The latest DSA primary winner has some interesting thoughts...

Could her words be reasonably construed as "We need more people who hate America, to have political leadership positions in America"?

Click to expand...

No.

ThatRobGuy said:

Could her words be reasonably construed as "We need more people who hate America, to have political leadership positions in America"?

Click to expand...

Only if you believe immigrants hate America.

ThatRobGuy said:

When you break down what she's saying "America is exploitative and evil, and we need people from the global south who agree with my viewpoint on that to be in elected positions"

Click to expand...

No I think she’s saying we need people who aren’t exploitative and evil.

ThatRobGuy said:

For the Midwest in particular (which is where I live), I don't personally know any Democrats (apart from maybe my one cousin and the kids over at Oberlin who just take the furthest left position on everything for the sake of doing so lol) who would be even remotely enthused with the notion of "we need more people who think America is terrible in elected positions so they can help us tear it all down"

Click to expand...

Our president is constantly talking about how terrible things are in this country. Why is this acceptable from our highest elected official? I’d start there before complaining about some random congressperson no one’s even heard of.

ThatRobGuy said:

"I think America is exploitative"...check

Click to expand...

I think its fairly undeniable that America - and the rest of the Western industrialised world - has implemented exploitative and extractive trade, economic and political relationships and policies around the world.

That's just a recognition of the realities of neoclassical and neoliberal economics. It's modern international capitalism, which the US is the most signification exponent of. A system that has been rapidly expanding since roughly the late 1800s/early 1900s, and especially since the end of WW2

In the case of the US, the rest of the Western world had to put up with it because of post-war global power dynamics. The old powers of Europe were weakened and so were focused inwards and the US willingly took on the role as the primary guarantor of security and stability for the first world (much like the USSR served in that role for the second world). Mostly because it was to its own advantage to do so.

For all the good the US has done in world from 1942 to today, and it's quite a lot, you've got to recognise that the US has also done a hell of a lot of bad as well.

Not just stuff like coups and wars or support for dictators. More systematic things, like weakening global legal, environmental or tax standards. Or failing to support tougher child labour and human rights standards.

Look at something like just why the Bhopal disaster occurred. Or why the Banana Wars occurred. Or how the US has weakened global tax initiatives and maintains tax havens for multinational firms.

Look at the damage that offshoring of extractive activities and manufacturing has done around the world. As wages and regulations grew through the 1970s and into the 1980s, US companies were very happy to shift operations to China or Nigeria or Brazil, where they could pay pennies on the dollar for wages, didn't face the same regulatory restrictions and tax laws.

The fact that people are recognising that the system the US has used and supported is functionally exploitative doesn't mean that any individual hates the US though.

Does this mean the US is universally exploitative? No.
Does this mean that US relationships are universally extractive? No.

ThatRobGuy said:

"So we need more immigrants from the Global South in office who agree with me on that"...check

Click to expand...

Who better to recognise and curb the excesses of an exploitative system than those that have been exploited by it?

A patriot is someone who loves their country for what it is and can acknowledge when it does something wrong.
A nationalist is someone who loves their country blindly, regardless of what it does.

"My country right or wrong" vs “My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.”

ThatRobGuy said:

A person certainly doesn't love a place that they think is an evil exploitative colonialist regime, do they?

Click to expand...

They can love a country and still not love some of the things it does or some of the values it holds. It's not a take-it or leave-it deal.

I love my country (Australia), but I can't deny there are parts of both our history and current actions/policies that I'd consider evil, exploitative and colonialist. Take our treatment of Australian indigenous peoples, both historic and current. Or the White Australia Policy. Or our role in the colonisation/administration of Papua New Guinea. Or our relationship with Nauru.

Would you argue that the British, Russian, French, Belgians or Spanish shouldn't love their countries because of the evil, exploitative, colonialist regimes that they've had in the past?

ThatRobGuy said:

If I thought a particular country/government was an exploitative vulture, I'd hate it. And saying "we need more people here from other countries who see things my way on this" means what?

Click to expand...

It means that it might be better for the US if it had representatives who recognise the harms that US policies have done outside of the US and are willing to adjust US policies to reduce/eliminate those harms.

