Quo Vadis, Democrats?

[Admiral Yi]

What would be the appropriate metrics?

In the case of white nationalism I don't have the slightest idea.

[Razgovory]

Who are my guys?  The problem Josq, is that you refuse to take what people say at face value and try to twist it in a way that suits your purpose.  Instead of trying to find a way to interpret what other people say as already agreeing with you, try listening.

The problem with you Raz. Is that you insist on always taking what people say at face value when it suits your purpose. Rather than realising people often look for simple answers to complex problems and seeking to dig deeper into what you see on the surface you just accept the explanation that we live in a simple world.

Eg if I say to you "let's go have a beer?" what's your take away from that? What possible explanations are there?
Is it just "this guy loves beer"?

My first interpretation is "This person wants to have a beer with me". 

Yes. And why do I want to have a beer with you?

Can't make that determination without further information.  You might be trying to seduce me, you might want to sell me something, you might be just friendly, you be an alcoholic.  

[frunk]

What would be the appropriate metrics?

In the case of white nationalism I don't have the slightest idea.

I would measure it in number of times per day Stephen Miller advises or makes a political decision for you.

[Josquius]

Who are my guys?  The problem Josq, is that you refuse to take what people say at face value and try to twist it in a way that suits your purpose.  Instead of trying to find a way to interpret what other people say as already agreeing with you, try listening.

The problem with you Raz. Is that you insist on always taking what people say at face value when it suits your purpose. Rather than realising people often look for simple answers to complex problems and seeking to dig deeper into what you see on the surface you just accept the explanation that we live in a simple world.

Eg if I say to you "let's go have a beer?" what's your take away from that? What possible explanations are there?
Is it just "this guy loves beer"?

My first interpretation is "This person wants to have a beer with me". 

Yes. And why do I want to have a beer with you?

Can't make that determination without further information.  You might be trying to seduce me, you might want to sell me something, you might be just friendly, you be an alcoholic. 

Exactly. Lots of possibilities. You need to look towards further research - am I looking to scam you? Do I genuinely want to help you with something? Do I have alcohol problems?

It surfaced as just "let's go have a beer" but there is actually a lot more to it.
And it could well be the explanation is that it's not about having a beer at all.
Maybe I'm just desperately lonely and want to hang out - inviting me to a D&D session could do the trick without any alcohol needing to be involved.

You just don't know. And jumping to assuming alcoholism/beer connoisseur/something else focussed on the beer could well be a mistake.

Indeed if I am an alcoholic just going along with my initial ask could be the opposite of what you should do.

[Iormlund]

Exactly. Lots of possibilities. You need to look towards further research ...

It's hard to misinterpret someone saying they want to destroy Israel and kill all Jews. Especially when, given the opportunity, they will indeed kill all Jews they come across.

And it's hardly an isolated phenomenon. Surveys make clear most Palestinians are more interested in having another go at 1948 than coexistence.

[edit] My bad, I thought this was the Hamas thread.

[grumbler]

It's like genocide and ethnic cleansing.  Either you can measure it or it's just blah blah blah.

What would be the appropriate metrics?

Maybe ratio of Maya Angelou books to Adolph Hitler books allowed in the nation's military academy?

Percentage of pictures of black military heroes/personnel scrubbed from DoD websites as compared to white military heroes/personnel?

The Trump administration is not trying to hide it.

[Razgovory]

Who are my guys?  The problem Josq, is that you refuse to take what people say at face value and try to twist it in a way that suits your purpose.  Instead of trying to find a way to interpret what other people say as already agreeing with you, try listening.

The problem with you Raz. Is that you insist on always taking what people say at face value when it suits your purpose. Rather than realising people often look for simple answers to complex problems and seeking to dig deeper into what you see on the surface you just accept the explanation that we live in a simple world.

Eg if I say to you "let's go have a beer?" what's your take away from that? What possible explanations are there?
Is it just "this guy loves beer"?

My first interpretation is "This person wants to have a beer with me". 

Yes. And why do I want to have a beer with you?

Can't make that determination without further information.  You might be trying to seduce me, you might want to sell me something, you might be just friendly, you be an alcoholic. 

Exactly. Lots of possibilities. You need to look towards further research - am I looking to scam you? Do I genuinely want to help you with something? Do I have alcohol problems?

