- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
That is an enormous crock of shit. Nothing I've seen about Ellison, from Dershowitz or anyone else, would have taken more than a Google search to find.
The Tom Perez victory Salt thread - the trump salt thread with extra pumpkin spice
- Thread starter muina
- Start date
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Status
That is an enormous crock of shit. Nothing I've seen about Ellison, from Dershowitz or anyone else, would have taken more than a Google search to find.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2016
lol RIP the Democrat party, looking forward to the inevitable freakout when Republicans get enough of a majority to pass constitutional amendments.
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2016
So, I'm Oh Long Johnstein and let my Democrat local party leaders know that if long time anti-Semite Ellison leads the party, no more jewgolds for you. Lots of members of the Tribe do the same and instead of Ellison, Perez gets the nod.
The DNC's stance seems to be, "Fine. We're cool now, right Jews?" And the reactions seem to be positive, for the most part.
But are the Hebrews really happy about them giving Ellison the #2 spot? Is that really appeasement? Does this truly show a rejection of antisemitism by the party?
The DNC's stance seems to be, "Fine. We're cool now, right Jews?" And the reactions seem to be positive, for the most part.
But are the Hebrews really happy about them giving Ellison the #2 spot? Is that really appeasement? Does this truly show a rejection of antisemitism by the party?
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2015
No, it really doesn't. If anything, it just makes the Dems' promises empty and hollow by putting a known anti-Semite in a position of power even after people complained. But I guess Black trumps Jew.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2016
Why was the alternative a literal Nation of Islam member? Why do the Democrats seem dead-set on securing Trump's second term?
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2016
Because almost every other Democrat with a reputation for progressiveness is lily-white (and likely compromised by the Clintonite third way-ers, for example: Warren). Sanders thought Ellison ticked off enough diversity points that he could sneak a relatively minor Representative into the office off the votes of the identity politicians in the party whose job it is to "shut down white people".
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2014
He can't shake it off like Obama with Rev. Wright or Gorsuch's fascism club? He's denounced NoI and I'm not able to find anything he's said that's more extreme than 'end the Gaza blockade'
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2015
He's the retard who said Trump is the worst Republican since George Wallace (who was a democrat), said it was good that companies cut jobs as a result of Obamacare because women could spend more time at home raising children, wants the government to repeal the second amendment and seize guns, the dude is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, supports and praises Hamas to this day, etc.. He hangs out with Imams who would make Rev Wright go 'Whoa slow down dude, America isn't that bad' and say gays should get thrown off buildings. Even right now his supporters are claiming (((certain donors))) rigged the race
And the fascism club was fake news by the way,
So it's pretty sad he lost it would have sank the DNC hilarious even more than a Clinton shill
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2016
I'm not a democrat, so I don't even pretend to understand the internal politics in this zany party.
But can any democrats here please explain why the fuck your only two choices were:
A radical, Hamas-supporting, anti-West, anti-Semitic Muslim with a questionable past.
Or a Clinton Campaign-backing big-money lapdog who loves Globalization, Open Borders, Social Justice, and upholding the status quo?
I mean, are these chucklefucks the people you guys actually want to lead you? Were there no better options? Or is the party so corrupt that good talent is buried under a tide of Identity Politics, Cronyism, and donors throwing their weight around?
I'm not even trolling or trying to be a smart-ass. I'm legitimately curious to know what the fuck this party is thinking.
But can any democrats here please explain why the fuck your only two choices were:
A radical, Hamas-supporting, anti-West, anti-Semitic Muslim with a questionable past.
Or a Clinton Campaign-backing big-money lapdog who loves Globalization, Open Borders, Social Justice, and upholding the status quo?
I mean, are these chucklefucks the people you guys actually want to lead you? Were there no better options? Or is the party so corrupt that good talent is buried under a tide of Identity Politics, Cronyism, and donors throwing their weight around?
I'm not even trolling or trying to be a smart-ass. I'm legitimately curious to know what the fuck this party is thinking.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2017
Yes, liberals. Bite the hand that feeds. Keep acting like entitled babies and see how long Democrats are willing to put up with your crap. Even they'll get sick of you someday.
Real talk, though, those are some shit-ass picks. When you have to pick the lesser of two evils for anything you know something's very wrong.
Real talk, though, those are some shit-ass picks. When you have to pick the lesser of two evils for anything you know something's very wrong.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2016
Democrats are the biggest identity politicians of either party, but progressive representatives are almost entirely white. Sanders tapped Ellison early because he was a) young, b) black, and c) more-or-less stayed out of the 2016 primary, meaning he wasn't corrupted by the Clintonite wing like many other progressives (Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren). Basically he picked a young black representative that was a minor player in the party to trick the "we gotta shut down wypipo" wing of the party into supporting a Berniecrat takeover. Also, the antisemitism accusation is mostly Dershowitz and the media being an attack dog for the Clintons. His sources are a) Ellison was close with Louis Fakkarian (true, but Ellison did the exact same thing Obama did with Jeremiah Wright in disavowing him and people forgave Obama for it), and b) a bunch of unsourced, unprovable statements he supposedly made to a female colleague at law school. ANYWAYS, the Clintons shortly thereafter told Howard Dean to go back to being an insurance lobbyist and found a brown guy with some creds in the Obama administration to be their new puppet. Perez has no vision of his own, he's basically a Clinton/Soros/Obama/Pick your globalist conspiracy figure's mouthpiece.
As for why it is this way? I have a few theories, which range from the party caring too much about decorum/not rocking the boat, or worrying about losing corporate funding, or just simply forgetting its working class roots and instead being a vehicle for over-privileged, self-hating elites to perform meaningless acts of penance in the form of minority handouts while trying to corral said minorities into captive voting groups so they don't have to bother convincing anyone of their policies, but the basic explanation is this:
The party has lost the plot, no reform is coming anytime soon, and things are going to get worse for them before it gets better.
At this point I think it'll take Republicans having enough elected offices to start amending the constitution at will for sufficient outrage to force the DNC to reform or be taken over by another party.
(Yes I do realize the irony of posting what basically amounts to Tom Perez victory salt in this thread)
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Because they were oblivious and got blind-sided by Ellison's candidacy, even though everyone knew it was coming. By the time it was obvious that he was going to take a shellacking and that actually electing him DNC chair was going to backfire huge, they had to shove in a desperation candidate at the last minute. So they backed someone who was brown enough to mollify the far left (at least partly though they're still reeeeeing loudly) while establishment enough it wasn't any real concession to that wing.
He's also seen as a lot more affiliated with Obama than Hillary.
Now they have to find a candidate who is sort of the opposite if Hillary threatens another disastrous failed candidacy, which appears likely.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2016
Do you really think they're going to run Hillary again? To me it seems they're trying to groom Chelsea, which is equally guaranteed to fail horribly.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
That bitch has tentacles all through the party. The Clinton machine is like a vampire squid xenomorph combo face fucking the party to death.
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2014
Yeah, I can see them trying Hillary again. No doubt they are grooming Chelsea, but I think she is not old enough yet for the President role. In a decade or two is another matter.
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2015
That will be hilarious, given that she doesn't even have the charisma of her mother. Remember how she was hired by some network (MSNBC? CNN?) as a reporter for some mind-boggling amount of money (I think it was over $100K) and showed she had the personality of a piece of plywood?
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2014
Honestly, I think another run might kill Hillary considering she stroked out during this one, and Chelsea is very likely to become another Jeb if she was pushed into the running by idiots. Honestly if they are going to double down on this autism on getting a lady elected, just get Warren to do it.
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2014
I do not think Charisma and Hillary belong in the same sentence.
- Status