David Hogg, a young liberal activist and now a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, is leading an effort to unseat the party’s older lawmakers in primaries.
So no one is allowed to “pop up” and start to try to make progress. Otherwise, they’re “splintering.” Got it.
You’re the one who claimed that a splintering was occurring. I pointed out that there is a unified effort already happening.
Quick question: What is he doing, as the main topic of the article you’re posting under?
He is making claims about his future actions. Nothing less, and nothing more.
Now, I am very interested in why you seem dead-set on immediately and unwaveringly and unquestioningly trusting him, to the point you’re framing me saying “let’s see if his actions match his words” as an unacceptable attack or evidence of malfeasance, all while repeatedly mischaracterizing what I’ve said? Because at this point you’re starting to look like you’re pushing an agenda.
Would have been a perfectly reasonable thing to say. On the other hand, you said:
His adoption by a lot of centrist Dems, and his absorption and placement as DNC Vice Chair makes me wonder if he’s just the Centrist Dems’ vehicle to remain the top influence in the party by replacing old Centrists with young Centrists.
… which is a load of puckey. He was elected by the full membership of the Democratic Party. He’s trying to primary old and centrist leaders. Could it all be a smokescreen? Sure. Why are you comitted to shitting on him preemptively and immediately reacting to a story about him refusing to go along with the DNC’s attempts at “party unity” with some of their centrist leaders, and trying to specifically make efforts to primary them, by saying he obviously has the support of centrist leaders so maybe we can’t trust him?
Now, I am very interested in why you seem dead-set on immediately and unwaveringly and unquestioningly trusting him
Pretty sure I did nothing of the sort. When did I do that? Quote me.
Because at this point you’re starting to look like you’re pushing an agenda.
Honestly, I’m just irritated at pointless fact free purity-testing of anyone who is left who is trying to accomplish anything at all. It had partly nothing to do with anything you said, it’s just I’ve lost patience with this kind of harassment and questioning of anybody at all who has a realistic chance of doing something good. Let the fucking guy make some progress without immediately starting to bite your nails about what flaws he might have. Maybe he’s a horrible centrist in disguise. Sure, could be. On the other hand, he could be somebody who is trying to do what you say you want to see happen. Let’s see without starting to throw “centrist dems” “old centrists” “young centrists” at him for more or less no reason at all.
Pretty sure I did nothing of the sort. When did I do that? Quote me.
Sure:
this precise suspicious hyper-criticism of anything in the left that seems to be helping but doesn’t pass some weird purity test (or even, as in this case, maybe doesn’t pass some weird purity test, just based on no knowledge at all) does a lot of damage
So you literally referred to me saying I’d reserve judgement as “hyper-criticism” (when I in fact had at no point offered any criticism of him). If that’s not unwavering and unquestioning, I don’t know what is.
Why are you comitted to shitting on him preemptively
Pretty sure I did nothing of the sort. Unless you just think that being cautious of someone based on their associations is “shitting on” them, in which case that’s a ‘you’ problem.
… which is a load of puckey. He was elected by the full membership of the Democratic Party.
Yes, the full membership of the Democratic Party that has been doing almost nothing whatsoever to counter Trump, the same full membership of the Democratic Party that kowtowed to Biden deciding he was the best candidate instead of having a primary, and lost us 2024. That same full membership is exactly why I’m cautious. As you said,
I won’t say you’re in any way wrong to be suspicious of anything DNC-related.
Which is obviously not true, seeing as when I was, you then accused me of being “hyper-critic[al]”.
At this point, it feels like arguing for the sake of arguing, because my second comment, after you came right out of the gate accusing me of being a right-wing stooge, clearly stated:
If he’s not that, I support him fully!
clarifying that “reserving judgement” meant I was/am perfectly open to him actually being good, and supporting him!
So no one is allowed to “pop up” and start to try to make progress. Otherwise, they’re “splintering.” Got it.
Quick question: What is he doing, as the main topic of the article you’re posting under?
You’re the one who claimed that a splintering was occurring. I pointed out that there is a unified effort already happening.
He is making claims about his future actions. Nothing less, and nothing more.
Now, I am very interested in why you seem dead-set on immediately and unwaveringly and unquestioningly trusting him, to the point you’re framing me saying “let’s see if his actions match his words” as an unacceptable attack or evidence of malfeasance, all while repeatedly mischaracterizing what I’ve said? Because at this point you’re starting to look like you’re pushing an agenda.
Would have been a perfectly reasonable thing to say. On the other hand, you said:
… which is a load of puckey. He was elected by the full membership of the Democratic Party. He’s trying to primary old and centrist leaders. Could it all be a smokescreen? Sure. Why are you comitted to shitting on him preemptively and immediately reacting to a story about him refusing to go along with the DNC’s attempts at “party unity” with some of their centrist leaders, and trying to specifically make efforts to primary them, by saying he obviously has the support of centrist leaders so maybe we can’t trust him?
Pretty sure I did nothing of the sort. When did I do that? Quote me.
Honestly, I’m just irritated at pointless fact free purity-testing of anyone who is left who is trying to accomplish anything at all. It had partly nothing to do with anything you said, it’s just I’ve lost patience with this kind of harassment and questioning of anybody at all who has a realistic chance of doing something good. Let the fucking guy make some progress without immediately starting to bite your nails about what flaws he might have. Maybe he’s a horrible centrist in disguise. Sure, could be. On the other hand, he could be somebody who is trying to do what you say you want to see happen. Let’s see without starting to throw “centrist dems” “old centrists” “young centrists” at him for more or less no reason at all.
Sure:
So you literally referred to me saying I’d reserve judgement as “hyper-criticism” (when I in fact had at no point offered any criticism of him). If that’s not unwavering and unquestioning, I don’t know what is.
Pretty sure I did nothing of the sort. Unless you just think that being cautious of someone based on their associations is “shitting on” them, in which case that’s a ‘you’ problem.
Yes, the full membership of the Democratic Party that has been doing almost nothing whatsoever to counter Trump, the same full membership of the Democratic Party that kowtowed to Biden deciding he was the best candidate instead of having a primary, and lost us 2024. That same full membership is exactly why I’m cautious. As you said,
Which is obviously not true, seeing as when I was, you then accused me of being “hyper-critic[al]”.
At this point, it feels like arguing for the sake of arguing, because my second comment, after you came right out of the gate accusing me of being a right-wing stooge, clearly stated:
clarifying that “reserving judgement” meant I was/am perfectly open to him actually being good, and supporting him!
But that was apparently not good enough for you.