DNC candidate for chair says her job will be to "shut other

>>103117
If she's so knowledgeable and understanding about her own white privilege, why doesn't she stand down and let those three African-Americans and the Hispanic candidate have a better chance of winning?

Or is she just more concerned with winning so she can parade about as a "White Woman Who Feels Bad."

nobody challenges her because nobody fucking knows who she is

Ms. NOT Brown is supposed to be a serious candidate for DNC chair? Total hypocrite by the way. Sad!

>>103131
No, it's a contest between Congressman Keith Ellison and former Obama labor secretary Tom Perez. This lady doesn't have a chance in hell, and Tucker Carlson knows that, but it helps his clickbait agenda to print articles that suggest otherwise on The Faily Baller.

>>103148
Neither of them are much better. Despite being left of center and someone who voted for Obama twice I'll never vote for another Democrat ever again.

>>103117
>It's scary how no one challenges her when she says this

Did you watch the video?

I'm not sure what is unacceptable about her statement when presented in context.

>>103117
So are the Democrats officially the party of white guilt now

>>103205
They've been that for a while, they've just stopped trying to hide it at this point.

Looks like Republicans are getting 8 more years

>>103180
>I'm not sure what is unacceptable about her statement when presented in context.

The fact that no matter what the context is, saying that sort of shit is why the dems lost the election and you have to be insane if you think the appropriate response to a failure is "Shit, let's double down!"

>>103122
Nobody knows who she is because she's just some random lady who decided to run for DNC chair. She was never a serious candidate.

>>103176
>I'll never vote for another Democrat ever again.
Then you aren't a democrat. Considering how this race is for DNC chairperson then only democrats should be voting for other democrats.

>>103205
One nobody candidate for DNC chairperson does not represent the entire DNC, no matter how much the Daily Caller hacks wish they did.

>>103491
That's what Karl Rove said in 2007.

>>103504
>saying that sort of shit is why the dems lost the election
The dems didn't lose the election, they lost the electoral college.

>>103517
>for free

>>103517
>The dems didn't lose the election, they lost the electoral college.
You need to re read that, and check who is in the Whitehouse. Popular vote, not election.

>>103534
No U. The general election is a popularity contest. The electoral college vote is the one which matters.

>>103117
and people wonder why trump won

>>103568
which people wonder?

>>103120
The latter, obviously. That is what fuels 99% of all outspoken willingness to help the "underprivileged" "minorities"

>>103517
>Then you aren't a democrat. Considering how this race is for DNC chairperson then only democrats should be voting for other democrats.

Oh I know I'm not. I'm proud of my ex-democrat status at this point.

>One nobody candidate for DNC chairperson does not represent the entire DNC, no matter how much the Daily Caller hacks wish they did.

OK, let's talk about none of these people admitting what the DNC did to Sanders as a bad thing that needs to change. Let's talk about them being unabashed corporate talking heads, many of whom were closely involved with Clinton's campaign. Let's talk about the fact that none of these people had anything to say to this woman when she went off on this self-loathing spiel. Let's talk about the DNC constantly buddying up to people like Lena Dunham, Van Jones, Symone Sanders and BLM extremists?

This is your party now. It's nothing but corporate whores and anti-white ideologues.

>>103989
Don't forget tranny worshipers

>>103989
>OK, let's talk about none of these people admitting what the DNC did to Sanders as a bad thing that needs to change.
The DNC didn't do to Sanders what you think they did. Opposition research was always a thing. Traditionally it isn't exposed to the press by phishing attacks.
>Let's talk about them being unabashed corporate talking heads, many of whom were closely involved with Clinton's campaign.
I think that's hilarious in light of Trump's Goldman Sachs cabinet and how Robert Mercer was the money behind Trump's campaign.
>Let's talk about the fact that none of these people had anything to say to this woman when she went off on this self-loathing spiel.
That's because the DNC is the party of tolerance and respect. lol they tolerated her.
>Let's talk about the DNC constantly buddying up to people like Lena Dunham, Van Jones, Symone Sanders and BLM extremists?
Oh wow, let's go through these one by one.
>Lena Dunham
So it's okay when Trump pals around with Jon Voight and Kelsey Grammar though, right?
>Van Jones
I remember back when he was just a Glenn Beck boogeyman. Boy he's come a long way for you to give him so much credit.
>Symone Sanders
literally who?
>BLM extremists
BLM is just a hashtag. Anybody can respond to a hashtag just like anyone can show up at a BLM march, including black bloc anarchists and false flaggers.

>This is your party now.
This is the majority party in America now, and they don't have any power. Good luck in the coming civil war!
>It's nothing but corporate whores and anti-white ideologues.

>>104071
The Clinton campaign and the DNC did a lot more than just simple opposition research. The amount of pull it had with the media is enough to doubt your assertion.

The Trump administration being a corporate whore does not mean leading democrats are not the same. Take a look at who the largest donors to the Clinton campaign were if you think otherwise. They hedge their bets with both parties. One being corrupt does not mean the other isn't.

