Nina Turner for Congress

[Hestia]

28 minutes ago, Patine said:

If big money from donors and lobby groups and PAC advertising and and other such blatant corruption and graft weren't such a powerful and minimally restricted element on American electoral politics, these claims wouldn't come up so often, because they wouldn't be credible. The disproportionate power big corporations and moneyed special interest groups have on the U.S. electoral process, that arguably far eclipses the voters and even candidates in a fair number of case does need to dealt with. It is nothing short of a form of institutional high corruption, and calls the whole American electoral process into question, and causes candidates elected to be beholden to their donors, even acting against their constituents  - and gives credence to the, "I was outspent cry," because it's so credible, in reality.

But it isnt unfair because it is allowed. Have a problem? Legislate that away. I agree, this kind of spending needs to go away. But until that changes, one doesnt need to cry about losing when they also partake in the same (even if to a lesser degree).

[Hestia]

14 minutes ago, The Blood said:

I think Nina should've conceded gracefully instead of making a show of it like she did last night, but I do think you have the right to point it out when a race is massively influenced by millions of dollars in outside spending, both from establishment donors/groups and donors from the opposing party. Nina ran her race and lost, but there was a clear mobilization of outside resources to take Brown from barely being a competitor to beating Nina which should be recognized.

You do have that right, but not in a concession speech. At that point you are a sore loser. Sure Brown did get outside help. But so did Nina, so why does she cry foul only when the other side does it? Only because she lost.

[Hestia]

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

"Legal," and, "fair," are completely different concepts. Please, don't be so naive and foolish as to conflate them.

Please don't be so foolish as to call me foolish if you want to have a rational conversation. The definition of "fair" in an election very different than "fair" in a general sense. If you can't realize that, then maybe you're the one that's naïve. 

[The Blood]

3 minutes ago, Hestia said:

You do have that right, but not in a concession speech. At that point you are a sore loser. Sure Brown did get outside help. But so did Nina, so why does she cry foul only when the other side does it? Only because she lost.

Nina got outside help from progressive politicians and Our Revolution. Brown had ad buys supporting her bid reaching into the 7-figures collectively off the backs of Republican donors. The two are not comparable, and it's a false equivalency which allows for people to simply pretend as though there was not a clear mobilization of funding from very questionable sources to support one candidate.

[Hestia]

Just now, The Blood said:

Nina got outside help from progressive politicians and Our Revolution. Brown had ad buys supporting her bid reaching into the 7-figures collectively off the backs of Republican donors. The two are not comparable, and it's a false equivalency which allows for people to simply pretend as though there was not a clear mobilization of funding from very questionable sources to support one candidate.

Republican donors donating to Democratic Majority For Israel's PAC. That's pretty important to note - it's not like they were directly giving to her (though some were in smaller margins). They may or may not have known where that money was going to go. If you're going to complain about the way it is run, then you're going to have to run a pretty clean campaign yourself. If you pierce that, then you've lost all credibility. Turner received a fair amount of her own PAC money, which pierces that argument she can make.

[The Blood]

1 minute ago, Hestia said:

Republican donors donating to Democratic Majority For Israel's PAC. That's pretty important to note - it's not like they were directly giving to her (though some were in smaller margins). They may or may not have known where that money was going to go. If you're going to complain about the way it is run, then you're going to have to run a pretty clean campaign yourself. If you pierce that, then you've lost all credibility. Turner received a fair amount of her own PAC money, which pierces that argument she can make.

So you believe that Republican donors rallied around the DMFI PAC during this primary with no expectations that money would be used in a race gathering nationwide attention which the DMFI was involving itself in? Also, yes, there were certain PACs supporting Nina, but giving a broad, "There's a few PACs which supported her, argument disproven." is, well, a dumb point. Because my argument is that Brown received millions of dollars in support from establishment and Republican donors, not that Nina had zero PACs supporting her. And it's not as though this was Brown being slightly uplifted by outside money, she was far behind Nina by all accounts before the money started pouring in and made her a competitor. This race was heavily influenced by donor money flowing through PACs, most notably the DMFI, to support Brown. Plain and simple, and we need to point that out, because one of the first steps towards electing more progressives is reforming the system and blocking out donor mobilization like this through PACs, like you mentioned you supported.