It surfaced as just "let's go have a beer" but there is actually a lot more to it.
And it could well be the explanation is that it's not about having a beer at all.
Maybe I'm just desperately lonely and want to hang out - inviting me to a D&D session could do the trick without any alcohol needing to be involved.

You just don't know. And jumping to assuming alcoholism/beer connoisseur/something else focussed on the beer could well be a mistake.

Indeed if I am an alcoholic just going along with my initial ask could be the opposite of what you should do.

What isn't a mistake is assuming that person is willing to drink beer with you.  Likewise, someone who says "there are gangs raping women but the police won't act" is really concerned about gangs the police won't act against.  Tell you what, why not try to find what ulterior motives a person who says "I support worker's rights" or "I'm a member of the working class" or "Trans women are women" has.

[Razgovory]

It's like genocide and ethnic cleansing.  Either you can measure it or it's just blah blah blah.

What would be the appropriate metrics?

Maybe ratio of Maya Angelou books to Adolph Hitler books allowed in the nation's military academy?

Percentage of pictures of black military heroes/personnel scrubbed from DoD websites as compared to white military heroes/personnel?

The Trump administration is not trying to hide it.

If he is planning to bring back segregation, and this is the context in which the term "White Nationalist" was coined, he's doing a fairly good job of it.  I'm really not seeing that happening.

[Josquius]

What isn't a mistake is assuming that person is willing to drink beer with you.  Likewise, someone who says "there are gangs raping women but the police won't act" is really concerned about gangs the police won't act against. 

Rather they believe that there are gangs raping women and the police are doing nothing.
Why do they believe this?
How big of a problem do they believe this to be?
Is there any truth to this?
Is it really just about this one case they read about on facebook or, is it a surfacing of their broader anger about the crappy state of policing?
Is it really even all about policing or do they have broader worries about the state of society?

I'm leading you down a path here, but of course when actually doing this research if its anyone halfway competent doing it they wouldn't include assumptions in questions like so. They'd take a more neutral path of just asking why, tell me more about this thing you mentioned, etc...

Tell you what, why not try to find what ulterior motives a person who says "I support worker's rights" or "I'm a member of the working class" or "Trans women are women" has.

You think you've found a gotcha here, but you haven't. There are indeed a myriad reasons why people land on supporting positive stuff just as much as negative stuff. And the far right is only too keen to try and hijack this for themselves- "workers rights are being undermined by immigrants!", "Trans women having rights means cis women don't have rights!"

Exactly. Lots of possibilities. You need to look towards further research ...

It's hard to misinterpret someone saying they want to destroy Israel and kill all Jews. Especially when, given the opportunity, they will indeed kill all Jews they come across.

And it's hardly an isolated phenomenon. Surveys make clear most Palestinians are more interested in having another go at 1948 than coexistence.

[edit] My bad, I thought this was the Hamas thread.

Its irrelevant to this but even there you do have a lot more to it than meets the eye and it can be well worth digging into it.
To the Raz's of the world this can only be motivated by antisemitism. As is the case with sane criticism of Israel.
But could it not just be basic nationalism, no matter who the enemy is, combined with a healthy dose of Jews=Israel idiocy?
Does the person saying it actually mean this or are they just an absolute moron speaking out of frustration at Israel's actions?
Do they actually not give a shit about Israel at all and their hatred for Jews is proper olde worlde bigotry, they'd be for killing them all even if (or hell, especially if) Israel didn't exist?
Even pretty overt evil shit has deeper motivations behind it than cartoon supervillain "I will destroy the world mwa ha ha".
Its rare that all supporters of something have the same logic behind them either. Examining why people come to supporting the really nasty stuff can help to identify those who land there through a chain of thought that can be intercepted with more positive policies.

[The Minsky Moment]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/dermatologists-say-marines-tightened-shaving-waiver-hurt-black-members-rcna208090

Hegseth drumming out soldiers suffering from a skin condition that entirely coincidentally disproportionately effects Blacks.  Move along, nothing to see here.

This is an administration run by people who proclaim themselves nationalists, and who all happen to be white except for two light skinned Hispanics.  They are white and nationalist but we can't call them white nationalists.  Because.

They have targeted non-white immigrants for the most cruel and brutal treatment but their race is entirely coindental, right?  All non documented immigrants are being treated with equal cruelty, regardless of race, right?  Except for white South Africans - we roll out the red (white?) carpet for them.  But not because they are white, but because they are uh - wait, no it is because they are white.  But it's not about race.  I mean it is literally about race, but not "about race".

