elected in her District all day long.  Meanwhile, in Maine's northern district, we have center-Left Jared Golden.  Now, he's not a Pelosi fan, he voted against her speakership in fact, but overall, much more moderate than AOC.  You will never, get someone like AOC elected in that district.  Golden won his election by miniscule numbers, he was lucky.  It's a center-right district. 

That's what you have to contend with.  To have more progressive/liberals, you have to have massive changes in the electorates in those regions, or catch lightning in a bottle and nominate someone who can win over right-leaning districts with personality to distract from their policy positions.  You might get lucky and do that in a few districts, but not on a scale to significantly tip the House to the progressive left. 

So given that reality, those numbers, is it best to get something or nothing?  That's where Pelosi is coming from.  And she's right.  Because the math is the math.

It's important to look at the popularity of policy in places like that.  A lot of what AOC supports that Pelosi doesn't is directly beneficial to the working class and a lot of those center right, or even full right wing, working class voters support them.  A progressive has a better chance than a centrist in plenty of conservative districts.

Are you serious with that?  You're talking about tea-party conservatives right there the Fox News money demo. Hell, no way, they are going to support left wing policies, not from a left wing politician.  I mean, shit, I think they are probably nutzo enough to support left wing policies if by some miracle they were being touted by Ted Cruz or one of their own. But fuck no, are they going to line up behind a left wing candidate. 

[And of course purity testing isn't going to fucking help there.]

I'm not an idiot. Of course we get Baby Benito out of office first, at any costs. And of course purity testing isn't going to fucking help there.

That was exactly my point.

But that doesn't mean you shouldn't push further left where things are less crucial, even if you'll lose. Fact: that's how the GOP became the New American Nazi Party, they kept pushing right. A certain, large, fraction of the base will vote GOP even if the candidate admitted to eating babies. They exert influence on their friends. And of course there's no viable third party options at all.

Sure, the problem is that the AOC plank doesn't seem to understand this. They want to swing for the fences on everything.

Also, let's remember that "center left" in American politics is "solid right" everywhere else. There is no balance, just a freight train choo-chooing toward the abyss. The "left" is dead weight the train is dragging along, not an actual counter-force. And so long as we push for moderation and centrist policies, that will remain the case.

It's not about pushing for moderation (even though I am a moderate myself), it's about pragmatism. I mean, shit, while I'm to the right of many D's on a lot of things, I'm way to the left of them on guns.  If AOC came out tomorrow to propose a gun ban and repealing the 2nd amendment, I'd be right there supporting her! 

At the same time, Congress is a numbers game. Which I think, like her or don't like her, is ultimately where Pelosi is coming from.  The Dems in the House can do shit if they are in the minority. With a majority, they may not be able to do what the liberal wing of the party wants done, but they can do more than zero. 

I think that is where the rub is.  Pelosi and establishment want to move the ball to see if they can smash their way to a first down, AOC et al want to get a touch down on first possession. 

Of course the reality is with an R Senate and White House, it's not like there's too much the D's can accomplish, but whatever possibilities there might be, it certainly isn't going to be with a red-meat liberal initiative.

So in other words, we have to accept a moderate centrist agenda to achieve the agenda we need a buck short and a day late.

Yes, because like it or not, the American electorate is, at best, center-left.  AOC will get re-elected in her District all day long.  Meanwhile, in Maine's northern district, we have center-Left Jared Golden.  Now, he's not a Pelosi fan, he voted against her speakership in fact, but overall, much more moderate than AOC.  You will never, get someone like AOC elected in that district.  Golden won his election by miniscule numbers, he was lucky.  It's a center-right district. 

That's what you have to contend with.  To have more progressive/liberals, you have to have massive changes in the electorates in those regions, or catch lightning in a bottle and nominate someone who can win over right-leaning districts with personality to distract from their policy positions.  You might get lucky and do that in a few districts, but not on a scale to significantly tip the House to the progressive left. 

So given that reality, those numbers, is it best to get something or nothing?  That's where Pelosi is coming from.  And she's right.  Because the math is the math.

Or, and hear me out, we can stop thinking of politics in terms of stopping the other side and actually vote on the basis of being an informed electorate. Yeah, I know, but the people who sit out the vote are the ones thinking like this.

That's the ideal of course, and should absolutely be a goal to strive for.  But that's not going to happen between now and election day.  You and I both know that.  Trump needs to go.  Like it or not, that's not happening via the AOC wing, that's going to happen via Pelosi & Biden (or Harris). 

RWHN: with all due respect, you have lost your fucking mind.

The neoliberal half of the Dem Party has no spine and kowtows to the merest whim of people who would gun them down in public if they thought they could get away with it, all so they can look like the good guys and appeal to the centrists. "I want to get something done!" They scream, while ignoring that the only things they'll be allowed to do is continuing the inexorable painting of a swastika on the American Flag.

