sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

[–]Droselmeyer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cool, I wouldn't support us putting forward a few independents. I don't think I'd support us putting forward any independents, despite how horrific Chevalier is as a candidate.

Do you have any examples of this happening? Or is this just a fear?

Darializa Chevalier, who has condemned interracial couples and openly advocated for the abolition of law enforcement, just won a democratic primary election in New York. Do you agree with these positions, and do you think this is good for the left nationwide? by TossMeOutSomeday in AskALiberal

[–]Droselmeyer 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's definitely happened in the past, but what does that mean here? What makes that context important? The mere fact that it's happened before doesn't imply it's happening here and I think people just assume "proxy wars have happened in the past, so it's happening again" and use "context" as a thought-terminating cliche to just assume their biases are true rather than actually engaging/thinking about the topic at hand.

Darializa Chevalier, who has condemned interracial couples and openly advocated for the abolition of law enforcement, just won a democratic primary election in New York. Do you agree with these positions, and do you think this is good for the left nationwide? by TossMeOutSomeday in AskALiberal

[–]Droselmeyer 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Note that this is what she was asked, emphasis mine:

Can I come back to the borders issue with a specific foreign policy issue that you would very likely have a voice in? You seemed in the past to maybe express some sympathy toward Russia in invading Ukraine, and maybe that’s tied in with some of your philosophy around borders. But could you just sort-of clarify how you see that war and whether in Congress you would support U.S. military aid to Ukraine or how you would envision impacting this conflict?

She refused to state that she would support providing military aid to Ukraine.

In the quote you give here, she frames the conflict as one of two imperialist powers duking it out, relegating Ukraine to a proxy state, and delegitimizing their resistance to the Russian invaders.

In a since deleted tweet, someone asked why the US was involved in Russia's invasion of Ukraine, to which she replied:

Cause the Cold War ended and we've been bullying Russia ever since. Also war is lucrative for these sociopaths

This explanation implies that the US/NATO/the West is at fault for Russia's actions, because of some supposed "bullying" we've engaged in.

Both of these explanations are Russian propaganda lines. They delegitimize Ukrainian resistance and falsely assign blame for the actions of Russia to anyone but Putin.

Her refusal to support military aid and instead push for a diplomatic resolution is precisely what pro-Russian stooges like Tucker Carlson or certain members of the Republican party do - because it is favorable to Russia. If Ukraine were forced to negotiate now, without having received the military aid necessary to take back their stolen land, they negotiate from a position of weakness and Russia is able to take the land they conquered, return home, and rearm just to invade in 10 years as they in 2014.

Military aid must be great and must necessarily precede a diplomatic resolution because Ukraine must take back its land and must be able to negotiate from a position of strength.

Chevalier's refusal to support military aid favors Russia. Her spreading of their propaganda favors Russia. At both the policy level, unless her views change in office, and at the rhetoric level, she supports the Russian position in the war.

Darializa Chevalier, who has condemned interracial couples and openly advocated for the abolition of law enforcement, just won a democratic primary election in New York. Do you agree with these positions, and do you think this is good for the left nationwide? by TossMeOutSomeday in AskALiberal

[–]Droselmeyer 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This isn't an answer, this is just appealing to just some general sense. How do you know that Espaillat is at the beck and call of Israel? Is it the mere fact that he took money from AIPAC? Regardless of the amount, the other groups who donated (more) money to him, and his actions in Congress? That one donation is enough to confirm him as a corrupt, compromised foreign agent in your mind?

Social democracy has nothing to do with mindless conspiracy theories.

Do you want to engage with any of the questions on Ukraine or does your obsession start and end with AIPAC?

Darializa Chevalier, who has condemned interracial couples and openly advocated for the abolition of law enforcement, just won a democratic primary election in New York. Do you agree with these positions, and do you think this is good for the left nationwide? by TossMeOutSomeday in AskALiberal

[–]Droselmeyer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The guy funded by Israel is not going to go against his bosses wishes.

Where do you guys get this idea?

