Walz — Comer Opens Congressional Investigation of Walz trips to China

Paine said:
ZooView above claimed the prize to lefties wasn’t defeating Trump but burning down the Democratic Party. I just don’t really know who he’s referring to.
Click to expand...
There was a poster on the other board named Ovshinsky. I'm guessing he either has shown up again under a different alias or will. He was a supposed lefty, but he always had more kind things to say about Trump than about Biden/HRC/democrat "neolibs" etc. He even said, unironically, that Dems need to take a page from Trump's playbook and reorient the party around an ideology called "national socialism." I don't think he was ignorant of that term. I think he was so full of rage at Dem moderates that he didn't really consider what he was proposing.

But anyway, he claimed to be anti-Trump but his substantive posts just didn't back that up.

I went to law school with some of these people. A couple taught at my law school. I remember when Trump was elected, I was talking about how deeply depressed I was. I asked one of them, "how do you plan to manage a Trump presidency," and she looked at me and said, "I'm to the left of the Democratic party." As if that makes it OK. I later found out that she had been supporting Trump over HRC because she was so angry at the Clinton "warmongering."

A poster on the other board who left us, for greener pastures, used to refer to the "Populist Convergence," by which he meant the seeming wrap-around in which ostensible lefties and ostensible righties were joining up to pursue illiberal policies, both hoping to destroy the system so they could rebuild from the ashes. That is definitely a thing on the left. It came out during the ill-fated Occupy Wall St. events.

And you could also read about the so-called Battle for Seattle, which was a term given to violent protesters who were wrecking the city of Seattle because there was a WTO meeting there. They felt that the WTO was some sort of oppressive organization that was crushing the possibility of a socialist revolution in the US, and blamed Dems for its creation (that part wasn't totally wrong -- while it was established far before I was in a position to be helping, I would have helped create it if I had been in a position to do so). They tried the same BS in DC a few years later, for an IMF meeting.
 
superrific said:
There was a poster on the other board named Ovshinsky. I'm guessing he either has shown up again under a different alias or will. He was a supposed lefty, but he always had more kind things to say about Trump than about Biden/HRC/democrat "neolibs" etc. He even said, unironically, that Dems need to take a page from Trump's playbook and reorient the party around an ideology called "national socialism." I don't think he was ignorant of that term. I think he was so full of rage at Dem moderates that he didn't really consider what he was proposing.

But anyway, he claimed to be anti-Trump but his substantive posts just didn't back that up.

I went to law school with some of these people. A couple taught at my law school. I remember when Trump was elected, I was talking about how deeply depressed I was. I asked one of them, "how do you plan to manage a Trump presidency," and she looked at me and said, "I'm to the left of the Democratic party." As if that makes it OK. I later found out that she had been supporting Trump over HRC because she was so angry at the Clinton "warmongering."

A poster on the other board who left us, for greener pastures, used to refer to the "Populist Convergence," by which he meant the seeming wrap-around in which ostensible lefties and ostensible righties were joining up to pursue illiberal policies, both hoping to destroy the system so they could rebuild from the ashes. That is definitely a thing on the left. It came out during the ill-fated Occupy Wall St. events.

And you could also read about the so-called Battle for Seattle, which was a term given to violent protesters who were wrecking the city of Seattle because there was a WTO meeting there. They felt that the WTO was some sort of oppressive organization that was crushing the possibility of a socialist revolution in the US, and blamed Dems for its creation (that part wasn't totally wrong -- while it was established far before I was in a position to be helping, I would have helped create it if I had been in a position to do so). They tried the same BS in DC a few years later, for an IMF meeting.
Click to expand...
Ah, okay. I’m definitely familiar with these types as well.

I think it’s clear the anyone who thinks it’s the WTO or IMF that are suppressing a socialist revolution in the U.S. are delusional.

I reject the notion that there is some insidious socialist movement to “burn down” (whatever that means) the Democratic Party as the first step in a socialist revolution.