One could fill pages with this. There are of course open fascists and white nationalists in America, all cheering for Trump and his policies.  More coincidence, more meaning we must treat as meaningless.

After all Trump is the least racist person in the world, he told us so.

One's head must be extremely deep in the sand to ignore what is going on.  Does saying this offend some hypothetical swing voters out there?  I honestly don't know.  I leave that to that professional politicians and spin doctors to decide. 

I'm just a citizen who doesn't like walking around with his head in the sand or up his own ass. It's uncomfortable, unhygenic, and bad for my back.  I'm going to have to stick to telling it how it is.  I've heard that's what Americans like to hear, no?

[garbon]

The Democrats are shuffling chairs around while the country burns? This is not a real controversy and not something that anyone outside of their narrow group cares about.  

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5340930-dnc-david-hogg-controversy/

Democratic frustration reaches boiling point over David Hogg

Tensions are reaching a boiling point between David Hogg and Democratic National Committee (DNC) leadership as the organization moves to potentially redo Hogg's election as vice chair.

Leaked audio revealed DNC Chair Ken Martin venting his frustration with Hogg, who has come under fire from some within the party for his efforts to oust certain incumbents while serving as a DNC vice chair.

The leak occurred the day before DNC officials were set to vote virtually on whether to redo the vice chair elections, a move technically unrelated to the controversy surrounding Hogg. And it has underscored the frustrations many in the party feel toward the 25-year-old gun control activist.

"David Hogg is one of the biggest distractions we've had and seen in our party," said Democratic strategist Antjuan Seawright, who advised former DNC Chair Jaime Harrison and hopes Hogg loses his seat. "I don't trust him and I don't think a lot of other people who are associated with the party should trust him."

Hogg is rattling members of the party as he's showed no signs of reversing course on getting involved in Democratic primaries as a sitting DNC officer, despite Martin and members of the party making clear their opposition to it.

That conflict came to a head last month when Martin expressed frustration with Hogg during a Zoom call with DNC officers, audio of which was leaked and subsequently reported by Politico over the weekend.

"I'm just quite frustrated to be in this position, because what you've done, whether you like it or not or know it or not, David, is I'm trying to — no one knows who the hell I am, right?" Martin said on the call, apparently addressing Hogg, according to audio published by the news outlet. 

"I'm trying to get my sea legs underneath me and actually develop any amount of credibility so I can go out there and raise the money and do the job I need to, to put ourselves in a position to win," he continued. "And again, I don't think you intended this, but you essentially destroyed any chance I have to show the leadership that I need to, so it's really frustrating."

Martin also suggested he had considered stepping down as chair several months into his tenure.

"I'm not going anywhere," he later said in a statement following the publication of the audio. "I took this job to fight Republicans, not Democrats. As I said when I was elected, our fight is not within the Democratic Party, our fight is and has to be solely focused on Donald Trump and the disastrous Republican agenda. That's the work that I will continue to do every day." 

A number of DNC officers have also expressed their support for Martin following the Politico report, with some criticizing Hogg over the controversy.

"We have a lot of work to do as a party, and Chair Martin is doing it," Stuart Appelbaum, a DNC associate chair, said in a statement. "I have total confidence in his leadership."

Meanwhile, Hogg has sought to distance himself from the leaked audio and its release in a post on the social platform X. In a separate post, he suggested the call is a distraction that would only help Republicans.

"Republicans want us turning on each other so they can continue getting away with this. While Chair Martin and I have had our disagreements we are both in this to build the strongest party possible," Hogg wrote. "Our nation is in a moment of crisis and the people are looking for us to lead. This is a distraction that prevents us from doing that. Do not help the GOP."

A representative for Hogg did not respond to The Hill's request for comment.

The situation has left Democrats feeling frustrated and furious, with some saying the controversy is creating a distraction just as party officials are grappling with how to respond to Trump's deployment of the military to California amid immigration-related protests. Meanwhile, the party is gearing up for the midterms, when it hopes to flip the House and possibly even the Senate.

"It shows that we're no different than [Republicans], and it shows that we haven't learned lessons from the past," Seawright said. "We've seen what happens when you are not unified. We've seen what happens when there's in-party fighting. We've seen what happens when selfish people try to poke their selfish heads up to make headlines instead of headway." 

