can you give some examples of your fear

7/2/2018 12:40:11 PM

cuts to his beloved defense budget

7/2/2018 12:45:55 PM

When you get into the extreme wing of both sides you end up with policy positions that require totalitarian rule to implement and maintain. Hitler was a right winger. Stalin was a left winger.

So when you start the snowball rolling, in this case it moved right. Now the potential is for a stronger left move on the counter. It's possible to end up with someone even more dictatorial than Trump, just on the opposite end of the spectrum. But their manner of implementation would be just as bad or worse.

^sigh

[Edited on July 2, 2018 at 1:51 PM. Reason : Sigh]

7/2/2018 1:50:09 PM

Medicare for all.


The same as gulags

7/2/2018 1:50:55 PM

If implementing medicare requires imprisoning or killing anyone who opposes it, then yeah.

7/2/2018 1:52:47 PM

Quote :

"If implementing "X" requires imprisoning or killing anyone who opposes it, then yeah."

do we tell him

7/2/2018 1:59:58 PM

If you'd like me to understand what you're talking about, yea

[Edited on July 2, 2018 at 2:02 PM. Reason : A]

7/2/2018 2:02:30 PM

cherokee are you an anarchist who just thinks that any government is inherently violent and totalitarian or if not what part of the progressive platform do you think is totalitarian?

7/2/2018 2:13:35 PM

^^
https://afgj.org/politicalprisonersusa

Quote :

"It's possible to end up with someone even more dictatorial than Trump, just on the opposite end of the spectrum. But their manner of implementation would be just as bad or worse."

Why do you believe this? Communism is inherently less totalitarian than the corporatocracy we live in. Part of the reason communist movements have been so totalitarian in the past is because the US and its allies have constantly tried to topple them.

7/2/2018 2:36:53 PM

Quote :

"It's possible to end up with someone even more dictatorial than Trump, just on the opposite end of the spectrum. But their manner of implementation would be just as bad or worse."

clown

7/2/2018 3:19:01 PM

^you have zero understanding of history if you truly think that statement makes me a clown

Quote :

"cherokee are you an anarchist who just thinks that any government is inherently violent and totalitarian or if not what part of the progressive platform do you think is totalitarian?"

I'm not an anarchist. I'm a centrist that leans left on social issues in general and right when it comes to personal responsibility. I don't think any form of government is inherently violent or totalitarian but I do believe that on average, the psychological traits that are characteristic of people who seek power and then gain power are more often than not violent and totalitarian.

I have no problem with the progressive platform at all. My problem is that a large number of the people who want to implement it refuse to acknowledge that human beings in general are not yet evolved to the point that you can just convince them it's the best way to live. Because of that, for the time being, there will always be push back and the more a person or a group of people seeks to force the change, the more violent that push back will be. At that point, the people in power will respond accordingly, typically by escalating the violence.

Intellectually speaking, the progressive platform is nearly entirely the correct way to go. It's the manner of implementation that matters.

Quote :

"Why do you believe this? Communism is inherently less totalitarian than the corporatocracy we live in. Part of the reason communist movements have been so totalitarian in the past is because the US and its allies have constantly tried to topple them."

Communism is not inherently less totalitarian. Both "philosophies" claim they can improve the standard of living for every one. One makes everyone poor as hell and the other makes most poor as hell. Communism refuses to acknowledge the work ethic required to actually improve a standard of living. Capitalism refuses to acknowledge the fact that inequality will grow (absent controls/laws/enforcement/regulations) to the point that you'll constantly have revolt.

They both have the potential to create utopia, absent the fact that people do not possess equal amounts of drive, intellect and desire and absent the fact that people who gain power pretty much fuck over every single person who lacks power.

I appreciate the link. I'm not sitting here arguing the United States is some bastion of innocence. Prison reform is something I emphatically support, particularly with respect to how we choose to incarcerate. David Eagleman's book Incognito suggests incarcerating based on statistical likelihood of recurrence of crime. I.e., you lock up a serial killer forever but not someone who stole a car or sold drugs. Any other punishment ranges in duration spent in places that educate, provide counseling and nurture the capability of reentering society and no longer repeating crimes. Oh and by the way, that last sentence of mine - imagine how differently that would be carried out depending on the guy enforcing it. "Re-education" is a loaded term given its historical connotations.

