Comments by "wvu05" (@wvu05) on "What Are DSA’s Post-Bernie Priorities?" video.

@nathandrake5544 There were times where they didn't get along (which happens sometimes), but a lot of times she just wasn't really a good fit. She wanted to use every excuse to bring it to a tangent that killed conversation (the worst was trying to plug her podcast after Sam mentioned that Kennedy had just announced his retirement). It was probably for the best that she could do the show that she wanted to do, and Sam could play off someone who fit better.
5
@yossarrian Bernie was known as the Amendment King in the House. He earned that label because, despite being in the minority, he did everything he could to do the most good given the makeup of Congress at any time. You apparently prefer to wait until everything is perfect and not only get nothing, but let things get much worse while you wait.
3
@jocksharerock7318 I think you are right, my friend. I did everything I could to help Bernie get elected in 2020 (my daughter was born in Nov. 2015 and there was the one car between me and my then-wife who usually got it because she was more likely to work nights and my job was closer to a continuous route for public transportation, which really limited my activism), but looking back, I think that he may be better off where he is, because with this or a similar partisan makeup, do they honestly think that he would have better luck moving Manchin and Sinema? Then, if he was ineffective, it would have been seen as proof that the left can't do anything. It would have made what the UK establishment did to Corbyn look mild in comparison. What really amazes and saddens me is the laziness. We have the better ideas, and we're fighting to actually improve people's lives, but because Bernie lost, they want to give up. It took 16 years for the Goldwater wing to take over the Republican Party, and they had money. Giving up after five is proof that too many are lazy and expect it to fall to them. As much as it pains me to say it, if people aren't in it for the long haul, maybe we're getting what we deserve.
3
@idkdk569 Political movements always take time. It took the Goldwater wing 16 years to take over the Republican Party, and they had money on their side. It took the Socialist and Populist movements 40 years to take over the Democratic Party. You know why we don't get anything? Because of so many lazy people who don't want to do the actual work.
2
@MarkbyMarkAFosterPhD Ah, yes, the "revolutionary" who insists that he is just waiting to pick the pieces up and build something better. Capital has built plenty of barriers to protect itself, but oh, it's going to collapse. Lots of things are supposed to collapse by their own weight, but at a certain point, that leads to a certain laziness of thinking. If something is inevitable, why do anything? And why learn the lessons from the past failures where it became a case of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"?
2
@MarkbyMarkAFosterPhD In other words, despite branding yourself a revolutionary, you are, in the words of John Mayer, waiting on the world to change. How inspiring!
2
There is no such thing as right-wing populism. By definition, you can't be a populist if you want to cut taxes for rich people.
2
@idkdk569 And stomping your feet and saying No to everything is?
2
@jocksharerock7318 Thank you. I remember a couple years ago coming back from a canvassing event with DSA to help Bernie on the day that AOC made her endorsement official. (I didn't have my daughter with me, but she came to future events where they had people there to watch small children. At the last big one before coronavirus, Krystal Ball came to Philadelphia. I still keep the picture and the autographed book I got as a reminder to dig deeper when looking at people who say they're with us.) Bernie said something that I thought was beautiful: look to your left and your right, and if we are willing to do something to help them that we might not see, then we will get the world we want. It just seems like that went out the window with some. I'm still active, but I focus more of my effort on my union and on local races. A friend from Labor for Bernie is running for State Senate whose primary opponent is the Voucher/Charter King in PA, and my daughter thinks the world of him, so we're both excited to help him out.
2
@rileyfuckingrifle Indeed. The people who insist that it is useless then get mad that they can't get anything done in Congress. Well, what do they expect if you don't try to get anyone sympathetic to your cause to actually have a vote?
2
@jocksharerock7318 Which one was Cassandra Fairbanks again? That name rings a bell, but very vaguely. You are so right about the Hillary haters. I will never call them Bernie or Bust, because they don't deserve to use his name. I saw the vile things that they said about him when he did exactly what he said he'd do all along and supported the eventual nominee. If Chafee would have been the top challenger to Hillary, they would have been Lincoln or Leave. If it was Webb, they would have been Webb or Walk. If it was O'Malley, they would have been Martin or Move On. Never Hillary is a much more accurate description.
2
@Antonius17 Trump complained about the filibuster, and what actually happened? All the Congressional Republicans really cared about were tax cuts for the rich and judicial appointments, and that's all Trump got during unified control. At least try to base your arguments in what actually happened.
