• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Democrats trying to unseat each other IV

I am surprised this clusterfuck hasn't been discussed yet:

Minnesota’s Democratic Party Revokes Endorsement of Mayoral Candidate

NY Times said:
It was a rare triumph for the democratic socialist candidate seeking to unseat the mayor of Minneapolis.
After a chaotic party convention held last month, State Sen. Omar Fateh clinched the endorsement of the local Democratic Party, becoming the first mayoral candidate in the city to get that support since 2009.
But the edge was short-lived. On Thursday, Democratic Party officials in Minnesota took the rare step of withdrawing the Minneapolis chapter’s endorsement, citing “substantial failures” during the convention, which was marred by technological and procedural irregularities.

Omar Fateh is a Mamdaniesque democratic socialist who wants to run for Minnepolis mayor against Jacob Frey (making it on topic in this thread).

DFL normally does not manage to get the requisite majority (60%) for an endorsement, but this time they did - for Fateh. Except that the voting was a clusterfuck:
In a statement posted online Thursday afternoon, state Democratic Party officials said that a series of serious lapses had preceded Mr. Fateh’s endorsement. The first involved a meltdown of an online voting system that resulted in a “substantial undercount” in the first balloting.
That undercount unfairly disqualified a third candidate, DeWayne Davis, from advancing to an additional round, according to the party’s review. The review found other lapses. Among them: A registration check-in sheet was not properly secured, “resulting in the opportunity to replace, delete or alter ballot ID numbers.”
71fcfb5993e4d31a2238e9a537386ca0.gif


His fellow Somali socialisit, Ilhan Omar, condemned the move to withdraw endorsement:
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar condemns MN DFL for overturning Omar Fateh endorsement

Birds of a feather and all that.
The two share a pro-Hamas staffer.
Klobuchar rebukes Fateh campaign staffers who glorified Oct. 7 attacks
David Gilbert-Paderson was also Ilhan Omar's campaign chair.

Omar Fateh is generally beset by scandal.
Sources: Sen. Omar Fateh misled DFL colleagues about federal perjury case

DFL should never have even considered endorsing him.
The Mn DFL did not consider endorsing Mr Fateh - the Minneapolis DFL did.
 
More from that Jerry Nadler interview:
“I am not terribly optimistic. I wish I could be,” Mr. Nadler said. “But this is the most severe threat we’ve had to our system of government since the Civil War, and unfortunately Abraham Lincoln is not the president.”

Mr. Nadler was similarly downcast about Israel, a longtime ally and focus of his work.

For years, he has tried to stake out space for a politics that was both pro-Israel and progressive. But in the interview, he conceded that Israel’s brutal prosecution of the war in Gaza had not only turned Democrats against a former ally “to a very major extent” but made his own position increasingly hard to maintain.

“I don’t know what to say at this point,” he said. “I can’t defend what Israel is doing.”

Mr. Nadler has been sharply critical of Hamas, still believes in a two-state solution for the region and does not agree with those who say Israel is carrying out genocide in Gaza. But he said that under the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel was committing mass murder and war crimes in Gaza “without question.”

Carolyn Maloney also has a long history in public service. She was born in 1946, a year before JN. She was elected to New York City Council in 1982, serving there before being elected to the US House in 1992, the year that JN was elected to that body. She stayed there for 30 years before the 2022 redistricting, when she lost to JN. So JN will be in the House for 34 years.
 
In Maine, several Democrats are competing to unseat long-time Republican Senator Susan Collins.

Janet Mills says decision on challenge to Susan Collins may come in November - "Maine’s governor told reporters Wednesday that she’s ‘seriously considering the run.’ It’s the strongest indication yet that she may seek her party’s nomination against the 5-term Republican next year."
Mills is among a handful of Democratic governors being heavily recruited by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to run for the Senate. Schumer faces pressure to help win back control of the Senate and challenge some of the major policy changes put forth by the Trump administration. And Mills’ profile got a boost at the national level in February when she challenged President Donald Trump during a White House meeting with other governors.
She's 77 years old, and I'm annoyed that that doesn't give CS any pause -- he risks getting another Dianne Feinstein.
Dan Kleban Joins Maine Democratic Primary, Seeking to Unseat Senator Susan Collins - The New York Times - "Dan Kleban enters a crowded Democratic primary as party leaders wait for Maine’s Democratic governor, Janet Mills, who is “seriously considering” a run for Senate."

