US 2024 Presidential Election

[crimson5pheonix]

Hogg shows you can't criticise the party... through a series of events in which vocal critics of the party were elected? And then Hogg himself assisted another vocal progressive to be elected? Make it make sense!

Sure, it's easy. Hogg was openly critical of a major failing of the party structurally, in a way that threatened those in power. He was removed. Nobody else is vocally critical of the party structure in a way that threatens those in power, so they are not removed.

Hogg went on to go spend money on a much better candidate (which good on him, he should), but that has absolutely nothing to do with anything being discussed and doesn't even rise to the level of a whataboutism, but is instead a whole cloth distraction that is meaningless to anything and only shows your ignorance of what's being said.

Balls-- You have shifted the goalposts.

No, you failed reading comprehension again, which is very normal for you. Maybe learn to read before running into an argument.

 

[Hades]

I'd feel kinda sorry for those Trump jugend literally glorifying Hitler in their chats get if they get fired over that. It be richly deserved of course but a government can't on one hand glorify far right ideology and signal its entree into ''normalcy'' and then take it out on their staff when they take this messaging to heart.

I'd be hella confused if I was a Trump jugend and I'd get fired. Is Fascism back and fashionable again or isn't it? Maga speaks and governs like it is so why wouldn't the staff take their word for it?

''Fortunately'' there's little that piece of filth Vance won't defend. He's already gone on record that he's fine with his jugend movement glorifying Hitler. Not surprising considering his views.

 

[meiam]

I'd feel kinda sorry for those Trump jugend literally glorifying Hitler in their chats get if they get fired over that. It be richly deserved of course but a government can't on one hand glorify far right ideology and signal its entree into ''normalcy'' and then take it out on their staff when they take this messaging to heart.

I'd be hella confused if I was a Trump jugend and I'd get fired. Is Fascism back and fashionable again or isn't it? Maga speaks and governs like it is so why wouldn't the staff take their word for it?

''Fortunately'' there's little that piece of filth Vance won't defend. He's already gone on record that he's fine with his jugend movement glorifying Hitler. Not surprising considering his views.

They're being fired for being caught.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

They're being fired for being caught.

Yeah, it's not "you shouldn't have done that", it's "you shouldn't have gotten caught doing that".

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I'd feel kinda sorry for those Trump jugend literally glorifying Hitler in their chats get if they get fired over that. It be richly deserved of course but a government can't on one hand glorify far right ideology and signal its entree into ''normalcy'' and then take it out on their staff when they take this messaging to heart.

I'd be hella confused if I was a Trump jugend and I'd get fired. Is Fascism back and fashionable again or isn't it? Maga speaks and governs like it is so why wouldn't the staff take their word for it?

''Fortunately'' there's little that piece of filth Vance won't defend. He's already gone on record that he's fine with his jugend movement glorifying Hitler. Not surprising considering his views.

But then they bristle at being called nazis while at the same time praising Hitler and having literal swastikas in their offices.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/15/capitol-police-investigating-swastika-in-gop-congressional-office-00609704

 

[Seanchaidh]

"guys, what the hell is this shit? we're supposed to be crypto-fascists, not overt Hitlerites!"

 

[tstorm823]

They're being fired for being caught.

We've seen a number of private chat logs between Republicans and specifically Trump people in recent years between leaks and investigations. They're dumb sometimes, but nothing remotely like this.

That being said, fire and shame every one involved in this. They belong nowhere near politics ever again, and shouldn't even be speaking to someone making decisions for the public, much less being paid to do so. As a Republican, I am glad at least that part of the story is that these people (at least some of them) were being fought against and pushed out even before these chats came to light, but the poison's got to go. Get em out.

 

[Silvanus]

Sure, it's easy. Hogg was openly critical of a major failing of the party structurally, in a way that threatened those in power. He was removed. Nobody else is vocally critical of the party structure in a way that threatens those in power, so they are not removed.

So to be clear, you are talking exclusively about the age of candidates then, not progressive policies?

