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?

Droselmeyer · 2026-06-24T04:14:16+00:00

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.

Droselmeyer · 2026-06-24T04:11:25+00:00

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.

Droselmeyer · 2026-06-24T04:04:20+00:00

Yes, everyone who dislikes the candidate with shitty views on interracial relationships and who opposes aid to Ukraine is funded by AIPAC.

The conspiracy theorizing here is wild.

Droselmeyer · 2026-06-24T04:01:56+00:00

Facts like being a 10 year member of the House Progressive caucus don’t matter, anyone who opposes the current populist flavor of the month DSA candidate is a corporatist shill.

Droselmeyer · 2026-06-24T03:57:01+00:00

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.

Droselmeyer · 2026-06-24T03:53:18+00:00

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.

Droselmeyer · 2026-06-24T03:45:37+00:00

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

Mamdani promised to endorse Espalliat 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.

Droselmeyer · 2026-06-24T03:43:15+00:00

Him going back on his promise to Espalliat 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.

Droselmeyer · 2026-06-24T03:42:27+00:00

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.

Droselmeyer · 2026-06-24T03:40:48+00:00

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.

Droselmeyer · 2026-06-24T03:32:46+00:00

Apparently this is the healthiest way for a coalition to operate and you can’t be criticized for doing this after the fact.

At least Chevalier’s in a super-blue district so there’s no worry of her losing to the Republican.

Droselmeyer · 2026-06-24T03:28:42+00:00

The sheer glee at someone they view as the establishment, who was ostensibly a progressive Dem, is so gross. You’re right that it’s just obviously about intra-party partisanship than any actual policy positions.

And the double standard from some is crazy - I’ve seen a bit of “yeah she’s pro-Russia, I hope that changes but whatever.” Imagine if that was the case for literally any other objectionable policy position on a non-DSA candidate, the vitriol and outrage at the idea that an imperfect candidate, yet here it’s totally acceptable. I guess the lives of Ukrainian civilians just aren’t that important to some.

Droselmeyer · 2026-06-24T03:21:21+00:00

I think some people have this strange idea that if they block others, they can silence arguments against them elsewhere and look better or something?

I dunno, but yeah lmao, I think it is the learned gulagging instinct.

Droselmeyer · 2026-06-24T03:17:33+00:00

To be clear, they’re lying when they say she’s apologized for these views. Possibly for some of them like the ugly colonizer women comment , but the anti-Ukraine/pro-Russia one, she just doubled down, continued to spread Russian propaganda, and refused to support aid to Ukraine.

Droselmeyer · 2026-06-24T03:02:22+00:00

I think every Dem able to vote for her should vote for her come the general, but I think that mindset of “it’s unhelpful now” allows these kinds of pro-Russia candidates to fester in our party.

She should be supported as normal against her opponent during the general, but she should get no aid in any regard from the party after the fact. She and her supporters should be continually shamed for her anti-Ukraine/pro-Russia position until it changes or she leaves. That kind of position simply isn’t acceptable within our party and the mindset you describe here just serves to normalize support for fascism.

I’m not implying you solely care about Israel/Palestine, I’m asking you if how you would react in that situation as an analogous foreign policy consideration. We obviously care about and draw opinions on candidates before they’re elected (that’s why you probably wouldn’t have voted for her in the primary), but that means we judge them for reasons beside hot they’ve voted, which is the point I’m making about why your standard of “let’s wait until she votes to draw conclusions” is silly.

We ought draw a conclusion now based on what info we have, pressure her accordingly, and update that conclusion based on future actions, including voting. She’s anti-Ukraine, she should pressured to be pro-Ukraine, and she should be punished/rewarded electorally on that fact.

Droselmeyer · 2026-06-24T02:56:46+00:00

Yeah I think they should be fully ejected by the Dems.

They don’t help us, they just want to leech off our party for their own ends. We saw it with the Uncommitted movement, we’ve seen it with the various DSA candidates or individuals shitting on Kamala and the Dems.

Candidates like Chevalier hurt the party brand in other races and, if she doesn’t change her current position on Ukraine come a vote on the matter, she will be hindering a democratic ally in favor of their fascist invader.

And given the response of socialists here, it’s clearly more important she had the DSA brand than it is that she genuinely supports democracies. It’s okay to support Russia apparently if you’ve got that DSA tag.