Graham Platner's campaign to unseat Maine Sen. Susan Collins is off to a strong start - "Graham Platner, an oyster farmer and combat veteran, represents a new pugilistic approach to Democratic politics."
“We do not live in a system that is broken,” said Platner, a 40-year-old oyster farmer and combat veteran who aims to challenge Republican Sen. Susan Collins in 2026. “We live in a system that is functioning exactly as it is intended.”

Platner was appearing alongside Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., as part of the latter’s “Fight Oligarchy” tour. And Platner’s impassioned denunciation of the status quo — fighting the powers that be and appealing to working Americans — was right out of the Sanders playbook. But beyond that influence, Platner represents a new pugilistic approach to Democratic politics that is being driven by the base’s anger over President Donald Trump’s policies and the party establishment’s response.

A fight is what the Democratic faithful want, and it’s clear they’re not seeing it.
Sanders wades into one of Democrats' best Senate pickup opportunities - POLITICO - "The high-profile endorsement comes amid Democratic leadership pushing for Janet Mills."
“Graham is a Marine and Army National Guard veteran, an oyster farmer, and a proud member of America’s working class. He’s a Mainer through and through, and he is building a movement strong enough to take on the oligarchy that is making Maine unaffordable for all except a privileged few,” Sanders wrote in his announcement, adding that “we need senators in Washington who are prepared to take on the billionaire class and fight for working people.”

...
Though he has rebuffed being branded a “liberal” — noting his experience as a firearms instructor — Platner has embraced several progressive policies that Sanders has touted, including universal health care, fighting oligarchy and calling for an end to what he described as “a genocide happening in Palestine.”
 
Will the election of Jerry Nadler's successor be the kind of shitshow this election was? New York's 10th Congressional District election, 2022 - Ballotpedia

After the redistricting after the 2020 census, NY-17 get pushed further upstate, and Mondaire Jones decided to go to another district. NY-16? He didn't want to compete with Jamaal Bowman. So he went to NY-10, in S Manhattan and NW Brooklyn, and he tried to present himself as having ties to that area. Some other candidates with progressive leanings were in this race, like Yuh-Line Niou and Carlina Rivera, and they split the progressive vote between them. That allowed Daniel Goldman to win.

After she lost, YLN was tearful (!)

Also running was Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman, coming out of retirement, but she got only 4.4% of the vote.
 
List of U.S. House incumbents who are not running for re-election in 2026 - Ballotpedia Also not seeking re-election is Danny K. Davis - Ballotpedia

Of the Democrats, potentially retiring are Nancy Pelosi CA-11, Frederica Wilson FL-24, Steny Hoyer MD-05, Jim Clyburn SC-06, Henry Cuellar TX-28, Danny K. Davis IL-07. Running for Governor is Mikie Sherill NJ-11.

Frederica Wilson is known for her hats: Frederica Wilson Explains Her Distinctive Style noted for wearing "brightly colored suits, stiletto heels, and a complementary cowboy hat."  Frederica Wilson - "Wilson is known for her large and colorful hats, of which she owns several hundred."


Already running is Saikat Chakrabarti in CA-11, and these candidates ran earlier: Jessica Cisneros in TX-28 against HC in 2020 and 2022, Kina Collins in IL-07 against DKD in 2022 and 2024, Mckayla Wilkes in MD-05 against SH in 2020, 2022, and 2024.
 
The interview starts with some background.
Back in the 1970s, America felt unstoppable. We had just put a man on the moon, built the interstate highway system, had decades of rising living standards and wages, and were including more and more people in society through the civil rights, gay rights, women’s rights, and other movements.
Saikat is too young to remember the 70s, as am I. But from what I read, it was not like this at all. There was the Vietnam War, Watergate, stagflation and Malaise. There was a lot of unrest and far-left groups like Black Panthers/Black Liberation Army and Weather Underground that did things like setting bombs.