Hogg went on to go spend money on a much better candidate (which good on him, he should), but that has absolutely nothing to do with anything being discussed and doesn't even rise to the level of a whataboutism, but is instead a whole cloth distraction that is meaningless to anything and only shows your ignorance of what's being said.

The successful election of a progressive candidate to a major position is irrelevant to the question of whether progressives can attain power within the Democratic Party...?

No, you failed reading comprehension again, which is very normal for you. Maybe learn to read before running into an argument.

I comprehend enough to recognise that we were originally discussing progressivism within the Democratic Party. Then, when it became clear that progressives had successfully taken those positions, you decided that those progressives didn't count and we were only discussing the age of candidates.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Then, when it became clear that progressives had successfully taken those positions

Resulting in..?

 

[Silvanus]

Resulting in..?

They've been in position for a couple of months.

But regardless, it's funny how the emphasis has shifted. Originally the removal of a progressive from their position was indicative of how the Democratic Party couldn't be changed from within. Then, when it was pointed out that position is still filled by a progressive (and one with a more progressive record, even), then the position shifts to "they're not the right kind of progressive because they're not focused on the age of candidates" and "they haven't changed the direction of the national party in 4 months".

It sort of highlights how these examples and targets and goals don't actually matter. The standard for success will always just be moved out of reach.

 

[BrawlMan]

​

 

[tippy2k2]

They've been in position for a couple of months.

But regardless, it's funny how the emphasis has shifted. Originally the removal of a progressive from their position was indicative of how the Democratic Party couldn't be changed from within. Then, when it was pointed out that position is still filled by a progressive (and one with a more progressive record, even), then the position shifts to "they're not the right kind of progressive because they're not focused on the age of candidates" and "they haven't changed the direction of the national party in 4 months".

It sort of highlights how these examples and targets and goals don't actually matter. The standard for success will always just be moved out of reach.

Has the new person been vocal in saying that Old Farts should be replaced by people not a sneeze away from death?

Because that's been the criticism this entire time. Progressives that "break into" the party are expected to shut up and fall in line or they get booted.

I'm not going to pretend like this is something I've paid super close attention to so if the new person has also been plenty vocal in their criticisms of the party since being given their permission, I'll give Democrats the little credit they deserve.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

So to be clear, you are talking exclusively about the age of candidates then, not progressive policies?



The successful election of a progressive candidate to a major position is irrelevant to the question of whether progressives can attain power within the Democratic Party...?



I comprehend enough to recognise that we were originally discussing progressivism within the Democratic Party. Then, when it became clear that progressives had successfully taken those positions, you decided that those progressives didn't count and we were only discussing the age of candidates.

>successfully taken those positions
>Loud critic was arbitrarily booted from his position

You keep saying emphasis has shifted like it has instead of recognizing
THAT THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS RUN LIKE A TINPOT DICTATORSHIP THAT SILENCES DISSIDENCE
They've argued in court that they're not bound by their own rules, and have demonstrated that criticizing the party will get you booted from leadership positions. That has been the argument the whole time. You came in and started arguing something else entirely and are claiming I changed the argument. But it's because you're incapable of reading. You are not a serious person, you are never a serious person.

 

[Silvanus]

Has the new person been vocal in saying that Old Farts should be replaced by people not a sneeze away from death?

Because that's been the criticism this entire time. Progressives that "break into" the party are expected to shut up and fall in line or they get booted.

Really? That one thing-- the age of candidates-- has been your sole focus the entire time? Not progressive policy?

Because honestly, before Hogg was used as an example, it was rarely brought up. We all seemed far more concerned about the actual policies. Progressivism itself in the party.

 

[tippy2k2]

Really? That one thing-- the age of candidates-- has been your sole focus the entire time? Not progressive policy?

Because honestly, before Hogg was used as an example, it was rarely brought up. We all seemed far more concerned about the actual policies. Progressivism itself in the party.

...what?

Are you reading what we're saying at all?