[Hestia]

1 minute ago, The Blood said:

So you believe that Republican donors rallied around the DMFI PAC during this primary with no expectations that money would be used in a race gathering nationwide attention which the DMFI was involving itself in? Also, yes, there were certain PACs supporting Nina, but giving a broad, "There's a few PACs which supported her, argument disproven." is, well, a dumb point. Because my argument is that Brown received millions of dollars in support from establishment and Republican donors, not that Nina had zero PACs supporting her. And it's not as though this was Brown being slightly uplifted by outside money, she was far behind Nina by all accounts before the money started pouring in and made her a competitor. This race was heavily influenced by donor money flowing through PACs, most notably the DMFI, to support Brown. Plain and simple, and we need to point that out, because one of the first steps towards electing more progressives is reforming the system and blocking out donor mobilization like this through PACs, like you mentioned you supported.

Yes, I do support and *other people* can criticize it, but not Nina herself. If she's getting bankrolled by the same things that she's critiquing, then how is she really credible? Is it only okay because the PACs she's getting from are "okay" to progressives? DMFI isn't a progressive PAC, therefore = bad? 

The money is an important factor yes, but it's not as though it's the only thing that boosted Brown. She got Clyburn to come in, as well as other members of the CBC. They surely boosted her as well. It's not like she procured that money out of thin air, she had to prove she was viable first. 

[The Blood]

15 minutes ago, Hestia said:

Yes, I do support and *other people* can criticize it, but not Nina herself. If she's getting bankrolled by the same things that she's critiquing, then how is she really credible? Is it only okay because the PACs she's getting from are "okay" to progressives? DMFI isn't a progressive PAC, therefore = bad? 

The money is an important factor yes, but it's not as though it's the only thing that boosted Brown. She got Clyburn to come in, as well as other members of the CBC. They surely boosted her as well. It's not like she procured that money out of thin air, she had to prove she was viable first. 

No, Brown did not have to "prove she was viable". She was well behind Turner from day one, she was only tapped as the main candidate for this outside funding because she was the only contender remotely close to Turner in the race. Is that "viability", or is it a mobilization of funding to try and uplift a candidate well behind the main progressive frontrunner?

I do believe Brown would've seen a substantive boost from the endorsements she received without any outside support, but the issue in this conversation is you're trying desperately to obfuscate the fact that Turner was the target of mass spending from outside PACs and donors. And while she did receive support from PACs in her own corner, there was not a mass-mobilization of Republican and establishment funding to support her bid. So yes, the PAC money Turner received was better than the money Brown received in aid, even if I think candidates should swear off that type of support. I will not treat the funding they received as equal in harm, because it wasn't in any way, shape, or form. You're just trying to act like it was so you can dab on progressives and continue to downplay what clearly happened during this primary. 

Edited August 4, 2021 by The Blood

[Hestia]

1 minute ago, The Blood said:

No, Brown did not have to "prove she was viable". She was well behind Turner from day one, she was only tapped as the main candidate for this outside funding because she was the only contender remotely close to Turner in the race. Is that "viability", or is it a mobilization of funding to try and uplift a candidate well behind the main progressive frontrunner?

I do believe Brown would've seen a substantive boost from the endorsements she received without any outside support, but the issue in this conversation is you're trying desperately to obfuscate the fact that Turner was the target of mass spending from outside PACs and donors. And while she did receive support from PACs in her own corner, there was not a mass-mobilization of Republican and establishment funding to support her bid. So yes, the PAC money Turner received was better than the money Brown received in aid, even if I think candidates should swear off that type of support. I will not treat the funding they received as equal in harm, because it wasn't in any way shape or form. You're just trying to act like it is so you can dab on progressives and continue to downplay what clearly went down during this primary. 