It's telling that Derec admits he is too young to remember the 1970's. Obviously his prejudices warp his understanding.

He worries about the Weather Underground. If Google is to be trusted, only three souls were killed by that group's violence and all three were Weathermen accidentally killed by their own bomb! Similarly the Black Panthers were never the bugaboo that Derec enjoys imagining. The Panther promoted programs like the Free Breakfast for Children Program. It was the FBI and the Chicago Police who broke laws and committed assassinations against the Panthers. Civil rights workers and innocent black children were killed in the South. The FBI broke laws in its persecution of, and helped incite opposition to Martin Luther King, Jr. Protests against racism and the Vietnam War are now regarded as appropriate, while the My Lai massacre can be blamed on "establishment values." It tells us much about Derec that he gets all this exactly backwards.

The US stock market WAS "in the doldrums" throughout the 1970's; perhaps to Derec that fact is the most important tidbit.
 
Saikat is too young to remember the 70s, as am I. But from what I read, it was not like this at all. There was the Vietnam War, Watergate, stagflation and Malaise. There was a lot of unrest and far-left groups like Black Panthers/Black Liberation Army and Weather Underground that did things like setting bombs.
It's telling that Derec admits he is too young to remember the 1970's.
I wonder how old you were in the 1970s.
Obviously his prejudices warp his understanding.
I think you are projecting. The point of my post was to point our how unrealistically rosy Saikat's view of the 70s was. The left-wing violence and unrest was just one plank of my response.
He worries about the Weather Underground. If Google is to be trusted, only three souls were killed by that group's violence and all three were Weathermen accidentally killed by their own bomb!
Google itself can be trusted, but your google-fu leaves much to be desired.
You are probably referring to the  Greenwich Village townhouse explosion in 1970. That bomb indeed blew up prematurely, killing three of the terrorists in that WU cell. But the bombs they were building were intended to blow up a dance at the Fort Dix base in New Jersey (the same base that was targeted by Islamic terrorists more than three decades later) and a building at the Columbia University. People at these targets were just lucky that the terrorists were hoist by their own petard so to speak. But it was still a house in the middle of NYC that was blown up due to left-wing terrorist activity.
wu1970.jpg
But that was not the only WU operation.
Yale University Press said:
In protest of American racism and the Vietnam War, they detonated more than two dozen dynamite bombs between 1970 and 1975, and hit some spectacular targets, including the Pentagon, the State Department, and the U.S. Capitol Building.
[...]In early 1970 the leaders did plan bombing operations that would have killed dozens of American citizens (in Berkeley, in New York/New Jersey, and in Detroit); but in May 1970 they decided to restrict their attacks to property destruction alone. This decision was crucial to the longevity of the group. It came partly in shocked response to an accidental explosion in which three Weatherman leaders blew themselves up.
So let preempt your inevitable objection that WU bombings only targeted property, as if that was somehow ok, or in any way refuted my point about how bad Saikat's take on the 70s was. Initially they planned to kill people with their bombs, and the only reason they switched up was the premature explosion in NYC. Those bombs certainly would have killed innocent people had they been deployed.
Similarly the Black Panthers were never the bugaboo that Derec enjoys imagining. The Panther promoted programs like the Free Breakfast for Children Program.
And they also killed people, as did its offshoot, the "Black Liberation Army". In fact, BLA worked together with WU. No longer 1970s, but in 1981 members of WU and BLA robbed a Brink's armored car and murdered one of the armored car's guards and two police officers. One of those WU members was Kathy Boudin who was one of the WU terrorists who survived the NYC townhouse bombing.
It was the FBI and the Chicago Police who broke laws and committed assassinations against the Panthers.
So your contention is that Panthers did nothing wrong; that it is the police/FBI who are wrong?
Even though for example Eldridge Cleaver later admitted that he and his fellow Panthers ambushed Oakland police in 1968? Even though they tortured and murdered one of their own because they thought he was an informant?
Civil rights workers and innocent black children were killed in the South. The FBI broke laws in its persecution of, and helped incite opposition to Martin Luther King, Jr. Protests against racism and the Vietnam War are now regarded as appropriate, while the My Lai massacre can be blamed on "establishment values." It tells us much about Derec that he gets all this exactly backwards.
I fail to see how that justifies the crimes and violence by the likes of WU, BPP and BLA. Or how it undermines my point that the 1970s were a very tumultuous decade, contrary to Saikat's rosy picture of it. You are actually proving my larger point, even if we disagree about the particulars. Again, here is what I wrote:
Saikat is too young to remember the 70s, as am I. But from what I read, it was not like this at all. There was the Vietnam War, Watergate, stagflation and Malaise. There was a lot of unrest and far-left groups like Black Panthers/Black Liberation Army and Weather Underground that did things like setting bombs. Not to mention Iran falling to the Islamists and our embassy personell being taken hostage.
Even if you think I got it backwards, I do not see how anybody can argue that the 70s were not a decade where the US "felt unstoppable".
The US stock market WAS "in the doldrums" throughout the 1970's; perhaps to Derec that fact is the most important tidbit.
Not just the stock market, the whole economy was in doldrums of stagflation. Both oil crises (1973/74 and 1979) were in that decade too. Economy was a big reason for the "malaise" that characterized the decade contrary to Saikat's idiotic claim that US "felt unstoppable".
 