But, that page (and it's difficult to corroborate a decent amount, but let's just presume the entire page is 100% fact), from a numbers and standard of living standpoint, doesn't even come close to what has occurred and continues to occur under both leftist and rightist totalitarian regimes. The soviets alone murdered between 3 to 8 million Ukrainians in 1932-33 alone by starvation, simply because they weren't chosen as the people who deserved communist utopia. A huge number of Russians who died during World War 2 died in prison, not on the battlefield. Russian soldiers who were captured during the war, once repatriated, were shipped off immediately to the gulags.

Ultimately all I'm saying is this - the ideas can be good, the ideas can be bad. I'm far more concerned with the people in power enforcing an idea or law. It's why I spend far more of my energy focused on a candidates character and trustworthiness than I do their "stance" on any given issue. And society's natural tendency is to over-correct, in either direction, to a perceived "bad" choice.

Trump in large part is a conservative, racist over-reaction to the fact that we elected a black president.

I'm concerned about what the liberal over-reaction will be to Trump. Trump wants to prosecute and lock up FBI agents who are doing their jobs, because he thinks their Democrats and that's against his core. Will we end up with someone who wants to lock up some other group of people because they don't completely support abortion or don't want to pay 80% in taxes?

[Edited on July 2, 2018 at 7:43 PM. Reason : spelling]

7/2/2018 7:37:23 PM

Quote :

"Communism is not inherently less totalitarian. Both "philosophies" claim they can improve the standard of living for every one. One makes everyone poor as hell and the other makes most poor as hell. Communism refuses to acknowledge the work ethic required to actually improve a standard of living. "

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what communism is. Your work ethic argument is explicitly deconstructed in the Manifesto. Communism puts the means of production in the hands of workers and innovation is rewarded through direct returns to the worker and his community.

Meaningful innovation is driven by creativity and necessity, not capital. And creativity is highest when workers are engaged. Why do you think jobs at Tesla are so coveted, even though it's well known that pay is relatively low, hours are long, and turnover is high? Because people feel like they are contributing to society, and that gives them meaning and drive.

The Manifesto is really short, you should seriously read it.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

Quote :

"From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes. You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible. Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations. It has been objected that upon the abolition of private property, all work will cease, and universal laziness will overtake us. According to this, bourgeois society ought long ago to have gone to the dogs through sheer idleness; for those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything do not work. The whole of this objection is but another expression of the tautology: that there can no longer be any wage-labour when there is no longer any capital. "

Quote :

"In bourgeois society, living labour is but a means to increase accumulated labour. In Communist society, accumulated labour is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer. "

7/2/2018 8:43:48 PM

I've read it. It is littered with flaws entirely based on human psychology and nature. It is well intended and dangerously ill-equipped to implement its ideas.

Quote :

" Your work ethic argument is explicitly deconstructed in the Manifesto."

And communism is explicitly deconstructed throughout human history.

Anyway, you're missing my point. It doesn't matter whether the manifesto explicitly deconstructs an argument (it doesn't). You have to get humans to buy into it for it to work and thus far, the only way to obtain buy-in is to force buy-in and liquidate those who refuse.

7/2/2018 9:16:18 PM

Quote :

"I've read it."

Quote :

"Anyway, you're missing my point. It doesn't matter whether the manifesto explicitly deconstructs an argument (it doesn't)"

It does though, I just linked you the passage.

Quote :

"And communism is explicitly deconstructed throughout human history. "

Communism is proven to work on a small scale through worker co-ops, which are both more productive and beneficial to workers. Obviously it's much more difficult to implement on a larger scale for many reasons, namely the fact that capitalist world powers have a documented history of sabotaging it.

Quote :

" You have to get humans to buy into it for it to work and thus far, the only way to obtain buy-in is to force buy-in and liquidate those who refuse."

Look, no one is saying we're going to Implement Communism immediately after Chairman Ocasio-Cortez becomes president. Your scare tactics are completely absurd given the platforms people like her are running on. Are you seriously comparing single payer healthcare, tuition-free college, and immigrant protections to the flat-out racism that is emerging from GOP primaries? Can you not see the difference between the two?

[Edited on July 2, 2018 at 9:33 PM. Reason : .]