Shontel Brown was the chair of the Cuyahoga County Council, a rather big position. You're acting like she was nothing before this, and somehow they just picked some random lady out of the crowd to run. That's just a lie. 

So establishment funding is bad and progressive money is good? If you want to defend everything Turner did, go ahead and do so because you are. I'm not doing the same thing. Republican money should not be used in Democratic races. But the way campaigns are run now, it can mean going for as much money as you can get, particularly when you're going against an opponent with wide name recognition. 

If you want to cry and complain that a progressive lost and say that all I want to do is "dab on progressives", then there's no reason to continue this conversation, because you're clearly coming from a different place than I am. I am grounding myself in reality and how modern campaigns are run. Maybe rather than complaining about how the campaign is run, maybe Nina should've worked harder on the ground to try and win votes? Because in the end she lost. She had fewer votes. There's half a dozen things she could've done better to win. Blaming it all on the money is stupid and shows the measure of a person. 

There's a reason Turner tanked, and it isn't just because of spending either. She has said and done things that are distasteful to the Democratic Party as a whole - comparing voting for Biden like eating a bowl of shit. It's no wonder she lost. She refused to say whether she voted for Clinton in 2016 - in a county that voted for her by a huge margin. She nearly took the VP spot of the Green Party in 2016. It helps to win a Democratic primary by actually supporting the Democratic Party. If she wanted to win the Democratic primary, maybe she should've hesitated before opening her mouth and slandering not one, but two tops of the Democratic ticket. That creates bad blood. 

[Pringles]

Maybe if people didnt compare voting for the President to eating shit... they might get more money.

 

[The Blood]

24 minutes ago, Hestia said:

Shontel Brown was the chair of the Cuyahoga County Council, a rather big position. You're acting like she was nothing before this, and somehow they just picked some random lady out of the crowd to run. That's just a lie. 

 

Never made the claim that Brown was a nobody and you know it. I simply said that Brown was well behind Turner at the start of this race, and that's a fat fact. Don't claim I'm lying when you know I'm not. 

 

24 minutes ago, Hestia said:

So establishment funding is bad and progressive money is good? If you want to defend everything Turner did, go ahead and do so because you are. I'm not doing the same thing. Republican money should not be used in Democratic races. But the way campaigns are run now, it can mean going for as much money as you can get, particularly when you're going against an opponent with wide name recognition. 

 

No, once again you're misrepresenting my points. I said very clearly that I think candidates should swear off PAC money, but comparing the funding and outside support Nina and Brown received is a useless practice which only works to ignore the substantial establishment and Republican funding Brown was given. I don't care if it's a good campaign strat, there was a massive amount of outside spending brought in to support Brown, and that needs to be recognized as we push back against this type of funding and for campaign finance reform.

 

24 minutes ago, Hestia said:

If you want to cry and complain that a progressive lost and say that all I want to do is "dab on progressives", then there's no reason to continue this conversation, because you're clearly coming from a different place than I am. I am grounding myself in reality and how modern campaigns are run. Maybe rather than complaining about how the campaign is run, maybe Nina should've worked harder on the ground to try and win votes? Because in the end she lost. She had fewer votes. There's half a dozen things she could've done better to win. Blaming it all on the money is stupid and shows the measure of a person. 

 

Yeah, Turner lost. I said this at the beginning of this conversation. She ran her campaign and did not win over enough voters to become the nominee. But we should recognize how outside spending factored into this race, instead of trying to downplay that spending and act as though it did nothing to make Brown a competitor and as though Nina's PAC support was 100% equal in harm. Also, if you're going to start talking about the "measure of a person", perhaps you should just make your insults more to-the-point, because I would really appreciate it if you were just up-front with them.

24 minutes ago, Hestia said:

There's a reason Turner tanked, and it isn't just because of spending either. She has said and done things that are distasteful to the Democratic Party as a whole - comparing voting for Biden like eating a bowl of shit. It's no wonder she lost. She refused to say whether she voted for Clinton in 2016 - in a county that voted for her by a huge margin. She nearly took the VP spot of the Green Party in 2016. It helps to win a Democratic primary by actually supporting the Democratic Party. If she wanted to win the Democratic primary, maybe she should've hesitated before opening her mouth and slandering not one, but two tops of the Democratic ticket. That creates bad blood. 