Well if the car won't let you drive because it thinks you are drunk, but actually you are exhibiting signs of impairment because you are just tired, or angry, or have taken prescribed medications, or any other reason, then that's a good thing.
So if you are slightly tired or frustrated after work, it's ok for nanny state to brick your car?
There are too many impaired people on the roads; Just because they haven't broken the law (yet) doesn't seem like a good reason to exclude them temporarily when they are impaired.
Impairment is not a binary switch, but a continuum. Most people on the road are not perfectly rested, especially after work. People should not be barred from driving their car even if they are not breaking any laws regarding impairment.
Driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right. If you are incompetent or unfit to drive, catch a bus, or get a cab. Or walk.
The point of "false positives" is that somebody may be competent to drive, but their car is still bricked because the nanny state system's algorithm made a mistake in evaluating impairment and bricked their car anyway.
 
It was the FBI and the Chicago Police who broke laws and committed assassinations against the Panthers.
So your contention is that Panthers did nothing wrong; that it is the police/FBI who are wrong?

You missed the point if you misconstrued my post as an attempt to exonerate the Black Panthers.

What I sought to demonstrate was YOUR insistence on blaming ONLY the groups you hate: Blacks, Democrats, liberal women, etc. Law enforcement broke laws or even committed murders in the persecution of groups like the Black Panthers, but you are unable to admit that. The Proud Boys behave like Nazis, desecrate the Capitol etc., but you're probably still embittered about the time the petite Yvette Felarca pushed a Nazi with her open hand. Your commentary has been this one-sided for YEARS. For a year or so I've been insulated from this blather by my I-List but a recent software "upgrade" means I must clear my I-List or have some threads made invisible. I'll probably revert to the latter option, but meanwhile I see that you haven't changed.

Timothy McVeigh can kill 168 people, but you would ignore that to vent your spleen against some Black child wearing a hoodie, or whatever.
 
Well if the car won't let you drive because it thinks you are drunk, but actually you are exhibiting signs of impairment because you are just tired, or angry, or have taken prescribed medications, or any other reason, then that's a good thing.
So if you are slightly tired or frustrated after work, it's ok for nanny state to brick your car?
Yes.

Yes, it absolutely is.
There are too many impaired people on the roads; Just because they haven't broken the law (yet) doesn't seem like a good reason to exclude them temporarily when they are impaired.
Impairment is not a binary switch, but a continuum. Most people on the road are not perfectly rested, especially after work. People should not be barred from driving their car even if they are not breaking any laws regarding impairment.
Sure they should if they are not competent to drive safely. The law is not a complete set of immutable moral principles; If technology allows us to detect impairment where we previously could not, then passing a law to make such detection (and enforcement) mandatory is completely reasonable.