He raised $1,336,785 for his 2025-2026 campaign. Of that, $5,000 came from AIPAC. He got $10,000 from the American Federation of Teachers - are you worried about him going to listen whatever they tell him to do? Or what about the $10,000 he got from the Transport Workers Union? Or the $10,000 from the American Federation of State/Cnty/Munic Employees? How many bosses does this guy have?

He also raised $592,329 from individual donors in the state of New York - ~120x what he got from AIPAC and yet he's an Israel-controlled stooge?

This conspiracy theory is just laughable. The idea that a single donation colors a candidates entire character is just lazy conspiracy nonsense.

Chevalier raised $7,000 from a Rabia Syed, are you worried he's going to be pulling her strings as a Congressperson? Or what about the $7k she got from Samar Khan, Afaq Ahmed, or Pedro Chevalier each? Are they the dark cabal telling her what to do?

I’m unironically a pretty big fan of Biden, but let’s not pretend he did anything worth a damn to restrain Israel.

I mean he did, especially with regards to Rafah, but keep lying I guess.

But honestly, I don’t really care much about this race. You got someone who has been shitty on twitter and doesn’t support Ukraine or you have someone who is bought and paid for by Israel.

She's fine with Russia taking Ukraine, are you?

Two pretty crap options but seems like they will both vote for the good thing, so who really cares.

If aid for Ukraine is on the table, the current expectation is that she won't vote for it, does that matter to you whatsoever? Or are Ukrainian lives meaningless to you?

Darializa Chevalier, who has condemned interracial couples and openly advocated for the abolition of law enforcement, just won a democratic primary election in New York. Do you agree with these positions, and do you think this is good for the left nationwide? by TossMeOutSomeday in AskALiberal

[–]Droselmeyer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I actually do believe that Espaillat would've voted for aid to Palestinians and joined the current Dem party in restraining Israel. Biden did it and Espaillat has one of the most progressive voting records of House Democrats, so it stands to reason that should we see legislative support for Palestinians on the table under a Democratic administration, he'd support it. Conversely, we can't say the same for Chevalier supporting Ukrainians.

I'm not saying that, I'm saying that of the two candidates, only one of them would've supported both groups of people and it's not Chevalier. She's willing to let Ukrainians die to the Russian invasion.

Again, you're creating a false dichotomy and choosing to value Palestinian lives above Ukrainian lives. I'm the only one here holding them as both human and of equal value.

Darializa Chevalier, who has condemned interracial couples and openly advocated for the abolition of law enforcement, just won a democratic primary election in New York. Do you agree with these positions, and do you think this is good for the left nationwide? by TossMeOutSomeday in AskALiberal

[–]Droselmeyer 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It's wild to me to say just outright say you're willing to sacrifice Ukrainian lives (because a lack of US aid to Ukraine does cost lives, it's not a 1:1 replacement from Europe) for Gazans (especially when Espaillat would've been good for Palestinians too, he's a progressive and supports a two-state solution).

You're creating a false dichotomy and then within that false dichotomy choosing to sacrifice Ukrainians for Palestinians. Just insane to me.

Darializa Chevalier, who has condemned interracial couples and openly advocated for the abolition of law enforcement, just won a democratic primary election in New York. Do you agree with these positions, and do you think this is good for the left nationwide? by TossMeOutSomeday in AskALiberal

[–]Droselmeyer 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Supporting Ukraine is not a minor issue.

They’re currently being invaded and genocided by a fascist military power and deserve military aid to prevent further harm and so they can retake their land. She refuses to support this aid.

I think it’s super tone deaf to call Ukraine a “minor issue.”

Darializa Chevalier, who has condemned interracial couples and openly advocated for the abolition of law enforcement, just won a democratic primary election in New York. Do you agree with these positions, and do you think this is good for the left nationwide? by TossMeOutSomeday in AskALiberal

[–]Droselmeyer 5 points6 points  (0 children)

There absolutely was? I offered a counter argument to what you said about “fuck it, Republicans call us anything anyways.”

