The Next DNC Chair: TOM PEREZ WINS, makes Ellison deputy chair

[Intell]

Dean would be good, fyck everyone who says otherwise. Can you find something to say Keith elision to be 'anti-semitic' or do you spout rubbish off your mouth.

[Intell]

If Ernst is going to go on an anti-Semitic rant again, which is to be expected, could I at least not be forced to see his posts because he is a moderator here?

Nothing he posted is anti-Semitic. I'm sick of accusations of anti-Semitism being used to shut down debate about Israel.

What you are sick of, Mr Privilege, is wholly irrelevant to me and the entire world. If it were up to people like you, black people would still not be allowed to sit in front of the bus.

I'm sorry but Israeli people, aren't the one's denied their own right to national sovereignty, nationality, and equality. The Israeli government under Likuid, is racist against the Palestinian people, and not ashamed to admit it.

Palestinian people, have considerably less power than the Israeli defence forces, and as a result, the Israeli governments policy and the expansion of Israeli Territory to Palestine is also godawful, displacing Palestinian people that lived there beforehand. The Israeli government has the vast amount of power, and is not afraid to use that power for the suppression of the Palestinian people.

With this, I remain a believer in the concept of the Jewish, Israeli state, but it should've been socialist, actual egalitarian socialism (mapam), and Israel wouldn't be as such segregated and discriminatory to the Palestinian People.

[Intell]

With this, I remain a believer in the concept of the Jewish, Israeli state, but it should've been socialist, actual egalitarian socialism (mapam), and Israel wouldn't be as such segregated and discriminatory to the Palestinian People.

(Ignoring the normal, ugly, Israel vs Palestinians arguments in this thread)

I understand your point of view as a Socialist, but Mapam was at times a low point for Israeli democracy (though the current government is trying really hard to compete). Their almost absolute power harmed the freedom of speech and created a nest of corruption and discrimination towards Jewish immigrants from Muslim countries. In the end, their slight authoritainism sewed the seeds of some characteristics of current Israeli society that I dislike, like the sanctifying of the army and anything related to it, the corrupt primaries in the major parties, that are controlled by special interest groups, and some generally corrupt and disfunctional systems (like the Broadcasting Authority and the main labour unions).

They were the only one's that had Palestinian members, had a policy for co-existence, and didn't support the expulsion of Palestinian from their lands, causing the problems they had, a lot of which Mapai did or didn't support. I believe if Mapam had been elected, Israel and Palestine would've been a been a better place, though more soviet-orientated it would have been. I really don't understand how a party that only once got second place had absolute control

[Intell]

With this, I remain a believer in the concept of the Jewish, Israeli state, but it should've been socialist, actual egalitarian socialism (mapam), and Israel wouldn't be as such segregated and discriminatory to the Palestinian People.

(Ignoring the normal, ugly, Israel vs Palestinians arguments in this thread)

I understand your point of view as a Socialist, but Mapam was at times a low point for Israeli democracy (though the current government is trying really hard to compete). Their almost absolute power harmed the freedom of speech and created a nest of corruption and discrimination towards Jewish immigrants from Muslim countries. In the end, their slight authoritainism sewed the seeds of some characteristics of current Israeli society that I dislike, like the sanctifying of the army and anything related to it, the corrupt primaries in the major parties, that are controlled by special interest groups, and some generally corrupt and disfunctional systems (like the Broadcasting Authority and the main labour unions).

They were the only one's that had Palestinian members, had a policy for co-existence, and didn't support the expulsion of Palestinian from their lands, causing the problems they had, a lot of which Mapai did or didn't support. I believe if Mapam had been elected, Israel and Palestine would've been a been a better place, though more soviet-orientated it would have been. I really don't understand how a party that only once got second place had absolute control

Ellison is a poor choice. He would alienate pro-Israel voters and white working class voters (especially suburban and rural voters).

I never said he wasn't, I merely stated that calling him an anti-Semite was fycking ridiculous.

[Intell]

[No, a moderate like me would not vote for Waserman-Schultz. I think someone far more centrist would be a good choice to appeal to rural and suburban voters.

This isn't 1996 my guy. Wishy washy centrism isn't a good course for the Democrats politically if they want to win back rural voters. The Democratic Party needs to become a full on working-class party if it wants to compete in places like Pennsylvania and Michigan. Clintonite neoliberalism will only further damage the Democratic Party in rural areas.

Where I live in suburban California, the GOP dominates. Where I live is home to several white collar businesspeople. Anti-ACA, pro-gun, pro-business, conservative Democrats would at least be more competitive in my community, and would be more appealing to social moderates. Centrists like me don't have a home in any party.

Are you a moderate or a centrist? No they are not the same thing, so make up your mind dude!

And honestly, having somebody like you complain about underrepresentation is quite ridiculous when you realize that neither the economic or cultural elites of both parties accept people like the man in my sig.

Look at my signature. I'm a center-right moderate libertarian.

Fycking hell, you're a republican, you support a flat tax, oppose ACA, and support thatcherite economics. What in that speels social justice and social equality to you.

[Intell]

With this, I remain a believer in the concept of the Jewish, Israeli state, but it should've been socialist, actual egalitarian socialism (mapam), and Israel wouldn't be as such segregated and discriminatory to the Palestinian People.

(Ignoring the normal, ugly, Israel vs Palestinians arguments in this thread)

I understand your point of view as a Socialist, but Mapam was at times a low point for Israeli democracy (though the current government is trying really hard to compete). Their almost absolute power harmed the freedom of speech and created a nest of corruption and discrimination towards Jewish immigrants from Muslim countries. In the end, their slight authoritainism sewed the seeds of some characteristics of current Israeli society that I dislike, like the sanctifying of the army and anything related to it, the corrupt primaries in the major parties, that are controlled by special interest groups, and some generally corrupt and disfunctional systems (like the Broadcasting Authority and the main labour unions).

They were the only one's that had Palestinian members, had a policy for co-existence, and didn't support the expulsion of Palestinian from their lands, causing the problems they had, a lot of which Mapai did or didn't support. I believe if Mapam had been elected, Israel and Palestine would've been a been a better place, though more soviet-orientated it would have been. I really don't understand how a party that only once got second place had absolute control

Oh, I thought you argued for Mapai, not Mapam. Sorry.
In that case, I'm of the opinion that it would've been even worse. It's a fact that the Arabic countries at the time weren't willing to allow Israel to exist, so while Mapam might have been more compassionate for the Palestinians, they would still have to fight for survival. And if they got close to the Soviets, they would probably lose, because the Soviets favoured the more numerous Arabic countries while America was willing to support Israel. Not gonna delve into who's right and who's wrong, but the US was absolutely vital for the survival of Israel in the October War.

If you had a socialist Israel, that allowed the support for the Palestinian people and had USSR support, would the Arab nations attacked it? Mapam were the only one fighting for a egalitarian, equal Israel, while other parties were fine in treating Arabs as treating second class citizens. Initially when there looked to be a socialist Isreal, Stalin was fine in supporting the establishment and supported such a state. I'm not supporting the USSR, and Stalin was of course horrific, but I believe Israel under socialism would be much more equal and accepting of Palestinian rights and would be a more peaceful religion, than it is now. That's unless a communist dictatorship is established, but I doubt that'd happen.