In the early part of the C20th, you could drive with any amount of alcohol in your system, if you were physically capable of finding and starting your vehicle. Fortunately, tests were developed that allowed rapid roadside breath testing, which made it practical to set legal blood alcohol limits.

Right now, you can drive with any degree of fatigue, if you are physically able to stay awake long enough to start your vehicle. Do you think that this "freedom" should never be infringed? Do you have the same opinion about the "freedom" to drive with a BAC of 0.8 (10 - 16 times the typical maximum in most jurisdictions, and sufficient to kill a person who had not built up a tolerance)?

If your opinion on these two "freedoms" differs, why is that?
Driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right. If you are incompetent or unfit to drive, catch a bus, or get a cab. Or walk.
The point of "false positives" is that somebody may be competent to drive, but their car is still bricked because the nanny state system's algorithm made a mistake in evaluating impairment and bricked their car anyway.
Too bad. The point of "not testing" is that somebody may be incompetent to drive, but their car still works well enough to KILL SOMEONE.

So, on the one hand "Oh, crap, I have to catch the bus home today", and on the other hand "Oh, crap, I just killed that person".

How on Earth could we possibly decide which is worse? They are clearly indistinguishable in their degree of unpleasantness.

I know that if I had to leave my car, catch the bus home, and then go back and fetch it the next day after a good night's sleep, that I (and all my familiy and friends) would never get over that trauma, which would haunt me forever. People would tie bouquets on the nearest tree to the site where my poor, innocent car had to spend an entire night alone. :rolleyesa:
 
You missed the point if you misconstrued my post as an attempt to exonerate the Black Panthers.
I misconstrued nothing. From your reply:
Similarly the Black Panthers were never the bugaboo that Derec enjoys imagining. The Panther promoted programs like the Free Breakfast for Children Program. It was the FBI and the Chicago Police who broke laws and committed assassinations against the Panthers.
How else am I supposed to read this other than an attempt to exonerate the BPP?

You are the one misconstruing. Presumably because you were eager to get your jabs in that you did not bother to read the context. This is what I was replying to:
Saikat Chakrabarti Wants to Remake the Democratic Party - Jacobin
He hopes to build a national movement around an ambitious program called the “Mission for America” that aims to transform the US economy through aggressive government planning and investment — a kind of spiritual successor to the Green New Deal.
Mission for America at the New Consensus think tank.

The interview starts with some background.
Back in the 1970s, America felt unstoppable. We had just put a man on the moon, built the interstate highway system, had decades of rising living standards and wages, and were including more and more people in society through the civil rights, gay rights, women’s rights, and other movements.

So, as you can see, I was replying to Saikat Chatrabarti's facile idea that in the 1970s "America felt unstoppable". This is what I wrote:
Saikat is too young to remember the 70s, as am I. But from what I read, it was not like this at all. There was the Vietnam War, Watergate, stagflation and Malaise. There was a lot of unrest and far-left groups like Black Panthers/Black Liberation Army and Weather Underground that did things like setting bombs. Not to mention Iran falling to the Islamists and our embassy personell being taken hostage.
Are you denying that the 1970s were the decade of Malaise, and hardly a decade where "America felt unstoppable"? And whatever you think of WU and BPP/BLA's politics, they were participants in the social unrest that was a big part of that decade too.
What I sought to demonstrate was YOUR insistence on blaming ONLY the groups you hate: Blacks, Democrats, liberal women, etc.
I don't hate blacks, but I am opposed to black radicalism of BPP and BLA, as well as more modern black radicalism.
I don't hate women, and I have not even mentioned women in my response. Although misandrist and illiberal 2nd wave feminism did gain steam in the 1970s, and women like Andrea Dworkin or Susan Brownmiller are inherently hateworthy.
I don't hate Democrats, and in fact, mostly vote for Democrats. I have not mentioned Democrats in my reply either. In fact, the only specific reference to US politics was to Watergate, and that was a scandal by a Republican president.
Law enforcement broke laws or even committed murders in the persecution of groups like the Black Panthers, but you are unable to admit that.
Did the law enforcement make mistakes? Surely. But that was in response to violence by BPP and other extremist groups. This was just before 1970s, but in 1968 Eldridge Cleaver and his Panther cell ambushed Oakland police. Panthers claimed that police ambushed them, but later Cleaver admitted that they did the ambushing. This set the stage for the 1970s violence. Here are two examples:
Nearly 5 Decades Later, Man Who Killed New York Officers Wins Parole
PANTHER, TROOPER SLAIN IN SHOOT‐OUT
Joanne Chesimard was later busted out of prison by BLA terrorists and is currently being given aid and comfort by the communist regime in Havana.
The Proud Boys behave like Nazis, desecrate the Capitol etc.,
That has zero to do with the 1970s and Saikat Chatrabarti's rosy view of that decade.
But speaking of the Capitol, this is relevant:
When the Left Attacked the Capitol
but you're probably still embittered about the time the petite Yvette Felarca pushed a Nazi with her open hand.
Who? In any case, violence against people you disagree with is not justified. Was the guy she assaulted even a real Nazi, or is that your usual hyperbole?
Timothy McVeigh can kill 168 people, but you would ignore that to vent your spleen against some Black child wearing a hoodie, or whatever.
Timothy McVeigh committed his terrorist attack in 1995. I fail to see how that is relevant to Saikat's uninformed view of what 1970s were like.
 