2
@MarkbyMarkAFosterPhD How did revolutionary communism work in the Soviet Union? Bernie is farther to the left than he pushes politically (as evidenced by his book from the 1990s), but he knows that, in a democracy, you can only go as far as the people are willing to go. If you don't want the support of the people, how can you help them?
1
@MarkbyMarkAFosterPhD You still think that armed force rather than persuasion will lead to what you want, so my point still stands.
1
@MarkbyMarkAFosterPhD Well, if persuasion doesn't work, and electoralism doesn't work, that doesn't leave a whole lot of other options, does it?
1
@b.d.a.8719 Apparently, you live in a fantasy world where one party has not completely abandoned governance, and when you dig down deeper in the polls, it is obvious that too many want everything to get better and nothing to change when it comes to healthcare. Even if 99% of Americans want something, it doesn't matter if too many keep voting for people determined to do nothing except cut taxes for the rich and ram court appointments through.
1
@MarkbyMarkAFosterPhD For someone with a doctorate, you sure are missing the most basic point of a simple construct. The key word is waiting. And if you don't think that a collapse is change, then I have to wonder if you got your degree from a legitimate institution or a diploma mill
1
@b.d.a.8719 Canada also has a Parliamentary system rather than a Presidential system with an Electoral College. So, using your logic, which state is going to be the fertile ground for a leftist party to take over to get Medicare for All through?
1
@b.d.a.8719 The difference between the two in terms of power is the effect of winning seats. Yes, Bernie has served from Vermont, but when was he elected governor, again?
1
@b.d.a.8719 The last two elections have shown that third parties can win? You are aware that Bernie ran as a Democrat both times, right? And you are aware that third party share shrunk to a third of its 2016 total?
1
@MarkbyMarkAFosterPhD You still miss the point. At this point, either you just lack basic comprehension skills, or you are just bound and determined not to admit that you made a mistake. Again, the key part is "waiting," and just because you think that second part is a question of degree misses the point completely. That being said, the arrogance of thinking that people would just come to after the world collapses is just incredibly amusing. I don't know what you're passing around in your ivory tower, but it's not helping at all.
1
@b.d.a.8719 I didn't say that he can't win. The point was that you cannot win a Presidential election as a third-party candidate. And Bernie winning a seat in Congress is not remotely the same as a third party taking over a state. That is what Tommy Douglas did. And after Bernie won his first Congressional election in 1990, he almost never had Democratic opposition in the general election, which made him the de facto Democratic candidate. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. The idea was that a third party is ripe to take things over in Vermont. Well, looking at their legislature, 28/30 state senate seats (93%) and 138/150 state house seats (92%) are held by the two major parties. Yeah, it's a hotbed of third party activities. And those third party legislators? Every single one caucuses with the Democratic Party. And had Bernie ran as an independent for President, he would have destroyed a lot of goodwill in his own state, and he might not hold that position any longer. Finishing second as a Democrat does not mean that people suddenly are going to throw over the two-party system.
1
@MarkbyMarkAFosterPhD And you're doing nothing to bring about your revolution, which isn't going to happen.
1
@MarkbyMarkAFosterPhD And if you're not actually winning people over, but just telling people who already believe in your cause (not just you, but anyone in particular), that is little more than a circle jerk. I am not a big fan of Jamie Peck (my main beef when she was on the show is that she seemed to exist largely in her own little world and interrupted the flow of the show with tangents that would stop a conversation dead in its tracks), at least she is actually going out and trying to do actual work and organizing. The people who sit idly by don't take things over in a country, let alone the world.
1
@MarkbyMarkAFosterPhD And your views are that everything is going to collapse, and the people will realize that you were right all along and create the world you want. That isn't how it works. That's not how any of it works.
1
@MarkbyMarkAFosterPhD That isn't how getting what you want works. You're a "revolutionary" who thinks that the world will just collapse and give you everything you want. And then object to the notion that you're waiting. Oh, but you're "building awareness," but you're not here to proselytize. At this point, I don't think that you even know what you want.
1
@tormentorox1 That's what the elites want you to think.
1
Maybe
1
@jocksharerock7318 Oh, okay. I thought she might have been the so-called Sane Progressive, who seemed to become more unglued by the day.
1
@Antonius17 FDR and LBJ both had massive majorities in each House. They also didn't have to deal with the silent filibuster, and one party that absolutely refused to play ball on pretty much everything. Even they couldn't have gotten nearly as much done with a 50-50 Senate and a fully nihilist Republican Party.
1