7/2/2018 9:32:03 PM

Quote :

"Look, no one is saying we're going to Implement Communism immediately after Chairman Ocasio-Cortez becomes president. Your scare tactics are completely absurd given the platforms people like her are running on. Are you seriously comparing single payer healthcare, tuition-free college, and immigrant protections to the flat-out racism that is emerging from GOP primaries? Can you not see the difference between the two? "

Not sure where this came from. What scare tactics? At what point did I compare policy? I simply asserted my concern that it's just as easy to have a terrible person become a major leader on the left as it is the right and that it is more likely to occur when one side is attempting to over correct the results of the other side. History has proven me correct over and over and over again.

[Edited on July 2, 2018 at 9:43 PM. Reason : a]

7/2/2018 9:42:51 PM

no, history has not proven you right.

What you are describing would require literal revolution, not electoral reform.

7/2/2018 10:24:01 PM

Quote :

"I simply asserted my concern that it's just as easy to have a terrible person become a major leader on the left as it is the right and that it is more likely to occur when one side is attempting to over correct the results of the other side. History has proven me correct over and over and over again."

The one time this has happened for the left in the US was the beginning of the fucking golden age. There's your precedence.

We are in desperate need of an over-correction, and you, the friendly white moderate, are the largest barrier to it happening.

[Edited on July 2, 2018 at 11:04 PM. Reason : .]

7/2/2018 11:01:11 PM

overcorrecting the results of the great depression by a liberal president who once boasted that his greatest accomplishment was "saving capitalism."


...basically the same thing as the Bolshevik revolution.

7/2/2018 11:08:24 PM

FDR did it is the new Simpsons did it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

7/2/2018 11:16:43 PM

So Cherokee is afraid of progressive platforms because conservatives will get violent, did I read their post correctly?

7/3/2018 7:07:45 AM

Yep, starting with "Cherokee is afraid of progressive platforms."

7/3/2018 9:17:25 AM

Just realized my previous post. So let me be clear since people are having a difficult time distinguishing between me saying "I am concerned with individuals" and someone saying "I am terrified of progressive platforms and policies."

All I can say is learn critical reading and read what I've posted. Stop getting caught up on trigger words.

Quote :

"The one time this has happened for the left in the US was the beginning of the fucking golden age. There's your precedence. We are in desperate need of an over-correction, and you, the friendly white moderate, are the largest barrier to it happening."

So you believe the United States is so special that history doesn't apply - that it can't happen here. I see.

Also, considering you have no clue how I vote, you are far from justified in saying I'm part of the barrier to improving things.

Also find it funny you call it the golden age. I wonder if African Americans felt the same way in that time period. Or immigrants. I know the military-industrial complex you hate so much certainly thought of it as the golden age. So much so that an outgoing president spent nearly his entire farewell address discussing it.

[Edited on July 3, 2018 at 1:09 PM. Reason : a]

7/3/2018 1:00:22 PM

still confused

previously you said:

Quote :

"Historically there is good reason for the fear of going too far left. One of my general fears is the uncertainty of how far we swing to the left as an over response to the rightward swing we've undergone lately."

so I asked for an example of those fears and you replied:

Quote :

"When you get into the extreme wing of both sides you end up with policy positions that require totalitarian rule to implement and maintain. Hitler was a right winger. Stalin was a left winger. So when you start the snowball rolling, in this case it moved right. Now the potential is for a stronger left move on the counter. It's possible to end up with someone even more dictatorial than Trump, just on the opposite end of the spectrum. But their manner of implementation would be just as bad or worse."

are you saying that you're afraid of implementing progressive policies because you are somehow under the impression that stalin resulted from hitler (what?) and that somehow if we implement any progressive policies somehow yadda yadda yadda millions die?

[Edited on July 3, 2018 at 1:14 PM. Reason : .]

7/3/2018 1:14:01 PM

^he thinks that the left response would be a literal revolution leading to a Stalinist dictatorship.

He doesn't seem to understand that the "leftist" dicatatorship that he's afraid of cannot, by definition, happen via reform

7/3/2018 1:18:14 PM

Sorry, it's not the policy positions, it's the extent to which they are forced on a population that is simply not ready for them by a dictatorial group of people.