Susan Collins to Get Hollywood Treatment at Fund-Raiser Featuring Democrats - The New York Times
Some of Hollywood’s most prominent Democrats are set to hold a fund-raiser next month for one of America’s most endangered Republicans.

Senator Susan Collins, a Maine Republican who is one of the Democratic Party’s top targets in the 2026 midterm elections, will visit Los Angeles for an event on Sept. 26, according to an invitation reviewed by The New York Times.
She must be getting desperate.
 
Candidates - Justice Democrats - a second one: Angela Gonzales-Torres. Her platform:
  • Housing for All
    • Expansion of Housing Choice Vouchers and Emergency Rental Assistance
    • Federal Incentives for Permanently Affordable Housing
    • Strong Support for Community Land Trusts
    • Rapid Rehousing with Wraparound Services
    • A Proactive, Preventative Approach to Homelessness
  • Economic Dignity & Security
    • Launching a Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) Pilot for CA-34
    • Protecting Gig Workers’ Right to Unionize
    • Expanded Family Leave, Sick Leave, and Childcare Support
    • Community-Driven Solutions to Economic Disparities
  • Healthcare for All
    • Co-Sponsoring Medicare for All
    • Investing in Mental Health and Substance Abuse Care
    • Strengthening Local Community Health Centers
  • Climate Action
    • A Green New Deal That Centers Our Communities
    • Urban Greening for Health and Resilience
    • Investing in Community-Led Climate Solutions
  • Education & Youth Empowerment
    • Investing in Early Childhood and Special Education
    • Tuition-Free Public College and Student Debt Cancellation
    • Higher Education as a Pathway to Rehabilitation
  • Immigration Reform & Community Advocacy
    • A Pathway to Citizenship for All
    • Protecting Mixed-Status Families and Expanding Access to Services
    • Investing in Legal Aid and Community Integration
  • Pro-Peace Foreign Policy
 
Angela Gonzales-Torres is running against incumbent Jimmy Gomez, someone who is usually good on most issues.

Justice Democrats back a progressive challenger to Rep. Jimmy Gomez - Live Updates - POLITICO
In a sign of the party fissures over the war in Gaza that could erupt in the race, Gonzales-Torres bashed Gomez in a new video over his financial support from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s super PAC. She also said “I am not taking a dime from AIPAC” and called the conflict in Gaza a “genocide.”
noting
AIPAC goes in for Jimmy Gomez - Live Updates - POLITICO
United Democracy Project, the American Israel Public Affairs’ Committee’s super PAC, has placed more than $500,000 on television ads in the Democrat-vs.-Democrat race for California’s 34th District, according to ad tracker AdImpact. The ads are set to start tomorrow and run through Election Day.

