What’s causing the sudden rift in the Democratic Party?

This

>sudden

Identity politics have made their pets believe they're actually powerful. Suddenly you have uppity mystery meats trying to take the reigns of power away from the old guard made up of white boomers. Blacks on the left knew their place for decades but even they're starting to demand true power at the expense of the Pelosi crowd. So now the old folks are panicking while the Frankenstein monster they assembled from various bits of demographic shit they found laying around is out to kill them.

They're both euphemisms for "retarded"

Hah Haaaa, another thing I am >90% percentile in!

Attached: snip_20190603224402.png (978x425, 233K)

Wrong, there are three factions: The first two, and the moderates suffering from 'Battered Constituent Syndrome' who know the DNC is abusing them and doesn't have their interests at heart but can't bring themselves to leave them after such a long relationship.

Are retards on the right wing leftists too?

Alright, fine.

Please tell us what liberals and leftists are.

Attached: death.jpg (1440x1080, 117K)

"Progressives" are still mad that Hillary got the nomination instead of Bernie. Some of them also took notice that MSM prefers Corporate Democrats over their candidates of choice.

Fuck off leaf. Liberal is a contextual term. Even in Canada it means very different things depending on your location. BC Liberals aren't the same thing as Ontario Liberals. You look like a moron for trying to push everyone into the European definition of liberal when that's not the context of discussion here.

tThey are going to get mad again cause bernie is already screaming and Hilldawg is calling him a sore loser lel

>Imagine thinking you have a monopoly on the meanings of words
Liberals are fucking retarded

See? I told you people they were retarded

I like “reactionary”
>how dare you react to what we do

Because Clinton already cucked them out once, they can't handle getting cucked again

A problem of their own making:
>can't let white males run the show because "white man bad"
>can't let anyone else run the show because non-whites and women are retarded

Just look at Joe Biden - How can they possibly support him?
And yet... he's all they've got.

That’s not what reactionary means

Attached: E94FEC8B-F6AA-4FAF-997D-761FE1242B0C.jpg (828x976, 127K)

>he thinks that means I'm a liberal
Hilariously ironic. The definition of liberal has been revised and adopted by "liberals" to fool boomers and you faggots just went along with it because they started calling themselves that.

If a man can't call himself a woman then a generic left winger can't call themselves a liberal. Y'all got played like a dulcimer

Yeah that shit never made sense to me.

It's like they think "Reactionary" is a bad thing to be?

Please stop reacting! Just lay down and let us enslave you!

Attached: 1559565389271.jpg (730x765, 88K)

As soon as the JONESTOWN LIBS realize they almost installed John 'Madeline McCann' Molestya as Shrllary's chief of staff @1600 Pennsylvania they may come around... Hopefully before the day of the kool aid...

>C UR A LIBRUL LMAO DRFFFFPPP!!1
your inability to understand definitions is not indicative of my political alignment

Except that is exactly what that means per your own definition you yourself cited in your pic.

Ok retard

I like "populist"
>how dare you adopt policies based on what the majority want - what do you think this is? A democracy or something?

It will consume itself alive. It was meant to do so with us in it. It is designed to self consume at a certain point.
Societally you see.
At a certain point communication breaks down, and the masses are easily enslaved or so it would have been. The leftists are now so offensible, they now offend each other quite easily. They are impossible to please.
And they have been ultra trained to take offense to the level of searching for offense anywhere in a conversation.
They are now beginning to consume themselves.
Just like with the recent Disney, Alladdin, Disney of course tried every effort to make the actors brown as hell because Disney.
And the SJWs are outraged. Because the actors aren't necessarily Arabic.
They have become absolutely impossible to please. As was intended.
But the inward collapse is happening far too early, and we are not all on board at all.

Attached: Frankfurt School.jpg (2387x1601, 3.34M)

Why do we fight with Neocons?

ok leftist

>reacting is now a right wing thing

Hilarious. The left now gets to make up new definitions for anything they want.

fuck google

Attached: democrat_epithet.jpg (646x326, 31K)

Too many subgroups + too many agendas = those agendas clash.

Anything but passivity and subservience to the collective suicide of the West is now considered right wing

Some time in the near future any one who doesn't have an interacial bisexual sex tape wont be concedered a serious candidate.
Soon after that the Bisexual label will get them shit canned for insinuating that there is a duality of sexuality as apposed to a 4 dimensional spectrum with sexuality and gender being orthogonal.

Attached: Dl96Hb5VAAAc5Wf.jpg (1012x1200, 154K)

>Wrong, there are three factions: The first two, and those who drink the Kool-Aid but insist that they don't
FTFY

He said it means “to react” that’s not what it means. It means holding views that oppose progressive political thought. That’s not merely “reacting”

It doesn't fool anybody, faggot.
Language evolves over time. Autists believe that the meaning of words comes from the dictionary; it doesn't. The meaning of words is determined by usage.