Yeah, I'm not a fanatical Nina Turner fan, I just supported her as a progressive and someone opposed to Brown. These words and actions from Turner were dumb, and did affect this race. My bone to pick is with the massive outside support her opponent received from questionable sources. I really don't know what I'm supposed to say on this front, except that this behavior was bad.

Edited August 4, 2021 by The Blood

[Hestia]

35 minutes ago, The Blood said:

No, Brown did not have to "prove she was viable".

 

3 minutes ago, The Blood said:

Never made the claim that Brown was a nobody and you know it. I simply said that Brown was well behind Turner at the start of this race, and that's a fat fact. Don't claim I'm lying when you know I'm not. 

 

Brown was viable because she had held other offices in the past of measurable standing.

3 minutes ago, The Blood said:

No, once again you're misrepresenting my points. I said very clearly that I think candidates should swear off PAC money, but comparing the funding and outside support Nina and Brown received is a useless practice which only works to ignore the substantial establishment and Republican funding Brown was given. I don't care if it's a good campaign strat, there was a massive amount of outside spending brought in to support Brown, and that needs to be recognized as we push back against this type of funding and for campaign finance reform.

 

I would completely agree with you here if you left out "substantial establishment funding". It's Democratic money. Whether it's progressive or establishment, does it matter? It's Democratic dollars. If you start saying establishment money is bad in all cases, then that's where I get into the "you're biased" phase.

4 minutes ago, The Blood said:

Yeah, Turner lost. I said this at the beginning of this conversation. She ran her campaign and did not win over enough voters to become the nominee. But we should recognize how outside spending factored into this race, instead of trying to downplay that spending and act as though it did nothing to make Brown a competitor and as though Nina's PAC support was 100% equal in harm. Also, if you're going to start talking about the "measure of a person", perhaps you should just make your insults more to-the-point, because I would really appreciate it if you were just up-front with them.

26 minutes ago, Hestia said:

Nina showed her measure when she blamed it all on the money just after she conceded. She should've ran a better campaign. Be gracious in defeat and in victory. Let others argue the money point, and float above it if you think you have a future in campaigning. 

5 minutes ago, The Blood said:

Yeah, I'm not a fanatical Nina Turner fan, I just supported her as a progressive and someone opposed to Brown. These words and actions from Turner were dumb, and did affect this race. My bone to pick is with the massive outside support her opponent received from questionable sources. I really don't know what I'm supposed to say on this front, except that this behavior was bad.

You can have a bone to pick with the spending, but I am also allowed to have a bone to pick with her actions. Both affected the race. 

[The Blood]

8 minutes ago, Hestia said:

Brown was viable because she had held other offices in the past of measurable standing.

This is such a massive backtrack. You said, word for word, "They surely boosted her as well. It's not like she procured that money out of thin air, she had to prove she was viable first." You gave this argument in the context of what happened in the race, don't retcon things to try and provide some sort of unified consistency to your points.

8 minutes ago, Hestia said:

I would completely agree with you here if you left out "substantial establishment funding". It's Democratic money. Whether it's progressive or establishment, does it matter? It's Democratic dollars. If you start saying establishment money is bad in all cases, then that's where I get into the "you're biased" phase.

Yeah, I am fucking biased. If you're an establishment donor putting yourself out of thousands to back Shontel Brown and block progressive politics, that money is bad, sorry. 

 

8 minutes ago, Hestia said:

Nina showed her measure when she blamed it all on the money just after she conceded. She should've ran a better campaign. Be gracious in defeat and in victory. Let others argue the money point, and float above it if you think you have a future in campaigning. 

I agree. She should've conceded with grace. I agree with this point, and that's why I'm pushing so hard on this issue, because while Nina should've just conceded, there needs to substantive pushback to what happened during this primary.

 

8 minutes ago, Hestia said:

You can have a bone to pick with the spending, but I am also allowed to have a bone to pick with her actions. Both affected the race. 