ThatRobGuy said:

Ultimately, that's all a country is, a piece of land with a culture and particular system of governance, culture, ideas, and rule of law.

So if this is going to be one of those stated positions of "I love this country, I just want to change everything about it", then practically speaking, that's an oxymoron.

Click to expand...

"I love this country, but I want it to stop being evil and exploiting people in other countries" is VERY different to "I love this country, I just want to change everything about it",

ThatRobGuy said:

Anti-Israel, Gen Z socialist who ousted 15-term Colorado incumbent calls for ‘more immigrants into office’

The anti-Israel Gen-Z socialist who ousted 15-term Colorado rep Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) has called for more immigrants to be elected into office as part of a “reckoning” with the global…

nypost.com

Apologies for the slanted framing in this article... NY Post isn't my first choice for linked sources, typically I tried to find things from more neutral or left-wing sources so that "source bias" accusations don't muddy the conversation. However, most of the mainstream ones simply aren't covering it.

“The responsibility that we have as Americans, the recognition that is going to be required of us, of the exploitative and extractive nature that we play on the global scale and the global stage is only going to be challenged if we are getting represented by people who understand that on a fundamental level. And that means getting more immigrants into office. That means getting more people who have heritage in the global south into office because that’s where those decisions are made specifically.”


As the article notes, she's expected to cruise to victor in that district in Colorado after being the 15 term incumbent in the primary.

She's also tight with the Hasan Piker (who many on here have claimed they've never heard of, but he seems to be playing kingmaker for DSA candidates in primaries, he's quickly becoming the leftist version of Bannon...the same guy who just showed up at a college speech literally dressed as Chairman Mao...that's not an exaggeration)


A couple different aspects to discuss.

Could her words be reasonably construed as "We need more people who hate America, to have political leadership positions in America"? When you break down what she's saying "America is exploitative and evil, and we need people from the global south who agree with my viewpoint on that to be in elected positions"

The other aspect, is all of this DSA nonsense going to backfire in 2028? While this kind of stuff may be popular in isolated very deep blue areas in some cities, is it going to have appeal beyond that?

For the Midwest in particular (which is where I live), I don't personally know any Democrats (apart from maybe my one cousin and the kids over at Oberlin who just take the furthest left position on everything for the sake of doing so lol) who would be even remotely enthused with the notion of "we need more people who think America is terrible in elected positions so they can help us tear it all down"

I'll try to find a more objective source discussing it, but there's video of her saying it, so the statement shouldn't be in dispute regardless of the NY Post "pro-Zionism" editorializing.

Click to expand...

Who moves to a country that they “hate”?​

Seriously.

Pommer said:

Who moves to a country that they “hate”?​

Seriously.

Click to expand...

*Muslims illegally moving to Europe have entered the chat*

ThatRobGuy said:

So then how do you break down what's being said in this statement:

the exploitative and extractive nature that we play on the global scale and the global stage is only going to be challenged if we are getting represented by people who understand that on a fundamental level. And that means getting more immigrants into office. That means getting more people who have heritage in the global south into office because that’s where those decisions are made specifically.”


"I think America is exploitative"...check
"So we need more immigrants from the Global South in office who agree with me on that"...check


A person certainly doesn't love a place that they think is an evil exploitative colonialist regime, do they?

If I thought a particular country/government was an exploitative vulture, I'd hate it. And saying "we need more people here from other countries who see things my way on this" means what?

Ultimately, that's all a country is, a piece of land with a culture and particular system of governance, culture, ideas, and rule of law.

So if this is going to be one of those stated positions of "I love this country, I just want to change everything about it", then practically speaking, that's an oxymoron.

Click to expand...

Do parents "hate" their kids when they punish them for doing something bad? Do drill sergeants "hate" their recruits when they make them do pushups for committing infractions? Do Cleveland fans "hate" the Browns when they complain about losing all the time?

No, of course not. Love can, and often does, include critique and admonition. Since we're on CF, I'll point out that the Bible is rife with examples of God punishing individuals and the nation of Israel as a whole for stepping out of line.

What you've described is not an oxymoron. What you've described is a shallow, immature perception of the concepts of love and hate that conflates "love" with "finding blameless" - a conflation I rarely see made outside of attempts to deflect legitimate criticism.