Democratic Rep. Jimmy Gomez is fending off a challenge from progressive Democrat David Kim for a third time in the deep-blue, Los Angeles-area district. The showdowns between the two have gotten increasingly competitive: In 2020, Gomez beat Kim by 6 points, and in 2022, that margin shrunk to around 2 points. The two Democrats had advanced to the general election under California’s top-two primary system.
and
Justice Democrats Endorses Angela Gonzales-Torres for Congress in CA-34 - YouTube - she slammed him for taking lots of corporate PAC money.
 
Angela Gonzales-Torres is running against incumbent Jimmy Gomez, someone who is usually good on most issues.

Justice Democrats back a progressive challenger to Rep. Jimmy Gomez - Live Updates - POLITICO
In a sign of the party fissures over the war in Gaza that could erupt in the race, Gonzales-Torres bashed Gomez in a new video over his financial support from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s super PAC. She also said “I am not taking a dime from AIPAC” and called the conflict in Gaza a “genocide.”
noting
AIPAC goes in for Jimmy Gomez - Live Updates - POLITICO
United Democracy Project, the American Israel Public Affairs’ Committee’s super PAC, has placed more than $500,000 on television ads in the Democrat-vs.-Democrat race for California’s 34th District, according to ad tracker AdImpact. The ads are set to start tomorrow and run through Election Day.

Democratic Rep. Jimmy Gomez is fending off a challenge from progressive Democrat David Kim for a third time in the deep-blue, Los Angeles-area district. The showdowns between the two have gotten increasingly competitive: In 2020, Gomez beat Kim by 6 points, and in 2022, that margin shrunk to around 2 points. The two Democrats had advanced to the general election under California’s top-two primary system.
and
Justice Democrats Endorses Angela Gonzales-Torres for Congress in CA-34 - YouTube - she slammed him for taking lots of corporate PAC money.

There must be something else going on here. Gomez is a pretty solid progressive. Regarding Israel, he's called Neti's resignation, pushed very hard for more humanitarian aid to Gaza, and strongly backs a ceasefire.
 
That has zero to do with the 1970s and Saikat Chatrabarti's rosy view of that decade.
And what does that have to do with "Democrats trying to unseat each other"?

Topics change. Subthreads mutate. Maybe you thought the sub-sub-thread was about "Chatrabarti's rosy view of the 1970's," but I created a sub-sub-sub-thread to discuss the consistency of Derec's prejudices.

Are you denying that the 1970s were the decade of Malaise, and hardly a decade where "America felt unstoppable"? And whatever you think of WU and BPP/BLA's politics, they were participants in the social unrest that was a big part of that decade too.
What I sought to demonstrate was YOUR insistence on blaming ONLY the groups you hate: Blacks, Democrats, liberal women, etc.
...
Law enforcement broke laws or even committed murders in the persecution of groups like the Black Panthers, but you are unable to admit that.
Much of the malaise of the 1970's was caused by egregious government behavior in the late 60's and early 70's. The Kent State killings affected more American sentiment than the Panthers and Weathermen. The U.S. committed war crimes in Vietnam; civil rights workers were killed; and so on. Yet you focus on those *protesting* malfeasance.

Did the law enforcement make mistakes? Surely. But that was in response to violence by BPP and other extremist groups.

How about Martin Luther King Jr.? The FBI committed crimes against him. Was he an extremist?

Of course you'll hide behind your "Everything earlier than Dec 31, 1969 is before the 1970's" card. Ignoring that it was such excesses that led directly to the malaise of the 70's. And NOT the Panthers or Weathermen which most Americans had hardly heard of.

Derec said:
but you're probably still embittered about the time the petite Yvette Felarca pushed a Nazi with her open hand.
Who? In any case, violence against people you disagree with is not justified. Was the guy she assaulted even a real Nazi, or is that your usual hyperbole?

I clicked on Search to verify that you DID know who Yvette Felarca is and were happy to condemn her for assault. (Of course you'll play your Lawyer Card and point out that the slightest love tap fits the "assault" definition.) News reports seem unified behind the claim that the group she was protesting was "neo-Nazi" or "white supremacists." Were they card-carrying neo-Nazis? I dunno; I'll let you dig into the news reports.