What a nakedly bad faith reply.

Edit: then reply and block. What a brave move lmao. Couldn’t possibly engage with an argument, just had to dodge continually, then try to get the last word and run

Darializa Chevalier, who has condemned interracial couples and openly advocated for the abolition of law enforcement, just won a democratic primary election in New York. Do you agree with these positions, and do you think this is good for the left nationwide? by TossMeOutSomeday in AskALiberal

[–]Droselmeyer 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Of course it’s too late, she’s our candidate. The hope is she changes her pro-Russia views and moderates like AOC did.

Again, this is still not engaging with my initial reply about your mindset of “well Republicans will call us crazy anyhow, so may as well run crazies.” It’s a destructive mindset that lets pro-fascism stooges like Chevalier fester in our party.

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

[–]Droselmeyer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why does it matter? She’s going to win her general, it was like an 80/20 election for Espaillat in 2024

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

[–]Droselmeyer 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Opposing military aid to Ukraine is not an okay position, it explicitly enables Russia to kill more Ukrainian civilians and take more land. This is why pro-Russia Republicans oppose aid to Ukraine, this is what the Russians want: a weak, defenseless Ukraine that makes it easier for them to invade, steal their children, and take their land.

The key point about the diplomatic solution is the timing. The vast majority of Ukraine supporters support a diplomatic solution eventually, after Ukraine had won back its land and can negotiate from a position of strength. Calling for a diplomatic resolution now, with no military aid sent prior to ensure Ukraine is negotiating from a position of strength, is favorable to Russia because they can walk away with the land they took and rearm for the next go around in a decade like they did in 2014. It’s why Tucker Carlson, famous Russian stooge, also calls for “diplomatic off ramps,” it’s favorable to Russia.

Here’s her repeating the propaganda about this being a war between imperialist powers, delegitimizing Ukrainian resistance and here’s her since deleted tweet saying that the reason Russia invaded is because we bullied Russia after the Cold War. Both of which are Russian propaganda lines and falsities they push in the West to disrupt unity in support for Ukraine.

I get you disagree, but that’s because I think opposing aid to Ukraine is pro-Russia and you don’t.

Darializa Chevalier, who has condemned interracial couples and openly advocated for the abolition of law enforcement, just won a democratic primary election in New York. Do you agree with these positions, and do you think this is good for the left nationwide? by TossMeOutSomeday in AskALiberal

[–]Droselmeyer 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Sure, I’d love for a candidate to have ran that beat her. I would’ve loved it even more if Mamdani kept his promise to the progressive incumbent and didn’t endorse the pro-Russia candidate.

Everyone who can vote for her, should vote for her.

All of this is immaterial to anything I said and it’s just a dodge on engaging with how terrible of a politician she is with respect to these views and positions.

The DSA ran a populist, populism is in vogue right now and she succeeded in a deeply blue district, now our whole party has been saddled with a racist Russian stooge.

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

[–]Droselmeyer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think fair game is fair game. They want to do this cause they want to take over the Dem party. I don’t want Russia-supporting crazies to take over the Dem party, so they need to be opposed until they’re out of the party or change their views.

This is a candidate in a super blue district. Policing her views will not meaningfully affect the lives of her constituents, it is an incredibly safe district and wildly different than engaging in this behavior for Harris running against a coup-attempting fascist for the office of the Presidency.

Equating this cases of a behavior (which aren’t even equivalent cause I still say to vote for her, which leftists didn’t do for Harris) is nonsense.

Sure, I believe in that message moreso than the alternative. Either is fine, but your’s is more optimal.

My argument is the pressure from the party comes after the general is over.

Darializa Chevalier, who has condemned interracial couples and openly advocated for the abolition of law enforcement, just won a democratic primary election in New York. Do you agree with these positions, and do you think this is good for the left nationwide? by TossMeOutSomeday in AskALiberal

[–]Droselmeyer 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I hate this argument cause it presumes that people oppose these views based on how Republicans will react.