The problem is that PROGRESSIVES WHO SPEAK UP IN THE PARTY GET THE BOOT

That's it. That's the problem I (and presumably Crimson) have. Progressives that go to the Democratic Party are either silenced or kicked out if they won't shut up.

The reason the age thing is brought up is because that's the specific criticism that Hogg brought up that got him booted. He didn't sit down and shut up so he got booted. THAT'S the criticism we have against The Democratic Party. The replacement "Progressive" has sit down and shut up and do what he's told and is not making waves so they're allowed to stick around. Because Progressives going to the Democratic Party are either silenced or booted. Hogg was booted. New guy was silenced.

Like...I have no idea how to make our stance clearer because it's felt pretty damn crystal clear to me but you keep latching onto random shit in our posts instead.

 

[Silvanus]

>successfully taken those positions
>Loud critic was arbitrarily booted from his position

...and then other loud critics took the position, and that critic himself went on to have greater success within the party elsewhere.

You keep saying emphasis has shifted like it has instead of recognizing
THAT THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS RUN LIKE A TINPOT DICTATORSHIP THAT SILENCES DISSIDENCE
They've argued in court that they're not bound by their own rules, and have demonstrated that criticizing the party will get you booted from leadership positions. That has been the argument the whole time.

No, it hasn't. Because the arbitrary nature of how the DNC is run, whether its run like a shitshow, was not disputed.

The actual argument has been about whether progress is more achievable through the Democratic Party (by "pushing them left", internal pressure etc), or through third parties.

How the DNC is run is part of that. But its obviously not the whole story. Because the DNC tried to stamp out progressives taking these positions AND THEY MANIFESTLY FAILED. This story is an example of them acting with all the bad faith as you say... and FAILING to stop the progressives within their ranks.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

No, it hasn't. Because the arbitrary nature of how the DNC is run, whether its run like a shitshow, was not disputed.

Then shut up and go away, you aren't arguing against my position, you're loudly trumpeting out your ass about your feelings. I don't care. You're wrong in your analysis, but luckily I don't value your opinion. The DNC has progressives the same way Russia has a communist party, and the DNC run themselves about on that level too. Glad we agree.

 

[Silvanus]

...what?

Are you reading what we're saying at all?

Yes. I read, for instance, where you dismissed the new Vice Chair being vocally progressive, because they hadn't focused on age, which has "been the entire criticism this whole time".

The problem is that PROGRESSIVES WHO SPEAK UP IN THE PARTY GET THE BOOT

That's it. That's the problem I (and presumably Crimson) have. Progressives that go to the Democratic Party are either silenced or kicked out if they won't shut up.

Right, except those who don't, which includes the successful candidates who hold the positions you're talking about.

The replacement "Progressive" has sit down and shut up and do what he's told and is not making waves so they're allowed to stick around.

Oh really, you know this, do you? Because a minute ago you said you weren't keeping up with it, and here you referred to them as "he", which indicates you probably haven't actually bothered to find out anything about her.

New guy was silenced.

He says, unaware of who this person even is or what they've done.

Just acknowledge this: you're not actually following what happened in this case. You didn't know who the successor was. You assumed they must be a toady because they were successful, but you didn't actually bother to even look them up.

 

[Chimpzy]

Da fuck? I was just saying yesterday "watch Trump want a triumphal arc"

President Trump Wants to Build an “Arc de Trump” in Washington, DC

The arch, modeled on the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, would be located across from the Lincoln Memorial.

www.townandcountrymag.com

 

[Silvanus]

Then shut up and go away, you aren't arguing against my position

Hmm, except you clearly weren't just talking about the intent of the DNC. Direct quote: "I care about the idea that you can change the party from the inside. Hogg shows you can't."

The fact the DNC tried but failed to manipulate these positions is directly relevant to what you said.

you're loudly trumpeting out your ass about your feelings. I don't care. You're wrong in your analysis, but luckily I don't value your opinion.

K cool. Feel free not to respond then.

The DNC has progressives the same way Russia has a communist party

That's good energy-- I look forward to a similar level of aggressive rebuttal when Sean next trumpets for Russian imperialism! /s