That reeks of Cold War tribalism. No prominent figures on the American political left espouse these positions.

I consider myself to be on the far-left, and I find no common cause with the far-right on any issue. I think your examples show that a lot of these folks unmask themselves as reactionaries eventually.
 
Whether it's fair or not is certainly up for debate, but essentially the only way that the Democratic Party can give itself a good chance to win the Electoral College is by running toward the center. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both did it twice and won, and now Kamala can signal that she plans on doing the same by adding someone like Josh Shapiro to the ticket. It's just good retail politics, especially when you are so reliant upon garnering support from disaffected conservatives/Republicans and from moderate swing voters in battleground states in order to win. Progressives have never, IMO, shown that they can be counted on to turnout in the kind of numbers required to win a national general election.

As I've said, though, I'll be thrilled with any of Shapiro, Walz, Kelly, or Beshear. I think that all four have an overwhelming number of positive attributes that far outweigh any negatives or weaknesses that each may have. I just happen to think that Shapiro may be the *best* candidate to draw a wider variety of constituencies that reside toward the ideological center.
 
CFordUNC said:
Whether it's fair or not is certainly up for debate, but essentially the only way that the Democratic Party can give itself a good chance to win the Electoral College is by running toward the center. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both did it twice and won, and now Kamala can signal that she plans on doing the same by adding someone like Josh Shapiro to the ticket. It's just good retail politics, especially when you are so reliant upon garnering support from disaffected conservatives/Republicans and from moderate swing voters in battleground states in order to win. Progressives have never, IMO, shown that they can be counted on to turnout in the kind of numbers required to win a national general election.

As I've said, though, I'll be thrilled with any of Shapiro, Walz, Kelly, or Beshear. I think that all four have an overwhelming number of positive attributes that far outweigh any negatives or weaknesses that each may have. I just happen to think that Shapiro may be the *best* candidate to draw a wider variety of constituencies that reside toward the ideological center.
Click to expand...
Any of the 4 would be good. I think they are doing extra vetting. From an overall messaging standpoint I like the Marine pilot and NASA astronaut MArk Kelly. Walz is the new Explainer in Chief. Beshear is the most folksy but laser focused.
 
“
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) posted a message on social media that seemed to imply he’s not Kamala Harris’ pick to serve as vice president − then deleted and replaced the post − fueling intrigue as Harris nears a final decision for her running-mate,” USA Today reports.

Wrote Kelly: “I spent my life in the Navy and at NASA, where the mission always comes first. Now, my mission is serving Arizonans.”

He deleted it about 30 minutes later.”

politicalwire.com

Mark Kelly’s Post Suggests He Won’t Be VP Pick

“Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) posted a message on social media that seemed to imply he's not Kamala Harris' pick to serve as vice president − then deleted and replaced the post − fueling intrigue as Harris nears a final decision for her running-mate,” USA Today reports.Wrote Kelly: “I spent
politicalwire.com politicalwire.com
 
fuheel said:
Hope it is Walz, thinking it is Shapiro.
Click to expand...
Same, especially with announcement being in Philly.

Think Shapiro can do a fine job, just think there's extra baggage with him they'd have to explain. And explaining baggage isn't great. With Walz, you get almost all of the good and no bad that I can think of.

Shapiro's ceiling is slightly higher, but his floor is waaaay lower than Walz.
 
I think Walz would probably be the VP in a normal process but the shortened timeline favors Shapiro
 
Here's an interesting breakdown of their online presence and how they engage those communities.

www.inquirer.com

Who better fits Kamala Harris’ digital prowess: Josh Shapiro or Tim Walz?

Is “everyone’s favorite brother," aka Shapiro, a better partner than Walz, more like "the cool uncle"?
www.inquirer.com www.inquirer.com

I'm kind of torn. They both bring valuable skillsets but I lean to down-to-Earth candidates that can engage the everyman with ELI5 lingo. Walz delivers in spades there.

Tough choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top