No, your party is not one of tolerance or respect. They didn't say anything to Boynton because they're complicit in the kind of racist self-loathing she's exhibiting for a pandered vote. They agree with her. If she had said something for which they disagreed we would have heard that, but we didn't. Stop spouting such simple-minded platitudes. Your party is as hateful as its idea of the opposition.

I don't remember Jon Voight or Kelsey Grammar voicing their glee at the idea of an entire demographics extinction. Dunham did and yet she's still a democratic darling.

Van Jones is symptomatic of the democratic view that their failure wasn't due to their own poor behavior, but because whites are just racist and had a backlash.

Symone Sanders was press secretary for the Sanders campaign and is now a DNC strategist. She's the one of "poor white people," fame when videos of attacks on Trump supporters started surfacing. She's also the one who suddenly grew apprehension at what she was framing as a flippant use of the hatecrime term in reference to the Chicago kidnapping.

BLM is a hashtag. It's also a group that does nothing to expel its extremists. It's a group that has successfully shut down other groups marches while excluding others (see Pride Toronto), condemns other groups working to heal divides, and hijacks other platforms for its own racist arguments. It's one of those nebulous groups with no bar for membership that hypocritically takes credit for all the good associated with it, but tries to reject all the bad.

>>104071
Also, if the US were to have a civil war right now it would almost certainly go the same way the Spanish one did. After watching Occupy eat itself, I'm more than certain of that.

>>104095
>The amount of pull it had with the media is .
And the guy that ran Breitbart is now the White House Chief of Staff so what's your point?
>The Trump administration being a corporate whore does not mean leading democrats are not
No it means the Trump administration aren't just whores, they're the actual corporations like Goldman Sachs and Exxon and Hardies.
>Take a look at who the largest donors to the Clinton campaign were
We only see the public donations and not the 501(C)4s
>They hedge their bets with both parties.
They favor the right wing much more so than the left.
>One being corrupt does not mean the other isn't.
It doesn't mean either that or the opposite, that one is much more corrupt than the other, actually.
>I don't remember Jon Voight or Kelsey Grammar voicing their glee at the idea of an entire demographics extinction.
I don't remember anyone doing that, much less the lady in OPs post whose opinion literally doesn't matter to anyone but herself and maybe her immediate relatives.
>Dunham did and yet she's still a democratic darling.
So what? Shall I name any one of a hundred conservative celebrity demagogues? You say the donors are equal but try to claim the celebrity windbags aren't. Very interesting.
>Van Jones is symptomatic of the democratic view that their failure wasn't due to their own poor behavior, but because whites are just racist and had a backlash.
Since you keep bringing race up, let's put Richard Spencer's name in the place of Van Jones and change the word failure to victory.
>Symone Sanders was press secretary for the Sanders campaign and is now a DNC strategist. She's the one of "poor white people," fame when videos of attacks on Trump supporters started surfacing. She's also the one who suddenly grew apprehension at what she was framing as a flippant use of the hatecrime term in reference to the Chicago kidnapping.
So it's another token extremist liberal meant to misrepresent all other liberals as that extreme. Got it.

>>104098
>the guy that ran Breitbart is now the White House Chief of Staff
He's the White House Chief Strategist, not the Chief of Staff. That's Reince Priebus.

>>104098
This argumentative style and format is a fucking eyesore and a chore to read. Learn how to form a semi-coherent argument please.

You aren't giving me any reasons to turn a blind eye to Democratic corruption. You're just repeating the whataboutism of GOP crimes. The democrats might not be turning tricks on the corner for corporate interests like the GOP, but they're still whores for it all the same. Here's the thing though, if the Democrats bring this sort of nauseating self-loathing to the table with their corporate corruption, what draw they have over the other party of corruption? "We're slightly less corrupt than those guys and we'll tell you to shut up if you're white," is not going to win jack or shit.

There's a difference between a celebrity windbag being a political partisan like so many are, and being a political partisan that unironically celebrates the idea of extinguishing certain demographics. Dunham did exactly that. https://twitter.com/lenadunham/status/793929098926166016?lang=en

Richard Spencer is a fruitcake that can't speak on a street corner without getting clocked in the face. Van Jones is someone with power, taken seriously by his peers, and has a platform on numerous TV networks to say what he likes. The existence of extremists on the Right does not absolve you of the extremists you have and cultivate.

Symone Sanders was press secretary to a candidacy that was in serious contention for the Democratic nomination and she still has a wide reaching platform for her ideas both in the press and within the DNC.

You can make up all the excuses you want, you can throw yourself through all the mental gymnastics you want, you can deflect to the opposition all you want, none of it is going to matter. I as a center-left person will never give this party my patronage and support ever again, not while it looks, thinks, and acts exactly like this.

