geekwithsoul

I don’t disagree with any of that, but again that context wasn’t obvious in your original post.

Also, those anti-democratic tendencies are inherent in all large organizations. And yes, it takes constant pressure to limit it, but that pressure needs to have a laser-like focus to be effective - otherwise bureaucracy and inertia win. That said, I’ve been involved in politics for almost 40 years, and the cliquish, insular, shambling monstrosity of the DNC is a mess - but it’s still actually better run and more open than any nationwide Democratic or GOP political committee in this country’s history. I mean the bar is on the floor in that regards, but progress and success are possible if done smartly.

Then help me understand - how do you feel that sharing this without the correct context was constructive?

Then my only advice would be to try and share in ways that are constructive rather than the opposite.

You could have just admitted it was a mistake without the grandstanding. All Democrats criticize the Democratic Party - it’s like a requirement, and it doesn’t make you special.

Criticism is our strength, though it’s often viewed as a weakness by others. But that criticism needs to be grounded in facts and reality, or else it undercuts the actual germane and real criticisms that need to be discussed and acted on.

If your post was in error, as you said, delete it and post something constructive. Maybe even link to the same thing, note the age of the link, but ask what needs to be done to make sure this doesn’t happen again. That might actually be a useful discussion. Otherwise you’re just throwing metaphorical molotovs and doing unintended damage.

I simply outlined the only two possible motivations for the post that I could think of and gave OP a prompt to explain if it was simply a mistake on their part. Did I miss a motivation that explains the context of the post?

This statement was from 23 July and has been overcome by events. Harris is the nominee. The only reasons to share this 3 weeks after it was published is to either pretend that there is dissent on the left about who should be the nominee, or it was a simple mistake and you didn’t see the date. Which is it?

Believing accusers should always be the first step. But when independent organizations investigate and find that accuser’s story is contradicted by known facts and not corroborated by other witnesses or any evidence whatsoever, then no, we shouldn’t still believe them.

It’s Tara Reade first off. Secondly she defected to Russia in the company of a known Russian intelligence asset whom she termed a “friend.” So excuse everyone who thinks her story might be suspect.

Yep, so seriously they shut down the app that brought this story to life https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/12/app-that-tracked-fuel-tankers-in-china-used-to-transport-cooking-oil-is-disabled

Almost like they care more about getting caught than the actual crime committed

Since you seem to be willfully misunderstanding what I was saying or what I was replying to, I think we’re done here.

What I’m saying is that because most large businesses in China are either directly controlled by the government or run by ranking party members, someone in power probably already knew this was going on and didn’t care because it made them money. What they do care about is getting caught, made to look foolish, and ruining China’s ability to export cheap, unregulated, and often dangerous crap across the globe. That’s what gets you punished in a situation like this in China, not the actual endangerment of people.

They take getting caught seriously, not the stuff they get caught at. Remember the government essentially has its finger in every pie so this kind of thing is not bad because it endangered people’s lives, it’s bad because it makes them look bad and might impact their exports.

Can we put him in charge of security at the Republican National Convention next year?