Policy position - every one is equal and we need to remove property ownership

Policy enforcement - well, not every one is equal, every person in "insert arbitrary class" is equal. ukrainians aren't "insert arbitrary class" therefore they don't count. exterminate them.

The policy gets completely bastardized by the people in power. So, my example of the fears was Hitler and Stalin. Again, my fears are based on people, not the ideas. So when I said "swing to the left" I was speaking from the standpoint of swinging so far to the other extreme that we end up with someone just as totalitarian as we have on the right, just with different policy. The implication being that the behavior would be the same - basically declare one half of the population evil and begin implementing mass incarceration and murder.

What I'm afraid of is implementing policies that require abnormal levels of violence to enforce. Stalin and Hitler weren't mean to suggest that one "resulted" as a counterweight to the other, it was simply meant to demonstrate that "evil" exists on both spectrums, so simply hating the current rightwing tilt we have today doesn't make an equivalent leftwing tilt any better if the resulting behavior does not change.

And based on that, and the fact that we cannot be certain about whoever that may turn out to be on the left, and based on history, I believe it's natural and proper to fear an over correction in any direction.

I am not saying implementing progressive policies result in millions of deaths. I'm saying it's entirely possible that the extreme self righteousness that exists in the extremes on both sides can lead to a complete disregard for the fact that large portions of the population disagree and at that point, a power hungry leader can simply turn into a dictator to enforce his idea of utopia.

Part of what drives this fear is that many times, when someone believes their stance or position is absolutely correct, they consider anyone who disagrees to be an idiot, a retard, uneducated or evil. Many people completely refuse to have a discussion to actually understand what causes that difference. Instead they just blindly group them into the "dumbass" bucket. My experience in life on top of everything I've learned and read thus far - very rarely is any stance the absolute correct one. It's usually a mix or balance between extremes, precisely because if you want to ever implement anything you have to consider human behavior. Hypothetical discussions don't do that and people who are so convinced their idea is the right one fail to realize - it's not enough to have the right idea, you have to implement it as well and that's where the mess is.

[Edited on July 3, 2018 at 1:31 PM. Reason : a]

7/3/2018 1:23:50 PM

to be clear, the socialist policies we are talking about in the US are barely left of center on any kind of global scale

Quote :

"^he thinks that the left response would be a literal revolution leading to a Stalinist dictatorship. He doesn't seem to understand that the "leftist" dicatatorship that he's afraid of cannot, by definition, happen via reform"

i'm seeing that now, i just didn't realize we couldn't have medicare for all without exterminating ukrainians

[Edited on July 3, 2018 at 1:32 PM. Reason : .]

7/3/2018 1:28:48 PM

That's perfectly fair right now, but that's why I keep referring to history - it doesn't mean it'll remain that way. That's also why, when I initially responded based on the individual in NY that won the primary, I closed my post stating that I don't know much about her yet. I was indicating that I don't know where her positions lie, I was just making a larger point, primarily because the words "socialism" and "communism" started popping up.

Quote :

"i'm seeing that now, i just didn't realize we couldn't have medicare for all without exterminating ukrainians "

There goes the critical reading. No point in me discussing any more until several of you can fix that. Prime example of taking trigger words and inventing something that I did not say or imply.

[Edited on July 3, 2018 at 1:33 PM. Reason : a]

7/3/2018 1:31:51 PM

so your fear is just a slippery slope that wouldn't even begin until way beyond anything that's even being proposed and couldn't even start until after a probably violent cultural revolution

do you think your fear is reasonable or is it maybe just the result of growing up indoctrinated to assume that capitalism is the best answer and even policies just designed to make capitalism more fair to people is an existential threat.

[Edited on July 3, 2018 at 1:35 PM. Reason : .]

7/3/2018 1:34:00 PM

He doesn't understand that Hitler rose to power in a decaying, existing capitalist structure that looked to consolidate power to a small ruling elite, and that Stalin rose to power by usurping the energy of an actual, literal revolution. That distinction is completely irrelevant to him for some reason.

He seems to think that we are going to somehow "vote" our way to full communism, which cannot -- by definition -- fucking happen.

7/3/2018 1:34:01 PM

Quote :

"He seems to think that we are going to somehow "vote" our way to full communism, which cannot -- by definition -- fucking happen."