Okay then, clearly we both have very different priorities and perspectives here, so you have every right to go after Nina regarding those past actions.

[Hestia]

4 minutes ago, The Blood said:

This is such a massive backtrack. You said, word for word, "They surely boosted her as well. It's not like she procured that money out of thin air, she had to prove she was viable first." You gave this argument in the context of what happened in the race, don't retcon things to try and provide some sort of unified consistency to your points.

14 minutes ago, Hestia said:

I can't make a mistake? Yes, I did say that wrong. My real point is a mix of the two. She had experience, but she probably did need to prove to some degree that she could hold up in a race of her own (that was bigger than what she was at right then). It happens to a lot of new candidates. 

 

5 minutes ago, The Blood said:

Yeah, I am fucking biased. If you're an establishment donor putting yourself out of thousands to back Shontel Brown and block progressive politics, that money is bad, sorry. 

 

First of all, no need to curse at me. If you want to have subtle digs at me and try to accuse me of misrepresenting what I'm saying, then there's no reason to shoot your point to death by cursing at me. And if you think all establishment money is bad and all progressive money is good, then really, you're the one that needs to sort out what your position is. Because that's contradictory to your entire point that money, regardless of who it came from, is bad. 

That's like saying, oh money is only okay to be spent in the general election if Democrats do it, but if Republicans do it, then it's bad. It's the exact same thing. 

[The Blood]

22 minutes ago, Hestia said:

I can't make a mistake? Yes, I did say that wrong. My real point is a mix of the two. She had experience, but she probably did need to prove to some degree that she could hold up in a race of her own (that was bigger than what she was at right then). It happens to a lot of new candidates. 

 

Okay then, that's a more respectable position. I still stand by my point that Brown was tapped for funding because she was the only candidate remotely close to Turner, despite being far behind her, and that her campaign was heavily aided in its growth via PAC support.

 

22 minutes ago, Hestia said:

First of all, no need to curse at me. If you want to have subtle digs at me and try to accuse me of misrepresenting what I'm saying, then there's no reason to shoot your point to death by cursing at me. And if you think all establishment money is bad and all progressive money is good, then really, you're the one that needs to sort out what your position is. Because that's contradictory to your entire point that money, regardless of who it came from, is bad. 

That's like saying, oh money is only okay to be spent in the general election if Democrats do it, but if Republicans do it, then it's bad. It's the exact same thing. 

As I said, I oppose candidates accepting PAC support. Progressive or establishment. But there is a substantial difference between the support Nina and Brown received, a difference which should be recognized. Things can vary in badness and severity. I have some things I need to do, but I hope I have made my points substantively, and I already said this to you on Discord, but sorry if I came off as too heated in this discussion. 

Edited August 4, 2021 by The Blood

[Hestia]

1 minute ago, The Blood said:

Okay then, that's a more respectable position. I still stand by my point that Brown was tapped for funding because she was the only candidate remotely close to Turner, despite being far behind her, and that her campaign was heavily aided in its growth via PAC support.

 

Oh naturally. She was the highest polling moderate candidate, so she got that money. Same as Turner was the highest polling progressive candidate, so she received that money. It's the nature of the beast. 

[Dobs]

9 minutes ago, Patine said:

I'm so sorry, @Dobs and @Pringles, that you, too, are fooled into believing the Modern American and American-political-orbit Progressive Movement is mostly the same as Socialism, despite their being enemies of labour and workers' rights laws, under heavy corporate and donor influence, massive utlilizers of media sensationalism in a very capitalistic sense, and strong demographic divisive thinkers - basically opposed to, by action, strong bedrock pillars of Socialism as an ideology. I think it's time to actually look up Socialism actually MEANS - and not be told what it means by disingenuous and manipulative Conservative talking heads (who, themselves, are not REALLY that Conservative by definition - but that's for a different post) and just as disingenuous and manipulative self-labelling. As I said, judge by the fruit of the tree, not the tag the orchard puts on it.

k

[Dobs]

Just now, Patine said:

This is, I assume, just a dismissive brush-off, but that you will continue to believe as you've been misinstructed and deceived to believe, and consider all I've said to show not even the slightest bit of food for thought to question the validity of long-held ideals, and that self-labelling and common parlance labelling are tantamount to one's ideology, and more real research and insight into the topic is not, or ever necessary. Would I be correct here?

