Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
That argument might fly if they weren't identifying the New Dems as centrist and otherwise trying to list the political views of each caucus.
That's a statement on their politics.
So is this
edited 22nd Feb '17 2:24:35 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
I beieve that only the Progressive Caucus is an actual thing (note- I believe most if not all of its members supporting Clinton in the primaries- correct me if I'm wrong here). The other ones are to varying extents Mad Skillz arbitrarily grouping certain Democrats together.
Like the term Blue Dog is accurate for the named members, but the designation of Booker as a Libertarian Democrat is new to me, and I have no idea how it differs from what Mad Skillz calls Liberal Democrats.
One terminology issue I note with Mad Skillz and Capcase's post is that people who call themselves Liberal Democrats tend to also label themselves as progressives. The people who "hate the party" may also call themselves progressives, but are not the same group as the "Progressive Caucus". I think they'd be more accurately called Leftists or Democratic Socialists.
Perez is 100% fine from a policy perspective (he was the preferred Clinton VP pick for many people who supported Sanders in the primaries anyway). The big issue is that he is a bad fit for the job: why should a man with next to no electoral experience be qualified to lead the DNC? Even some of his fellow Democrats
say that he's a ridiculous choice.
Combining this with the fact that there was already a candidate in the race who was extremely qualified (Ellison), who has widespread 'establishment' support (not only John Lewis, but also Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Gloria Steinem, even Perez's predecessor Hilda Solis chose him over Perez!), and that it is pretty much confirmed that Perez only entered
the race because the Obama wing wasn't willing to see a 'Sanders democrat' lead the DNC - talking about purity tests - it is pretty much understandable that the Sanders wing would see Perez's election as a giant middle finger to them. So it's rather hypocritical for the Clinton/Obama side to complain that this has become a proxy war, when they actually started it.
Also, Perez has been up to some very divisive tactics during the primaries - casting Sanders as a candidate of whites
, see the BernieBro myth - I'd rather not see a person who has been pitting racial groups against each other as DNC chair.
New Democrat Coalition
is a thing. Libertarian Dems
don't have a very formal orginization but some of them do belong to the Democratic Freedom Caucus
. The so called liberal dems are those without a formal association that fits any of those groups, I gather. There might be people Abar would say are progressives in that group but it takes a lot longer to search voting records than point at names on a self-identified list.
edited 22nd Feb '17 2:49:11 PM by Elle
Also, as I poke further, not all self-described New Dems (like Obama) are part of the caucus. [1]
.
I said as of the 114th Congress which is the last one when Sanders did identify as a Democrat. Also I'm basing this off of Wikipedia. If there's anymore that I'm missing out then cool. But officially Sanders was the only official progressive Democrat senator in the 114th Congress. I added the other 3 because apparently people describe them as progressive too according to Wikipedia.
That's what they describe themselves as. Another name for them is Clintonian Democrats/Third Way Democrats.
They're an official group.
Ideologies: Fiscally conservative, culturally liberal, centrism, Third Way
I'm just regurgitating what I'm reading. That's what it says the liberal wing is.
Here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Democratic_Party_(United_States)
...yeah, I'll be sticking to On The Issues instead of trying to guess which bloc people belong to.
And I'd say that the progressive wing of the Democrats is very different from the Sanders wing - the latter is merely composed of people bearing the stamp of approval of TYT's messiah, actual policy stances and voting history be damned.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotI'll be sure to tell the lunatics who mobbed my Facebook feed and the comments of every Daily Banter article all about how they're a myth. As someone joked at the time—every time you mention the Bernie Bros, fifty people who perfectly fit the profile show up to loudly and nastily explain to you that they don't exist.
The ability of commentators like this to ignore the existence of most of the crazed Internet left is rather staggering.
The myth is that they're actually attached to Sanders as opposed to simply being people who hate Clinton and temporarily thought Sanders could be a vehicle of that hatred.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
And when someone goes on (apparently) a rant about how all white people deserve to die or men should just commit suicide, they're just an idiot on the internet?
I'm all for taking extremists in our own camp seriously, but you don't get to choose which batch of extremists are taken seriously and which are regarded as a joke right up until they're running the party ala Trump.
![]()
That wasn't a dodge, that was a statement: the impression I'm getting is that people going on these tirades against the left and holding up "all those people on the internet/this guy who knows a guy who I'm facebook friends with" as examples of why the left needs to be kept down at all costs (including presumably working with demagogues like Trump, which worked wonderfully for the German center) are being quite selective in their reading of internet nonsense to further their own agenda; if you're looking for someone crazy or militant in a particular political/social movement, you'll find them in abundance if you're trying hard enough.
edited 22nd Feb '17 4:31:03 PM by CaptainCapsase
You know, the more I see the Alt right, the more they remind me of quote from the joker:
"I dont have plans, im just a dog chasing car...I will never enought what to do if I get one"
when they said shit for the sake of said it, it show they dont care about anything except the fact they can do stuff, just....that. "I have a thing to said and I said it, fuck everyone"
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"![]()
You've got to stop that accusation of people working for Trump/wanting their representatives to work with Trump, especially because you yourself keep advocating working with him. Everyone in the Democratic Party rightly hates Trump, and if anyone was going to work with him, it would presumably be Leftists, who share more of his stated economic positions- although they are also unlikely to work with him, either, since generally/hopefully, opposing authoritarianism takes preference over trade policy.
And besides being super-offensive, your Nazi comparison is also an example of your accusing others of something you/your side is doing, since the Leftists of that time indirectly helped Hitler by being in violent opposition to the center Left.
edited 22nd Feb '17 4:39:40 PM by Hodor2
I'm not calling to work with Trump unless he's actually offering reasonable compromises, which sounds unlikely, I was talking about going around Trump and trying to peel away congressional Republicans and look for common ground, because there's not really any other option with the degree of control they have over the government currently. As for the other point, I'm trying to point out in a roundabout fashion that some people seem more concerned with preventing the center from becoming a junior partner to the left in the democratic party than they are with preventing the GOP from running wild/
I didn't say democrats would work with Trump, I'm saying that some people in the centrist constituency clearly seem more concerned with stopping the "herbal tea party" than they are with stopping Trump. Now, fortunately, that's seemingly not a pervasive sentiment, nor has it really have picked up any real steam among elected officials, because that could spell real trouble if it were. As far as calling the Nazi comparison offensive, it's too late to close that door given everyone and their mother in the center and on the left already compares Trump to Hitler and/or Mussolini.
edited 22nd Feb '17 4:49:23 PM by CaptainCapsase

The Sanders wing of the party is just an easy way to say the progressive wing of the party.
As of the last congress, the progressive wing has 4 senators in Bernie Sanders, Paul Wellstone, Sherrie Brown and Elizabeth Warren and 74 seats in the House.
In comparison, 46 of the seats in Congress belong to the official centrist-Dems/New Dems. Currently, 5 senators were part of the now defunct New Dem Senate Coalition. Obama is a self-described New Dem.
Blue Dog Democrats aka Conservative Democrats have one sentate leader in Joe Machin and 13 seats in the House.
Then there's the Libertarian Democrats. Senator Cory Booker is one and then there's Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon.
And then there's the rest which are called the liberal Democrats who are very socially liberal but take a varied stance on economic issues.
This is all from the last Congress btw. I'm not sure what the current make up is now.
edited 22nd Feb '17 1:51:26 PM by MadSkillz