Cool - so how do you implement it without resorting to the same tactics used in the 1900s? Start with the fact you haven't convinced me and I'm actually here engaging on this. How about all the others who disagree with you that won't even talk.

Quote :

"so your fear is just a slippery slope that wouldn't even begin until way beyond anything that's even being proposed and couldn't even start until after a probably violent cultural revolution do you think your fear is reasonable or is it maybe just the result of growing up indoctrinated to assume that capitalism is the best answer and even policies just designed to make capitalism more fair to people is an existential threat. "

Slippery slope isn't exactly it but let's go with that for a moment. You have an asteroid destined to hit earth 100 years from now. If you nudge it by one inch today it misses earth by 15 million kilometers 100 years in the future. Or you can wait 90 years (because why deal with it now, the problem is way beyond anything we have to deal with today) and now you have to nudge it by 1 million kilometers

I'm not suggesting capitalism is the best answer. I'm simply suggesting we haven't found one better that can also actually be implemented with equal or less violence. And of course, some portion of my belief system is from where I was born and raised and currently live. No question about that. It's one of the reasons I continuously try to learn.

[Edited on July 3, 2018 at 1:40 PM. Reason : a]

7/3/2018 1:35:15 PM

for context, this is the statement that triggered cherokee's fear:

Quote :

"she's also got democrats shook, look at all of them warning about going too far left my favorite was sen. duckworth saying you can't win the white house without the midwest and you can't win the midwest if you're too far left like the democratic primary never happened "

so i think the takeaway is that democrats want to stay the current course in the midwest so that we don't have to worry about revolution?

this is why i thought duckworth's statement was so silly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#/media/Fileemocratic_Party_presidential_primary_results_by_county_by_popular_vote_margin_2.svg

7/3/2018 1:41:31 PM

Quote :

"I'm not suggesting capitalism is the best answer. I'm simply suggesting we haven't found one better that can also actually be implemented with equal or less violence. "

okay, so check this out:
https://www.dsausa.org/private_corporations_seem_to_be_a_permanent_fixture_in_the_us_so_why_work_towards_socialism

Quote :

" In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control. The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment. Public pressure can also have a critical role to play in the struggle to hold corporations accountable. Most of all, socialists look to unions to make private business more accountable. "

and
https://www.dsausa.org/govt_run_everything

doesn't that sound better and can't that be implemented without violence?

[Edited on July 3, 2018 at 1:46 PM. Reason : ?]

7/3/2018 1:44:53 PM

Quote :

"look at all of them warning about going too far left"

Actually, it was this specific statement that triggered my response seeking to explain why going too far left could be just as bad as going as far right as we have.

Quote :

"doesn't that sound better and can't that be implemented without violence?"

Absolutely sounds better - it sounds great, in fact. It is not possible to implement that without violence without convincing voters - a significant portion, more than just 51% by far - to do so. THAT is where the energy needs to be spent. And it's such a long term and exhausting endeavor that people get tired of it and say "I just want a guy in office who can do everything without having to wait or bring people along with him." That's where it breaks down.

From the standpoint of temperament in a leader who also believes in this stuff, I thought Bernie was a perfect candidate. He is someone whose character and principles I could have trusted easily to advocate for change in this manner. I don't know who the next one will be. If it's Bernie again I'll have very little problem voting for him. Unfortunately, I didn't get a chance to vote for him this time around because the DNC is corrupt and because the alternative works for Putin.

[Edited on July 3, 2018 at 1:52 PM. Reason : a]

7/3/2018 1:45:05 PM

The person you are afraid (Alexandria Ocosio Cortez) is a Social Democrat. She's offering legislative reforms. It would be enforced the same way all laws are supposed to be enforced. Medicare for all is a legislative fix. This is what she's suggesting (because she's a Democrat, not some guerilla revolutionary who wants to dismantle the state and install a soviet council). She's offering solutions that exist within our current democratic and capitalist framework (taxation).

The most generous interpretation of your concern is that you think taxation of businesses is equal to theft/violence, and that the literal death of thousands of Americans who can't access basic healthcare in the name of profit is somehow not violence. That's the generous reading..

A more plain reading of your concern is that you think business owners are going to be dragged out of their homes, their assets seized and collectivized, and sent to years of hard labor in, I dunno, fuckin' Minnesota?