Newsflash, fuckface, Pelosi's geriatric, weak-sister groupies aren't going to get shit done either. The pushback is too strong and the opposition is playing the pigeon strategy. Schumer isn't going to throw the fuck down over basic human rights considering WE HAVE CHILDREN BEING SENT TO DIE IN CAGES and he has the skeletal strength of a deep sea fish after soaking in a vat of hydrazine for a fucking decade, STILL. What's he going to do when it turns to black people, or LGBT groups? "But that's illegal, mister supreme leader!"

If we don't get some steel-boned motherfuckers up there we'll continue to watch our "left wing" make weak gestures of opposition and mumbling statements of gratitude to goosestepping fascists until the day the camps open for political opposition.

Tiptoeing toward a better future doesn't work when you're faced with people who have no empathy, big boots, and a gun in hand. You fucking sprint for it and hope you make it to cover before you get a hole blown out of you. Same goddamn principle here.

Pay the fuck attention to what's going on. You don't placate a fucking genocidal sociopath! You don't make incremental moves when you're on a treadmill set to high speed, either. Pelosi doesn't have the goddamn RABIES necessary to make the right decisions here and if you can't see that, I have no fucking clue what the hell you learned from your time in these parts.

Of course you don't placate Trump.  You get him out of office and deny him a second term.  That's the quickest way to deal with and get rid of the atrocities he's imposing across our country.  But a circular firing squad is not going to get that job done. 

At the same time, Congress is a numbers game. Which I think, like her or don't like her, is ultimately where Pelosi is coming from.  The Dems in the House can do shit if they are in the minority. With a majority, they may not be able to do what the liberal wing of the party wants done, but they can do more than zero. 

I think that is where the rub is.  Pelosi and establishment want to move the ball to see if they can smash their way to a first down, AOC et al want to get a touch down on first possession. 

Of course the reality is with an R Senate and White House, it's not like there's too much the D's can accomplish, but whatever possibilities there might be, it certainly isn't going to be with a red-meat liberal initiative.

So in other words, we have to accept a moderate centrist agenda to achieve the agenda we need a buck short and a day late.

Yes, because like it or not, the American electorate is, at best, center-left.  AOC will get re-elected in her District all day long.  Meanwhile, in Maine's northern district, we have center-Left Jared Golden.  Now, he's not a Pelosi fan, he voted against her speakership in fact, but overall, much more moderate than AOC.  You will never, get someone like AOC elected in that district.  Golden won his election by miniscule numbers, he was lucky.  It's a center-right district. 

That's what you have to contend with.  To have more progressive/liberals, you have to have massive changes in the electorates in those regions, or catch lightning in a bottle and nominate someone who can win over right-leaning districts with personality to distract from their policy positions.  You might get lucky and do that in a few districts, but not on a scale to significantly tip the House to the progressive left. 

So given that reality, those numbers, is it best to get something or nothing?  That's where Pelosi is coming from.  And she's right.  Because the math is the math. 

At the same time, Congress is a numbers game. Which I think, like her or don't like her, is ultimately where Pelosi is coming from.  The Dems in the House can do shit if they are in the minority. With a majority, they may not be able to do what the liberal wing of the party wants done, but they can do more than zero. 

I think that is where the rub is.  Pelosi and establishment want to move the ball to see if they can smash their way to a first down, AOC et al want to get a touch down on first possession. 

Of course the reality is with an R Senate and White House, it's not like there's too much the D's can accomplish, but whatever possibilities there might be, it certainly isn't going to be with a red-meat liberal initiative. 

"most of your adult life"

I've only been involved in drug policy advocacy since 2013, and I pretty much pulled out of that work last year.  Since 2015 I've been in a different job than I was when I was last here.  So even if what you said was true about my role (which of course it isn't), it's actually been a rather small portion of my entire, working adult life. 

And even then, I ran a campaign, I lost, but it was only in my state, which was already decriminalized...

So yeah...no. 

oh geez, I'm just goofin around.  That's what Apple Talk is for.

Horseshit. Proof:

Okay, I'm actually serious.  What is everyone's take on this feud that seems to be brewing between the liberal wing and blue dog wing?  Will this be the Dems, yet again, shooting themselves in the foot in a Presidential election?  I think yes.

I actually didn't come here to just stir shit. I was genuinely interested in y'all's take on my initial question, but then it meandered into chemical warfare, and well, that's cool, but didn't interest me anymore.

You can do the obvious now.

That was a serious question, not in Apple Talk, I really don't understand what you're going on about.

But, I haven't actually posted about drugs at all today.  I have tweeted about drugs today though

Really?  Cool!  What are you running for? 

oh geez, I'm just goofin around.  That's what Apple Talk is for. 

Holy fuck, how am I still in the top 10 posters? 

Huh, I don't remember you either honestly.  Who were you in 2007?

Eh, I have been gone for awhile, so I'm a little rusty. 

Okay, I'm actually serious.  What is everyone's take on this feud that seems to be brewing between the liberal wing and blue dog wing?  Will this be the Dems, yet again, shooting themselves in the foot in a Presidential election?  I think yes.