>>104109
I think your first mistake was thinking I was trying to convince you of something. All I was doing was fact checking some of your false assertions, thus the argumentative style. I strongly believe that you are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. Have fun voting for Jill Stein!

>>104114
Point to the facts I made up. Tell me how the DNC isn't corrupt and validating its own corporate sympathies based on the answers every candidate for DNC chair gave. Tell me how it's not playing an incendiary game of identity politics given the repeated support to hateful extremists and the very sentiment that this thread is focused on.

I'm not going to sell my fucking soul to a gaggle of corporate racists to spite another group of the same. I'm not voting for the GOP or the Democrats until either changes. Given the outcome of this debate, I feel safe saying that's not going to happen anytime soon. If voting for retards like Jill Stein is the only recourse available, then so be it.

>>104123
Because you're framing all your "facts" about the DNC and liberals in general as though you get news from judicialwatch and WND.com. That's why I doubted you were center left as you claim in the first place.

>>104126
So you're arguing merit of point based on the identity of the person speaking and not the arguments themselves?

Did I make any excuses for the GOP? Did I start praying to the almighty free market? Did I post any links to fringe publications? No. I linked to Dunham's own words on Twitter. I quoted Symone's own words for which you can find video corroborating their veracity. I'm referencing the answers given by the candidates for DNC chair to the questions they were asked during this debate.

Perhaps you should be more concerned with being critical of your own side's negatives rather than worrying about the identity of those criticizing.

Fuck the Democrats, I'm never voting for these faggots ever again.

Go blow your white guilt all over the pavement and spare everyone the misery already.

>>104132
No what I'm saying is that I have my doubts that if you were genuinely center left, that you would be regurgitating right wing media talking points about Lena Dunham and what the DNC supposedly did to Bernie, etc. 4chan has been plagued with roleplayers for more than a decade though so it's not something I'm unaccustomed to.

>>104137
I'd bet money that you aren't even 100% white.

>>104142
Yeah, white people in the US are like Unicorns now, right?

Kill yourself sport

>>104145
I'm white as fuck and I vote democrat. Seethe some more so I can fap.

>>104146
Sorry about your raging mental illnesses

Get well soon

>>104147
If you don't have a mental illness then what in the name of samhain are you doing posting on 4chan?

>>104142
Just because rightwing lackeys are discussing it doesn't mean they don't have a point. Again, don't fight arguments based on the identity of who's speaking, fight them on their own basis. This is part of the reason I've abandoned the democrats. Instead of good ideas vs bad ideas they've adopted the stance of our ideas vs their ideas.

Also, the palpable white guilt they perpetuate is off putting even to people who aren't white. Such intense self-loathing is an ugly trait no matter who has it.

>>104146
Then you're voting against your own interests in the same way certain minorities vote against theirs with the GOP.

>>104165
>Then you're voting against your own interests
That's ridiculous. For that to be true so would the reciprocal argument about republicans, which is even more ridiculous.

>>104167
I just said the reciprocal. It's a case by case basis, but for the most part on party lines the GOP stands for policies that hurt some minorities where voting for them is counter to the self interests of those people.

Same thing for the Democrats. Again, not a universal standard, but as a generalized rule and when following party lines voting for a democrat as a white person, especially male, is voting against your own self interests.

Both parties are inherently plagued by identity politics, only the democrats seem to have an official system for tallying where and how people fall into their axis.

>>104169
Those are your own personal rules, well not really because they're very similar to many on /pol/ and elsewhere. But it isn't one the general public follows. For as much as republican rhetoric still references dead segregationist DNC bigwigs like Robert Byrd Jr. and touts itself being the party of Lincoln, you'd think they would want people to forget if what you're saying was true.

>>104175
Republicans playing the "party of Lincoln," spiel is just PR really. Nobody believes it, everyone knows it's bullshit, even the people who wield it as a rhetorical device to call into question GOP hypocrisy or racism they're complicit in.

It's not really that hard a rule or one that only /pol/tards subscribe to. Voting for people who so transparently disregard your well-being is voting against your self interests. Again, it's not a universal rule, but it's a safe generalization to start with whenever you're dealing with a democrat or republican politician.

>>104176
>Nobody believes it, everyone knows it's bullshit
Because "everyone" believes the racists switched parties lmao

The terrorists were always the democrats and it hasn't changed. They used to lynch, now they publicly shame.

>>103117
fortunately this mindset won't be as rampant and obvious in the 20's. People, and the DNC are starting to realize it's hypocritical shit like this is what got Trump into power, and even liberals are seeing white women being the ones who will constantly try and act like victims and shit on white people in general.

I've been hearing some of the die hard liberal classmates in college talk shit about all the white girls at the womens march last week. Liberals are eating themselves alive, and everyone is seeing the hypocrisy of white women shitting on other white women.

Don't get upset people, these types won't last until the next election.

>>104237
white women shitting on other white people**

>>103117

sounds racist

> DNC stands for racism these days

>>103517
>dems didn't lose the election
Wrong.