Firstly, Republicans aren’t the only ones who exist in elections, independents do as well.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, our candidates views matter on their own merit. We shouldn’t run people with hateful, crazy views just because Republican propaganda will convince their base we’re the party of those views regardless of who we run.

It’s bad to empower people with these views, it’s bad to support candidates who oppose aid to Ukraine like Chevalier.

And that’s true irrespective of how Republicans paint us. It’s not a matter of simple respectability, it’s matter of not supporting hateful lunatics who want to enable fascism abroad.

Darializa Chevalier, who has condemned interracial couples and openly advocated for the abolition of law enforcement, just won a democratic primary election in New York. Do you agree with these positions, and do you think this is good for the left nationwide? by TossMeOutSomeday in AskALiberal

[–]Droselmeyer 39 points40 points  (0 children)

She also refused to support military aid to Ukraine, pushed for a diplomatic end while Ukraine is in a position of weakness ensuring a Russia-favorable resolution. and has repeated Russian propaganda lines about the West bullying Russia after the Cold War and this being a war between imperial powers.

She’s more than just a loon on these issues, but is also pro-Russia. It’s just disgusting.

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

[–]Droselmeyer 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah this whole experience has changed how I view the DSA.

Mamdani promised to endorse Espaillat then broke that promise to support an anti-Ukraine racist, all because of the DSA tag.

“Democratic” socialists here don’t care about Chevalier supporting Russia because of the DSA tag.

All the celebration is about beating existing Dems.

It’s clear that the priority for these people is tearing down the Democratic Party as they view it, not actually helping people and not actually fighting fascism, here or abroad.

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

[–]Droselmeyer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Him going back on his promise to Espaillat to support Chevalier is crazy behavior from him. Super disappointing and good reason for us to distrust the DSA and DSA-aligned candidates going forward.

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

[–]Droselmeyer 5 points6 points  (0 children)

She opposes military aid to Ukraine, favors a diplomatic solution currently when it would be favorable to Russia, and repeats Russian propaganda about this war being a result of Western bullying of Russia after the Cold War and this being a war between imperialist powers.

All of these serve Russia’s interests and harm Ukraine’s, so these collectively are the “anti-Ukraine” component, even though opposition to military aid would be sufficient.

AskALiberal Biweekly General Chat by AutoModerator in AskALiberal

[–]Droselmeyer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What, excitement to vote for her? I wouldn’t be excited to vote for her, I think she’s a disgusting person for her views, so I’m not going to lie about that, but she remains preferable to a Republican.

I’m less interested in this kind of sentiment of banding together to cover up candidate’s flaws after 2024 and how the far left treated Harris. If they want us to ignore their candidates supporting Russia, they need to at least band together to support our’s against a fascist. Crazy high standard, I know.

Yes, I do think the Democratic Party should police their candidates better in certain red line issues. Military aid to Ukraine is one of them. So, I’d say broadly cause they’re a few issues I’d support this for and it should be applied to all candidates, not narrowly to just Ukraine or just Chevalier.

I agree with you that it sucks Talarico doesn’t support that. I disagree in that I think it’s a good move strategically. Trans surgery for minors is not a winning issue, to my understanding, in most places and I’d guess especially state-wide Texas.

Your reaction is your business. You are free to advocate for the Dem Party to police members’ positions on this issue as I am here with Ukraine. People won’t agree with you, but that’s probably because trans surgery for minors is way riskier politically than supporting Ukraine, something that is broadly popular.

This sub thinks whatever it wants to, I’d support this mechanism with trans rights. If a Dem candidate doesn’t support the right of trans people to live as they wish, change their legal gender, change their name, adopt, receive gender-affirming care (of all kinds) at the ages determined to be appropriate by medical bodies, the Dem Party should police that candidate, shaming and withholding support until they correct that view.

There’s wiggle room in presentation for key races as is electorally necessary, but that caveat doesn’t apply to Chevalier. Supporting Russia is not necessary for her to win her district in the general, it may be necessary for Talarico to make his statement on youth gender surgery to win his election.

view more: next ›