And while some members of the party agree with the idea the party needs to make room for generational change or challenge ineffective members, they take issue with Hogg's decision to try to do so as an officer of the national party.

"By and large, even the most hardcore centrist, moderate Democrats, in [a] roundabout way, agree with what he's doing. There are some Democrats that need to get primaried or at [least] challenged, right? That's fine," said John Verdejo, a DNC member from North Carolina. "Everyone agrees with him on paper, but now ... you're a DNC vice chair."

One Democratic strategist who spoke on condition of anonymity said Hogg is "over his skis." 

"We are relying on the experience of a gun violence prevention activist, now Democratic Party leader, three years out of college," the strategist said. "[Hogg] does not have the shared experience of Ken and others on that call."

"It's hard to not look at this and say this is someone who is clearly trying to build their profile," the strategist added.

Hogg explicitly noted his group Leaders We Deserve would not target front-line members in competitive districts.

Happening in tandem is the vote over whether the DNC should redo its vice chair elections after Oklahoma DNC member Kalyn Free contested the way the initial vice chair elections were conducted in February. The challenge over the DNC vice chair election was initiated before Hogg announced he would be wading into Democratic primaries.

The virtual vote is taking place between Monday and Wednesday of this week; if DNC members decide to redo the vote, two separate virtual votes will be held for the spots currently held by Hogg and Pennsylvania state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta.

Some members are reconsidering how they might cast their vote in light of the leaked audio and the controversy that's ensued.

Michael Kapp, a DNC member from California who sits on the DNC Credentials Committee, noted that he was one of the most vocal members of the committee to protect Hogg's and Kenyatta's seats and was against the resolution to consider redoing the vice chair election.

"Up until yesterday, I've been very consistent that I was going to vote no on the Credentials Committee report. I voted no on it in committee, I was planning on voting against it," Kapp said. 

"Now, I'm reconsidering that position, because I don't believe that we should have officers who are leaking private conversations between officers," he added.

The anonymous Democratic strategist warned that voting Hogg out of his post could elevate him as a martyr of sorts.

"There is going to be a lot of backlash if he's forced out of his position," the strategist said. "You think he's making noise now? Holy cow, we're not going to hear the end of it."

[crazy canuck]

The Democrats are shuffling chairs around while the country burns? This is not a real controversy and not something that anyone outside of their narrow group cares about.  

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5340930-dnc-david-hogg-controversy/

Democratic frustration reaches boiling point over David Hogg

Tensions are reaching a boiling point between David Hogg and Democratic National Committee (DNC) leadership as the organization moves to potentially redo Hogg's election as vice chair.

Leaked audio revealed DNC Chair Ken Martin venting his frustration with Hogg, who has come under fire from some within the party for his efforts to oust certain incumbents while serving as a DNC vice chair.

The leak occurred the day before DNC officials were set to vote virtually on whether to redo the vice chair elections, a move technically unrelated to the controversy surrounding Hogg. And it has underscored the frustrations many in the party feel toward the 25-year-old gun control activist.

"David Hogg is one of the biggest distractions we've had and seen in our party," said Democratic strategist Antjuan Seawright, who advised former DNC Chair Jaime Harrison and hopes Hogg loses his seat. "I don't trust him and I don't think a lot of other people who are associated with the party should trust him."

Hogg is rattling members of the party as he's showed no signs of reversing course on getting involved in Democratic primaries as a sitting DNC officer, despite Martin and members of the party making clear their opposition to it.

That conflict came to a head last month when Martin expressed frustration with Hogg during a Zoom call with DNC officers, audio of which was leaked and subsequently reported by Politico over the weekend.

"I'm just quite frustrated to be in this position, because what you've done, whether you like it or not or know it or not, David, is I'm trying to — no one knows who the hell I am, right?" Martin said on the call, apparently addressing Hogg, according to audio published by the news outlet. 

"I'm trying to get my sea legs underneath me and actually develop any amount of credibility so I can go out there and raise the money and do the job I need to, to put ourselves in a position to win," he continued. "And again, I don't think you intended this, but you essentially destroyed any chance I have to show the leadership that I need to, so it's really frustrating."

Martin also suggested he had considered stepping down as chair several months into his tenure.

"I'm not going anywhere," he later said in a statement following the publication of the audio. "I took this job to fight Republicans, not Democrats. As I said when I was elected, our fight is not within the Democratic Party, our fight is and has to be solely focused on Donald Trump and the disastrous Republican agenda. That's the work that I will continue to do every day." 