ThatRobGuy said:

Anti-Israel, Gen Z socialist who ousted 15-term Colorado incumbent calls for ‘more immigrants into office’

The anti-Israel Gen-Z socialist who ousted 15-term Colorado rep Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) has called for more immigrants to be elected into office as part of a “reckoning” with the global…

nypost.com

Apologies for the slanted framing in this article... NY Post isn't my first choice for linked sources, typically I tried to find things from more neutral or left-wing sources so that "source bias" accusations don't muddy the conversation. However, most of the mainstream ones simply aren't covering it.

“The responsibility that we have as Americans, the recognition that is going to be required of us, of the exploitative and extractive nature that we play on the global scale and the global stage is only going to be challenged if we are getting represented by people who understand that on a fundamental level. And that means getting more immigrants into office. That means getting more people who have heritage in the global south into office because that’s where those decisions are made specifically.”


As the article notes, she's expected to cruise to victor in that district in Colorado after being the 15 term incumbent in the primary.

She's also tight with the Hasan Piker (who many on here have claimed they've never heard of, but he seems to be playing kingmaker for DSA candidates in primaries, he's quickly becoming the leftist version of Bannon...the same guy who just showed up at a college speech literally dressed as Chairman Mao...that's not an exaggeration)


A couple different aspects to discuss.

Could her words be reasonably construed as "We need more people who hate America, to have political leadership positions in America"? When you break down what she's saying "America is exploitative and evil, and we need people from the global south who agree with my viewpoint on that to be in elected positions"

The other aspect, is all of this DSA nonsense going to backfire in 2028? While this kind of stuff may be popular in isolated very deep blue areas in some cities, is it going to have appeal beyond that?

For the Midwest in particular (which is where I live), I don't personally know any Democrats (apart from maybe my one cousin and the kids over at Oberlin who just take the furthest left position on everything for the sake of doing so lol) who would be even remotely enthused with the notion of "we need more people who think America is terrible in elected positions so they can help us tear it all down"

I'll try to find a more objective source discussing it, but there's video of her saying it, so the statement shouldn't be in dispute regardless of the NY Post "pro-Zionism" editorializing.

Click to expand...

And we all know with certainty that the DSA doesn't, and would never, fraternize with the Communist Party of China. So they can be fully trusted to be fair and fully humanitarian in promoting their socialist advocacy for this or that political cause within U.S. politics.

ThatRobGuy said:

But as I noted to the other poster, there's a difference between curbing excesses and trying to right perceived wrongs vs. trying to change everything about it.

Click to expand...

Make that argument to the drill sergeant.

The DSA are not "trying to change everything about" the US. They're trying to change what they believe are bad parts.

I do find it interesting that these "hating the US" charges are never levied at the right, despite the right constantly decrying what they perceive to be problems with the country that, by their telling, are much, much larger than anything the left alleges. Their take on abortion, for example, is that, over the last 50 years, the US has been guilty of committing the largest genocide in human history. If we rank genocides by the speed of killings, then 1-1.6 million "murders" a year would put the US below Hitler, above Rwanda, and roughly tied with Pol Pot. Stalin's kill rate is muddied by disagreements over whether the holodomor was intentional. Either way, we're in contention for a podium spot. If we go by total killed, then we're far and away the leader.

If we accept their take on sexual ethics, then, by becoming more accepting of the LGBTQ community, we've been undermining the very fabric of the family and human society.

That's not my hyperbolic spin on their positions. That's literally their position. Who on the left goes that far?

The current push on the right is to redefine "America" and "American" to be centered around birthright nationalism rather than creedal nationalism.

Fixing our country's economic system to be less exploitive of the global poor is not "trying to change everything about" the US, but dismantling our spirit of creedal nationalism is. That's the single most unique thing about our country.

ThatRobGuy said:

Anti-Israel, Gen Z socialist who ousted 15-term Colorado incumbent calls for ‘more immigrants into office’

The anti-Israel Gen-Z socialist who ousted 15-term Colorado rep Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) has called for more immigrants to be elected into office as part of a “reckoning” with the global…

nypost.com

Apologies for the slanted framing in this article... NY Post isn't my first choice for linked sources, typically I tried to find things from more neutral or left-wing sources so that "source bias" accusations don't muddy the conversation. However, most of the mainstream ones simply aren't covering it.

