superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 8,163
Why does Trump have to violate the First Amendment with seemingly every post?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not giving me the warm fuzzies that’s for sure.DNC is in shambles at the moment.
"In addition, in August, Trump Mobile plans to release the “T1 Phone” — described as “a sleek, gold smartphone engineered for performance and proudly designed and built in the United States."
I think that's bullshit. They won't say who is manufacturing the phone. Is Trump going to use an Android phone now?
Eh. She's held that position since 2002. Maybe time for new blood?Not giving me the warm fuzzies that’s for sure.
“Maybe time for new blood” is a funny line in a party where any attempt to bring in new blood gets treated like heresy.Eh. She's held that position since 2002. Maybe time for new blood?
It's unclear to me why she a) sides with David Hogg and b) also complains about not reaching outside the tent. Funding primary challenges to moderate incumbents seems to me to press ideological conformity. Why is the Republican Party so beholden to Trump? It's because of all the primary challenges.
I thought Hogg's plan was going after old moderates. I mean, is he going to primary Bernie? Maybe the old folks are predominantly moderate? Or maybe I didn't understand a story I wasn't really following.“Maybe time for new blood” is a funny line a party where any attempt to bring in new blood gets treated like heresy.
David Hogg was the new blood. He was vice chair of the DNC Youth Council, and they ran him out because he backed primary challenges against incumbents who haven’t connected with working people in decades.
Hogg wasn’t trying to purge moderates. He was calling out the obvious: that the party is stacked with out-of-touch lifers who’ve lost any connection to the people they claim to represent. Not ideological enemies, just gerontocrats coasting on tenure. And for that, he got run out of his DNC vice chair role.
Now you’ve got Randi Weingarten, a deeply loyal institutional labor leader, stepping down from a DNC post; not because she’s tired, but because, in her words, the leadership isn’t interested in expanding the tent. This isn’t some tidy generational transition; it’s a warning shot. The people who’ve spent decades holding up the party’s base are seeing the writing on the wall.
So no, this isn’t about primarying “moderates.” It’s about confronting the rot. And if the only response is smirks and shrugs, then the party deserves what’s coming.
No, Hogg wasn’t trying to primary moderates. He was advocating for challenges to out-of-step incumbents in deep blue districts. Like I said: people coasting on seniority while being wildly out of sync with the values and urgency of their own constituents. That’s not ideological purging, it’s just basic accountability in a democratic system.I thought Hogg's plan was going after old moderates. I mean, is he going to primary Bernie? Maybe the old folks are predominantly moderate? Or maybe I didn't understand a story I wasn't really following.
Maybe time for new blood was my gloss, in part in response to the prevailing sentiment.
Generally speaking, I am deeply skeptical of what people say when stepping down from a position.
I still disagree with primarying incumbent Dems except in rare situations. But I haven't thought much about the issue, so I could be wrong. Generally speaking I don't like intraparty battles, as I've made clear before. That's my default.
All right. I don't know much about this DNC infighting. I'll defer.No, Hogg wasn’t trying to primary moderates. He was advocating for challenges to out-of-step incumbents in deep blue districts. Like I said: people coasting on seniority while being wildly out of sync with the values and urgency of their own constituents. That’s not ideological purging, it’s just basic accountability in a democratic system.
Framing it as an attack on “moderates” obscures the actual dynamic. The real issue isn’t ideology, it’s stagnation and insulation. The response from party leadership (pushing him out) only reinforces the point that new voices, especially those with grassroots energy, aren’t welcome unless they come pre-approved.
As for Weingarten, shrugging off her statement is a mistake. It’s not like she’s some fringe figure. She’s been one of the most loyal institutional players in the party for decades. When someone like her steps away citing concerns about the tent shrinking, it’s not just symbolic; it’s a signal. Something’s breaking.
No one’s calling for a purity purge. But when longtime allies like Weingarten start walking away and younger activists get pushed out, it’s worth asking why the party keeps closing ranks instead of opening up.
You don’t have to like intraparty battles, but when the party leadership actively punishes new energy and dismisses public dissent, that’s not “avoiding conflict,” it’s enforcing stasis.
Well, they are dumb motherfuckers so their support seems so seamless.Hey Ramrouser and callatoroy.
I hope you realize what a dumb motherfucker you guys are supporting.