A number of DNC officers have also expressed their support for Martin following the Politico report, with some criticizing Hogg over the controversy.

"We have a lot of work to do as a party, and Chair Martin is doing it," Stuart Appelbaum, a DNC associate chair, said in a statement. "I have total confidence in his leadership."

Meanwhile, Hogg has sought to distance himself from the leaked audio and its release in a post on the social platform X. In a separate post, he suggested the call is a distraction that would only help Republicans.

"Republicans want us turning on each other so they can continue getting away with this. While Chair Martin and I have had our disagreements we are both in this to build the strongest party possible," Hogg wrote. "Our nation is in a moment of crisis and the people are looking for us to lead. This is a distraction that prevents us from doing that. Do not help the GOP."

A representative for Hogg did not respond to The Hill's request for comment.

The situation has left Democrats feeling frustrated and furious, with some saying the controversy is creating a distraction just as party officials are grappling with how to respond to Trump's deployment of the military to California amid immigration-related protests. Meanwhile, the party is gearing up for the midterms, when it hopes to flip the House and possibly even the Senate.

"It shows that we're no different than [Republicans], and it shows that we haven't learned lessons from the past," Seawright said. "We've seen what happens when you are not unified. We've seen what happens when there's in-party fighting. We've seen what happens when selfish people try to poke their selfish heads up to make headlines instead of headway." 

And while some members of the party agree with the idea the party needs to make room for generational change or challenge ineffective members, they take issue with Hogg's decision to try to do so as an officer of the national party.

"By and large, even the most hardcore centrist, moderate Democrats, in [a] roundabout way, agree with what he's doing. There are some Democrats that need to get primaried or at [least] challenged, right? That's fine," said John Verdejo, a DNC member from North Carolina. "Everyone agrees with him on paper, but now ... you're a DNC vice chair."

One Democratic strategist who spoke on condition of anonymity said Hogg is "over his skis." 

"We are relying on the experience of a gun violence prevention activist, now Democratic Party leader, three years out of college," the strategist said. "[Hogg] does not have the shared experience of Ken and others on that call."

"It's hard to not look at this and say this is someone who is clearly trying to build their profile," the strategist added.

Hogg explicitly noted his group Leaders We Deserve would not target front-line members in competitive districts.

Happening in tandem is the vote over whether the DNC should redo its vice chair elections after Oklahoma DNC member Kalyn Free contested the way the initial vice chair elections were conducted in February. The challenge over the DNC vice chair election was initiated before Hogg announced he would be wading into Democratic primaries.

The virtual vote is taking place between Monday and Wednesday of this week; if DNC members decide to redo the vote, two separate virtual votes will be held for the spots currently held by Hogg and Pennsylvania state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta.

Some members are reconsidering how they might cast their vote in light of the leaked audio and the controversy that's ensued.

Michael Kapp, a DNC member from California who sits on the DNC Credentials Committee, noted that he was one of the most vocal members of the committee to protect Hogg's and Kenyatta's seats and was against the resolution to consider redoing the vice chair election.

"Up until yesterday, I've been very consistent that I was going to vote no on the Credentials Committee report. I voted no on it in committee, I was planning on voting against it," Kapp said. 

"Now, I'm reconsidering that position, because I don't believe that we should have officers who are leaking private conversations between officers," he added.

The anonymous Democratic strategist warned that voting Hogg out of his post could elevate him as a martyr of sorts.

"There is going to be a lot of backlash if he's forced out of his position," the strategist said. "You think he's making noise now? Holy cow, we're not going to hear the end of it."

Yeah, in a Parliamentary system when a party fails, the people in charge (both political and party) at the time essentially get nuked from orbit and new blood takes over. Under the American system there isn't much opportunity for renewal. The blame really just goes to whoever the Presidential candidate is, and everyone else holds on to their positions until they die of old age.

[HisMajestyBOB]

On the one hand, new blood is definitely needed. On the other hand, Hogg comes across as the kind of naive class president type that has failed the Democratic party over and over.

[garbon]

On the one hand, new blood is definitely needed. On the other hand, Hogg comes across as the kind of naive class president type that has failed the Democratic party over and over.

Hey Obama got two terms.

[The Minsky Moment]

Would have hoped for more deviousness from Boss Hogg.