7/3/2018 1:51:10 PM

Quote :

"The person you are afraid (Alexandria Ocosio Cortez) is a Social Democrat."

Man I searched and searched - can you point out the post where I stated I was afraid of her?

Learn how to read man. Stop with the trigger words.

Quote :

"A more plain reading of your concern"

Good to see you distilling down and completely ignoring the very nuances that I suggest cause the problems.

[Edited on July 3, 2018 at 1:53 PM. Reason : a]

7/3/2018 1:52:41 PM

Quote :

"can you point out the post where I stated I was afraid of her?"

it was the topic being discussed

Quote :

"THAT is where the energy needs to be spent. "

that's exactly what people like AOC and the DSA are doing, and they're the people you just said shouldn't do it (or at least shouldn't do it too much because it's scary)

[Edited on July 3, 2018 at 1:59 PM. Reason : .]

7/3/2018 1:58:08 PM

centrists: stop asking for big things, you need popular support and groundwork to build support for them
also centrists: stop building groundwork and popular support for big things

7/3/2018 2:01:57 PM

^^not in any way what I said. Vote for people that support your beliefs.

^i know for a fact you're smarter than this based on most of your posts here so stop trying to change the meaning of what I'm saying so you can put it on a bumper sticker

What I AM saying is make sure you're not voting to the extreme simply because you're pissed at the current state of affairs. Vote for levelheaded people that will do things properly.

[Edited on July 3, 2018 at 4:57 PM. Reason : A]

7/3/2018 4:56:00 PM

Didn’t really read much of this page but she isn’t extreme. Like at all. And has been pretty concillatory to the establishment Dems too for what that’s worth.

I mean is good health insurance and not being forced into abject poverty to allow Musk/Bezos to race to Mars extreme? I don’t think so...

7/4/2018 8:18:15 PM

Heard an analogy today that seemed relevant.

Dems and GOP are playing a board game and while the GOP decided to just burn the house down, Dem's are still sitting at the table trying to play the game.

7/11/2018 12:01:58 PM

https://twitter.com/ocasio2018/status/1017394155268575232?s=21

Ummmm, wat?

[Edited on July 12, 2018 at 9:25 AM. Reason : This is confusing. Did her staff get confused? That article quite literally contradicts the tweet]

7/12/2018 9:17:23 AM

her tweet is not wrong

crowley will be on the line for the WFP. The WFP has asked crowley to vacate but crowley's campaign declined. this will most likely take votes away from AOC.

7/12/2018 9:41:41 AM

Quote :

"That article quite literally contradicts the tweet"

How?

7/12/2018 9:46:46 AM

https://twitter.com/joecrowleyny/status/1017404605133553665?s=21

This seems like miscommunication tbh.

^ It says that he is not running and he supports her in the article. He does need to remove himself from that line though. If he does, this is nothing.

7/12/2018 9:56:07 AM

in related democrats running against democratic socialists news- a long time centrist democrat is running against a progressive dsa backed candidate in maryland local race:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/nancy-floreen-to-run-for-montgomery-county-executive-as-an-independent/2018/07/11/68b37ff8-8506-11e8-8f6c-46cb43e3f306_story.html?utm_term=.8a8ccdd99086

Quote :

"^ It says that he is not running and he supports her in the article. He does need to remove himself from that line though. If he does, this is nothing."

he's "not running" in the sense that he's not campaigning but he is declining to remove himself from the line which means he's running. there is no confusion. being on the line would allow centrist dems to campaign for him if they wanted.

[Edited on July 12, 2018 at 10:08 AM. Reason : .]

7/12/2018 10:00:14 AM

He needs to completely get out of the way..

7/12/2018 10:10:12 AM

Ny election law may be confusing, based on that article, but seems super simple for him to publicly state that he emphatically declines that party's nomination and give one of those "if elected I will not serve" type lines

[Edited on July 12, 2018 at 10:21 AM. Reason : That there party]

7/12/2018 10:21:01 AM

So wait, is any Democrat who doesn't profess fealty to the DSA now considered a centrist? Crowley may have been "establishment", but he sure as shit wasn't a centrist.

7/12/2018 11:27:29 AM

lol, okay

7/12/2018 11:29:04 AM

^^who's asking for fealty to DSA?

7/12/2018 1:28:50 PM