I hated this in 2016
>trump is a populist thats BAD
>EVERYONE wants this shit bernie is selling, that means hes good cause he listens to his supporters!

Check out the article or the talk page on Spygate sometime if you want to rage.

Bernie’s a populist, so is AOC. It doesn’t automatically imply being right wing

Because theyre filthy kikes, liars, kikes, swarthy....

Did I mention theyre kikes?

Who do you think he was talking about when he referred to "we" in his post you pedantic faggot

>The meaning of words is determined by usage.
>The new definition of gender is legitimate
pick one

Attached: 1540684485427.jpg (475x317, 19K)

That's bullshit. It's a made up left wing definition.

my dick

Fuckin cant wait til them Jap fuck dolls are on the store shelves here in the states

The SJW definition of gender is invalid precisely because it is not used.

When people say man, they mean a genetic male.

The term populist was thrown around 16-17 to talk about right wing leaders coming to prominence all over the west
>theyre literally admitting most people want those candidates in doing so, but insinuating also that this is somehow undemocratic and bad

And yet I constantly head media figures and political pundits, even politicians - refer to people (who's opinions they don't like) as "populists" with a disparaging tone.
They seem to imply that their political gains have less meaning because they're only "populists".

If course it doesn't. Leftists love to obfuscate language with petty semantic parsing and overly narrow and yet incorrect definitions of words. It's pilpul. Communism is founded in such obfuscation, it makes it seem more intellectual and difficult to understand than it really is

Good point, well said sir

>The left now gets to make up new definitions for anything they want.
>That's bullshit. It's a made up left wing definition.
It’s a fairly old word dating back to the French Revolution. Educate yourself on the words you use instead of getting upset by them

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary

Attached: DC88A6CB-8CF9-410B-AAFC-D7E0B78AEAA6.jpg (828x1662, 427K)

thank you, glad to find like minded intellectuals

>it is not used
It's used by the entirety of the tans-inclusive left, many centrists, the apolitical, retards, zoomers, teachers, the media, employers and most other institutions. That's most of the common usage.

You can't say the definition of language changes based on an appeal to popularity and then deny one of the most dramatic and recent revisions of language.

You're quite simply retarded

>It's used by the entirety of the tans-inclusive left, many centrists, the apolitical, retards, zoomers, teachers, the media, employers and most other institutions. That's most of the common usage.
No, it's not the common usage. It is used that way by a few official places of power but it is a very small minority relative to the general population.

You’ve made a moot point. You have absolutely no purpose with this post? Your only option is to kys.

Seems to me like rather than being made up leftists recently, it was made up leftists 200 years ago, but never the less still made up.
I think the problem is it doesn't carry the true definition of reaction, but rather a politically charged leftist definition of the word reaction.

I'll make this simple for you retard. If you think such a law exists, niggle me this:

at what percentage of common usage does the new definition of a word become officially standardized?

>Your brain on pilpul
Look at this dude for an example of how basic lefties argue. He has reframed there argument into being over something as vague as the schema used to define words and has turned an actual discussion into some kind of arcane diatribe on the popular meaning of words. So we went from actually talking about something - the left - to talking about nothing. This is the basic essence of pilpul; reframe the argument into a different, nonsensical argument about nothing then tire the other guy out with semantics.

It's retarded but it's effective

It is fake politics, why should anyone give a fucking shit? Death to commies and liberals and that is who comprises the fucking Democrats.

Neo liberals are the same as neocons.

I can smell the bourbon on Pelosi's breath from here. She's getting too old to try and manage this shit.

Attached: 1550534678713.jpg (263x322, 16K)

Easy prediction that the infighting will be their downfall. Biden is the obvious candidate "they" are going to push, but Bernie is the fan favourite again. Only issue is that a large voter base of the Dems don't want a white male as their party's nomination. It will be against everything the vocal left stands for. It will be a mess of hard left voters, minority voters and anti-Trump voters.
They keep pushing the LGBTQ angle but a large portion of minorities and religious people they "fight for" do not agree on this stance either.
Many moderate dems are also not so content with the crazed anti-Trump rhetoric. The DNC's lies and insane ideas, policies and opinions are also a divider.

/thread

>Seems to me like rather than being made up leftists recently, it was made up leftists 200 years ago, but never the less still made up.
Well using that logic what words aren’t “made up”? The point is it has an old and historically established definition. A definition you apparently don’t like, but a definition none the less.

Their treatment of language is a blasphemy, and it’s ironic they call themselves intellectual.