“The responsibility that we have as Americans, the recognition that is going to be required of us, of the exploitative and extractive nature that we play on the global scale and the global stage is only going to be challenged if we are getting represented by people who understand that on a fundamental level. And that means getting more immigrants into office. That means getting more people who have heritage in the global south into office because that’s where those decisions are made specifically.”


As the article notes, she's expected to cruise to victor in that district in Colorado after being the 15 term incumbent in the primary.

She's also tight with the Hasan Piker (who many on here have claimed they've never heard of, but he seems to be playing kingmaker for DSA candidates in primaries, he's quickly becoming the leftist version of Bannon...the same guy who just showed up at a college speech literally dressed as Chairman Mao...that's not an exaggeration)


A couple different aspects to discuss.

Could her words be reasonably construed as "We need more people who hate America, to have political leadership positions in America"?

Click to expand...

No. The word hate does not occur in the referenced article. If you have read it somewhere else, quote that, is it in the video, give a timestamp.

ThatRobGuy said:

When you break down what she's saying "America is exploitative and evil, and we need people from the global south who agree with my viewpoint on that to be in elected positions"

Click to expand...

This quote doesn't occur in the article you reference. Why do you put in quotes if it is your paraphrase? Is this not considered bad referencing, when you learn to reference something? Where does it come from, is it you paraphrasing?

ThatRobGuy said:

The other aspect, is all of this DSA nonsense going to backfire in 2028? While this kind of stuff may be popular in isolated very deep blue areas in some cities, is it going to have appeal beyond that?

For the Midwest in particular (which is where I live), I don't personally know any Democrats (apart from maybe my one cousin and the kids over at Oberlin who just take the furthest left position on everything for the sake of doing so lol) who would be even remotely enthused with the notion of "we need more people who think America is terrible in elected positions so they can help us tear it all down"

I'll try to find a more objective source discussing it, but there's video of her saying it, so the statement shouldn't be in dispute regardless of the NY Post "pro-Zionism" editorializing.

Click to expand...

iluvatar5150 said:

Make that argument to the drill sergeant.

The DSA are not "trying to change everything about" the US. They're trying to change what they believe are bad parts.

I do find it interesting that these "hating the US" charges are never levied at the right, despite the right constantly decrying what they perceive to be problems with the country that, by their telling, are much, much larger than anything the left alleges. Their take on abortion, for example, is that, over the last 50 years, the US has been guilty of committing the largest genocide in human history. If we rank genocides by the speed of killings, then 1-1.6 million "murders" a year would put the US below Hitler, above Rwanda, and roughly tied with Pol Pot. Stalin's kill rate is muddied by disagreements over whether the holodomor was intentional. Either way, we're in contention for a podium spot. If we go by total killed, then we're far and away the leader.

If we accept their take on sexual ethics, then, by becoming more accepting of the LGBTQ community, we've been undermining the very fabric of the family and human society.

That's not my hyperbolic spin on their positions. That's literally their position. Who on the left goes that far?

The current push on the right is to redefine "America" and "American" to be centered around birthright nationalism rather than creedal nationalism.

Fixing our country's economic system to be less exploitive of the global poor is not "trying to change everything about" the US, but dismantling our spirit of creedal nationalism is. That's the single most unique thing about our country.

Click to expand...

Oh, I don't know about that. If we were to look at Russian stats from the time of Lenin to Gorbachev, and if we add in Russian abortions to the pogroms, executions, and persecutions, I'd say that "former" **cough** Soviet Russia has had a good historical lead over just about everyone else.

2PhiloVoid said:

And we all know with certainty that the DSA doesn't, and would never, fraternize with the Communist Party of China. So they can be fully trusted to be fair and fully humanitarian in promoting their socialist advocacy for this or that political cause within U.S. politics.

Click to expand...

The people’s front of Judaea would never associate with the Judean people’s front

Melat Kiros.
Who cares what she says...she's young and cute. (She's got that AOC thing going on.) As far as getting elected, that's much more important than the rationality of her claims.