Yes

[Dobs]

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

You disappoint me. A true Paleoconservative in many ways - complete with the REAL Paleoconservatives' tendency toward aversion to scholarship and learning outside certain approved channels and discouragement of questioning the declarations of their, "honoured and respected leadership," in terms of how things are stated and labelled. Which is why the more adaptive and innovative abilities of the Neoconservatives got the upper hand, even if they betrayed and opposed so very many precepts of being Conservatives (like Modern American Progressives do to any claim of being Socialists - but like the Neoconservatives to the Paleoconservatives, have more real appeal and political survivability, if far less genuinity).

Saying I have an aversion to scholarship is probably your creme de la creme in the chess world in a show with everything but Yul Brynner.

[Dobs]

Just now, Patine said:

That's such a hashed-up reference, I'm not even quite sure what you're trying to say, there.

It's a direct quote from Murray Head's "One Night in Bangkok". Not hashed-up in any way.

It means that I don't think it's possible for you to top that as today's winner of "Patine's Most Outlandish Comment"

[Dobs]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

I only brought it up because you refused to even consider the definition of, "Socialism," you'd been trucking around all of this time just might be inaccurate (it is, in quite a few areas), and you pretty much admitted you had no intention to take me up on the challenge of doing real research on the topic, especially given the way you were speaking on the matter with a sense of authority and certainty. That's really what generated that quote.

Socialism is when the government seizes the means of productions in one sector or another.

Both Nina Turner and Bernie Sanders have in one way or another supported or advanced this school of thought in America. The concept that the government can better run the economy than the American people can.

I understand that you want to shut your eyes and close your ears to the growing influence of Socialism in the United States as compared to 70, 40, 20, and even 10 years ago, but I don't. And I really don't have to entertain your stone-walling when it comes to things I know to be true.

[Dobs]

5 minutes ago, Patine said:

This is VERY broad definition that encompasses many forms of Government, here, including Modern American Progressivism and Socialism yes, but also Communism, Military Dictatorship, Colony and Colonial Protectorate, Absolute Monarchy, Feudalism, Fascism, "Banana Republic," Kleptocracy, Party-of-Power State, Constitutional-Republic-Parliamentary-Monarchy-During-Wartime-or-a-State-of-Emergency, most Theocracies, etc., etc., etc. And, this is only one small facet of what defines a form of government. Both Modern American Progressivism and Socialism, and all these other Government types, are also defined differently and more narrowly from each other, and in those regards, differ immensely - including Modern American Progressivism and Socialism from each other.

This is governing, not government class. 

[Timur]

The DNC did not want Bernie Sanders to be the nominee, so they used questionable tactics. This is a different situation.

[Timur]

6 hours ago, The Blood said:

So you believe that Republican donors rallied around the DMFI PAC during this primary with no expectations that money would be used in a race gathering nationwide attention which the DMFI was involving itself in? Also, yes, there were certain PACs supporting Nina, but giving a broad, "There's a few PACs which supported her, argument disproven." is, well, a dumb point. Because my argument is that Brown received millions of dollars in support from establishment and Republican donors, not that Nina had zero PACs supporting her. And it's not as though this was Brown being slightly uplifted by outside money, she was far behind Nina by all accounts before the money started pouring in and made her a competitor. This race was heavily influenced by donor money flowing through PACs, most notably the DMFI, to support Brown. Plain and simple, and we need to point that out, because one of the first steps towards electing more progressives is reforming the system and blocking out donor mobilization like this through PACs, like you mentioned you supported.

I do think there should be a limit on money being spent on elections. Too much is being spent, IMO...

[Timur]

Don't forget that Marcia Fudge's mom endorsed Brown...