It’s not sudden. Look at 2016 democrats. Once we get closer to election date and candidates start dropping out we will see a few people left, probably Biden/sanders/a few other depending on how they do.

Biden will win the nominee. Lots of far leftists will be bitter and not vote like in 2016, but a lot will vote because trust think trump is hurler when he’s closer to a democrat than a republican

>at what percentage of common usage does the new definition of a word become officially standardized?

This is a common fallacy that leftists appeal to. I don't need to define an exact border to say that such a border exists.

>opposing political reform
>Reactionary

The Left or whatever the Social Liberalizers are, control the commanding heights of society. They are the status quo now.

We are the reformers. They are the Reacionarys. Only reactionary forces have the power to ban, purge and silence.

See

If Biden wins the nominee, I'm not too convinced he will beat Trump.

>stanfordreview.org/world-on-fire-liberals-are-the-new-reactionaries-7ac73513b439/

You aren't on plebbit anymore, m8

>The Left or whatever the Social Liberalizers are, control the commanding heights of society. They are the status quo now.
In America the right wing holds the executive branch, a majority in the Supreme Court, and controls the senate. In what way are they not in control?

It IS an epithet and should be replaced with the correct "democratic party".

It's a telling window into the leftist soul. They do not live in or believe in reality, they believe that perception itself is reality. And so they seek dominion over the world by changing the framework in which they see it. It's literally insane. As you say, a blasphemy

Biden was smart to not show up at this shitshow event.

I distinctly stated that language should not be revised, especially things like the definition of gender, and your response is "y-your a leftie hurr pdurrffffdd"

Please finish your nonuple bacon matza ball soi burger and ruminate for a moment and exactly how retarded you are

>I don't need to define an exact border to say that such a border exists.
No, if you state that a rule exists, you have to define the rule. At what point is the revision of a definition considered legitimate?

You know you don't have an argument when your argument is "this is how leftists argue".

Try harder you intellectual dwarfs

Attached: 1550850660703.png (645x729, 42K)

>They do not live in or believe in reality, they believe that perception itself is reality.
Ironic considering you seem to insist on using the incorrect definitions of words because you don’t like their meanings

Yes yes everyone is wrong but you sweetie, you're the smartest one in the thread because you won your meaningless argument over the definition of a specific word. We are all very proud of you.

What does that have to do with anything at all? Aside from the misleading headline it’s an opinion piece where the author whines about his hurt feelings for 1500 words or so

>No, if you state that a rule exists, you have to define the rule. At what point is the revision of a definition considered legitimate?
No, there's a difference between a white man and a black man. There's a difference between a drop of water, and a puddle, and a lake. I don't need to define the exact gene that differentiates a black and a white man.

I don't need to identify the exact number of H20 molecules such that a drop becomes a puddle.

It's fallacious thinking.

Yep

I stated the problems with it.
It doesn't follow the definition of reaction, and is politically charged (which is obvious considering its origins).

It seems to me rather like double-speak.

Biden will likely not beat Trump. Biden’s whole campaign pitch is, “Vote for me and I make the Bad Orange Man go away.” That was Hillary’s campaign pitch as well, and we all know how her campaign ended.

>the left misuses words as a form of trickery!
Actually they’re using words correctly, take a look at some of the history to see why you’re mistaken
>Ah! This is blasphemy!

You stated that once the new definition of a word becomes "common usage" that it is therefore de facto legitimate. I am simply asking you to define common usage, unless of course you're going to tell me that word can't be defined either
>this retard complaining about fallacies
my sides

Attached: 1533257877746.jpg (566x480, 54K)

He's never going to let it go because it's the only front he can argue with you on where he doesn't look like a retard, he's got you down an intellectual rabbit hole of meaningless pilpul. For the good of the thread ignore that faggot

To be fair a lot of people have been let down by trump. I still think he’d beat Biden unless something happens.

>>stanfordreview.org/world-on-fire-liberals-are-the-new-reactionaries-7ac73513b439/
>You aren't on plebbit anymore, m8

I see that article is 2 years old, and the argument is at least another year older, that the left are for all intents and purposes the new reactionaries as they believe themselves to be the status quo and go about policing behavior and acting as the arbiters of morality.

>It doesn't follow the definition of reaction
Neither does inflammable and tons of other words in the English language. Is this a thread about language, or a thread about politics?
>politically charged
Well it’s a political word, what were you expecting?

>I am simply asking you to define common usage
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/enter common usage

this is the Jow Forums equivalent of whispering in somebody's ear. If you have something to say don't be afraid to say it directly to me, this is an anonymous imageboard and there's nothing to be afraid of.

If he has an argument he doesn't need you to tell him to stop trying you beta