From that Search I came across an old Derec post:

Teenagers are children, so your denial of reality indicates you have nothing.
Teenagers under 18 are minors (18 and 19 year old teenagers are legal adults, so let's leave them out for the time being). They are distinct from children in terms of physical and mental development, as well as in terms of responsibility for their actions. That's why teenagers are given more rights but also may be tried as adults for serious crimes.

It is denial of reality to think that there is no significant difference between a 10 year old child and a 16 year old teenager. A 16 year old may get a driver's license. They can get emancipated. They can have sex in many states and most countries. They even can vote in a few places. They are not the same as actual children.

:confused: :confused2: Nobody disputes that 16 year-olds are different from 10 year-olds. Where YOU lose the thread is not being aware of the massive research showing that, whatever their PHYSICAL development, teenagers are NOT adults EMOTIONALLY or even have clear cognition about simple cause-effect relationships.
 
That has zero to do with the 1970s and Saikat Chatrabarti's rosy view of that decade.
And what does that have to do with "Democrats trying to unseat each other"?
Everything! Saikat Chakrabarti is currently running for Congress for CA-11 district, trying to unseat his fellow Democrat Nancy Pelosi.
Topics change. Subthreads mutate. Maybe you thought the sub-sub-thread was about "Chatrabarti's rosy view of the 1970's," but I created a sub-sub-sub-thread to discuss the consistency of Derec's prejudices.
Commenting of what a congressional candidate said is very much on-topic in this thread. You bitching about me not talking about what happened in the 1990s or 2010s when replying to his statement about the 1970s is definitely not.

Much of the malaise of the 1970's was caused by egregious government behavior in the late 60's and early 70's. The Kent State killings affected more American sentiment than the Panthers and Weathermen. The U.S. committed war crimes in Vietnam; civil rights workers were killed; and so on. Yet you focus on those *protesting* malfeasance.
See, that would have been an on-topic reply, and not bitching about me not mentioning Timothy McVeigh.
Note that I explicitly mentioned Vietnam War in my original reply. As to "protesting malfeasance", setting bombs and ambushing bombs is not "protesting", and extremist groups such as WU and BPP/BLA wanted to overthrow the US government and usher a communist revolution.
How about Martin Luther King Jr.? The FBI committed crimes against him. Was he an extremist?
MLK Jr. died in 1968.
Of course you'll hide behind your "Everything earlier than Dec 31, 1969 is before the 1970's" card. Ignoring that it was such excesses that led directly to the malaise of the 70's. And NOT the Panthers or Weathermen which most Americans had hardly heard of.
Of course a reply about 1970s will focus on that decade, and not the previous one.
And malaise was mostly caused by economics. However, what evidence do you have that "most Americans" hardly heard of extremist groups like WU and BLA?
I clicked on Search to verify that you DID know who Yvette Felarca is and were happy to condemn her for assault.
Maybe I did, at the time. So what? She is hardly important enough to remember her today.
I looked her up. She is organizer with the extremist group "By Any Means Necessary", which was started in support of racial preferences, but since has mutated to include support for such left-wing causes as illegal migration and anti-Israel activism (they protested against Israel defending itself a week after 10/7).
(Of course you'll play your Lawyer Card and point out that the slightest love tap fits the "assault" definition.)
When it comes to criminal charges, obviously legal definition matters. But she was charged with felony assault, which is more than a "love tap".
News reports seem unified behind the claim that the group she was protesting was "neo-Nazi" or "white supremacists." Were they card-carrying neo-Nazis? I dunno; I'll let you dig into the news reports.
Maybe they are. Maybe they aren't. Whatever their views, you can't just go around assaulting people you disagree with.

In any case, what does any of this have to do with what Saikat Chakrabarti said or my response to it?

From that Search I came across an old Derec post:
A random old post from a different thread that has even less to do with what is being discussed here than your obsession with Yvette Felarca.
 
Last edited:
There must be something else going on here. Gomez is a pretty solid progressive. Regarding Israel, he's called Neti's resignation, pushed very hard for more humanitarian aid to Gaza, and strongly backs a ceasefire.
Revolutionaries always eat their own. It is impossible to keep up with purity demands of the contemporary movement fauxgressivism.
 
Back
Top Bottom