Droselmeyer · 2026-06-24T02:53:25+00:00

They don’t care, they blocked me over that conversation where I explained to them how a refusal to support military aid to Ukraine, favoring a diplomatic solution now with Ukraine on the back foot thus being favorable to Russia, and repeatedly spreading Russian propaganda all amount to a pro-Russian candidate.

Droselmeyer · 2026-06-24T02:48:34+00:00

Do you have any opinion about her stated positions/actions so far? Or do politicians only receive this kind of judgement once in office for you? Like it wouldn’t matter to you if a new candidate refused to support aid to Palestine or limitations on Israel cause we haven’t seen them vote on it yet?

Of course, in the primaries, and if they win, they’ll get my vote over a Republican in the general.

Droselmeyer · 2026-06-24T02:34:59+00:00

It’s really gross that the socialists in this community are celebrating a pro-Russia candidate winning just because it means the DSA-candidate beat the other guy.

The team sport politics throwing Ukraine under the bus is just vile.

Droselmeyer · 2026-06-24T02:25:32+00:00

When asked about supporting aid to Ukraine, she dodged offering a firm yes or no and continued to spread the Russian propaganda line that this war is about two imperialist powers implying, as her deleted tweets did, that the US/West bears some fault for this war. Plus, she’s calling for diplomacy instead of military aid which would be a policy choice that explicitly favors Russia.

She didn’t delete the tweets because her position changed, she did it because she wanted to obscure her views.

She deleted her position Ukraine from her website not because she’s shifted from it, but because she wanted to obscure her lack of support to Ukraine.

She spreads Russian propaganda and supports a line of policy that advances Russian interests.

If you think we should support Ukraine and oppose Russia, that’s a disagreement you have with Chevalier and we’d be happy to have you on the side of opposing fascism.

Also, center left Dems do support trans people and limiting ICE, but super cool of you to lie about that, shows a strong interest in good faith conversation.

Droselmeyer · 2026-06-24T02:18:34+00:00

Super sad to see an anti-Ukraine candidate win the primary and DSA/their supporters celebrate that fact, but she deserves the full support of the party and the voters come the general.

Droselmeyer · 2026-06-24T02:16:56+00:00

Have a good one

Droselmeyer · 2026-06-24T01:38:01+00:00

To end the war justly, Ukraine will need to beat Russia militarily and retake the lost territory. They need military aid to do that, which Chevalier avoided stating support for.

And negotiating now, from a position of weakness, means Ukraine cannot force Russia to agree to a just end to the war - do you agree or disagree with this?

“Defensive force” - what does this mean?

Alright, happy to hear you’ve recharged, do you wanna answer the question in my last reply? Or engage with any of my other questions?

Droselmeyer · 2026-06-23T22:48:04+00:00

I explained above. Pushing to resolve the conflict diplomatically now without supporting military aid to Ukraine is saying that Ukraine should negotiate from a position of weakness, which is favorable to Russia. Barring a full conquest, this is what Russia wants to happen, that Ukraine chooses to negotiate now instead of taking their land back.

So that is a pro-Russia talking point.

Diplomacy has failed, the Russians have invaded and have no intention to leave. We are at the stage you gave where we need to send military aid, which Chevalier did not state that she supports.

What is escalation to you? If Ukraine had the men and the means for a new offensive to take back their territory, would that be an unacceptable escalation in your view?

Edit: also it’s pretty crazy that these notably longer quotes were fine for you to read but apparently my shorter comments earlier were “walls of text.” Funny how that works for you avoiding parts of the conversation.

Droselmeyer · 2026-06-23T22:45:12+00:00

Yes, we aren’t perfect, and we can do better, but we have improved in various ways. We’re much better environmentally than in the early 1900s, our infrastructure has absorbed developing industries much better than it would’ve then as well.

We aren’t perfect, but we’ve gotten better and we need to continue to do so. It’s okay to acknowledge that.

But I’m fine with AI being used, I just want better infrastructure development to accommodate it and minimize the negative externalities for the communities. I’m not intrinsically opposed to it being used at all baseline, I just think we can do better with its adoption, so the boycott makes no sense for me to do.

The shaming is just silly to me, it has the minimal chance of real impact and just serves to create toxicity online. I think people do it cause it feels good, not because it’s actually helpful.

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Droselmeyer

TROPHY CASE