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
<Looks at the Bo B folk being butthurt even after Ellison was made deputy>
<Remembers all of the people claiming that HRC should have made Sanders her VP>
<facepalms>
Disgusted, but not surprisedCenk is, at this point, the "news" equivalent of a You Tube comment from a "2 Edgy 4U" fourteen year old. Sadly he's got an audience of thousands which means we have to take the genocide denying hack seriously.
I'm sure someone will say I should lay off the genocide denial accusation but I refuse to. You know why? Because Cenk presents himself as a progressive yet denies the victimization of an entire people and names his gang of kissasses after those who slaughtered them. Because Cenk denounces nationalism yet can't divorce himself enough from Turkish nationalism to admit it happened. Because he brags about his rationalism yet tries to ignore the existence of one of the most heavily researched atrocities in human history. Because Cenk whines about every crime committed by the American military, yet pretends away the deaths of 1.5 million people. Everything that Cenk portrays himself as and purports to be is rendered meaningless by his callous disregard for what happened in Armenia and his willingness to associate himself and "progressiveism" with Enver, Cemal, and Talaat Pasha.
Steve Bannon is a Holocaust denying Neo-Nazi and we hate him for it. And if the Internet left found out that Clinton or any other "establishment" Democrat had similar views, they'd call for a lynch mob. But somehow Cenk gets a pass from his legions of lefty fans who love him for "sticking it to the man" while ignoring the fact that his real hero, as evidenced by the name he chooses to operate under, is not Bernie Sanders but this SOB
.
Which unions? Because I've read a piece in a larger book
that detailed the tensions between traditional industrial unions and the rise of service-sector unions in the 1990s, and a major complication in the "ascendancy" of the latter started when they started effectively becoming corporatized (for lack of a better word), talked about in very much the same terms we are still hearing now in regards to the DNC and with the same kinds of concerns.
edited 25th Feb '17 8:59:27 PM by Eschaton
![]()
A better comparison would be if they called themselves the "National Socialists" and claimed it was because they were a nationwide leftists movement. Because that would be about as believable as Cenk's claim that "Young Turks" comes from the colloquial meaning of the term.
Cenk's Turkish. He knows exactly who the Young Turks were and what they did and he holds them up as "progressives" who helped modernize Turkey. Which is a lot like naming yourself after Stalin and then saying it's because he helped modernize the USSR and Ukrainians, you don't know anything about any dead Ukrainians. Enver Pasha, who really did hope to disappear all the Armenians without anybody noticing they were gone, would be proud.
If Cenk wants any credit among actual progressives he needs to a) stop denying the goddamn genocide, b) condemn Enver, Cemal, Talaat and their accomplices, and c) change the name of his bloody show. And until he does all those things he should be considered as much a member of the progressive movement as David goddamn Irving, because he's near as bad and about as credible.
edited 25th Feb '17 9:10:37 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
![]()
Honestly, it's a big power struggle between the establishment and Sanders wing.
Perez is loyal to Obama's wing. Ellison is too close to Sanders.
This is all true. The differences between Perez and Ellison are minimal. Perez’s perceived qualities could easily be switched out for Ellison’s. In his endorsement, Holder said of Perez, “We need a DNC chair who is a proven fighter and a proven uniter. Tom Perez is that person.” Well, Ellison, who spent decades as an organizer before entering national politics, is running on a unity platform. Perez has also cast himself as a “progressive who gets things done.” Well, Ellison has a record of doing exactly what many in the Democratic Party want from their DNC chair—winning elections, increasing turnout, and raising small-dollar donations.
This is also why the case for Tom Perez makes no sense. If Perez is like Ellison—in both his politics and ideology—why bother fielding him in the first place?
As Jeff Stein points out at Vox, Sanders supporters are likely overstating the power of the DNC chair. But that is all the more reason to throw them a win. If an Ellison victory is a modest, symbolic concession, the upside is that Democrats will signal to progressive and younger voters, who Democrats will be desperate to turn out in 2018 and 2020, that they are on their side. It would be a choice of utmost pragmatism.
But members of the Democratic establishment don’t quite see it that way. The Hill reports, “Perez supporters have expressed concern about handing the party over to the Sanders wing of the party, arguing that Ellison would move the party too far to the left.” And the New York Times suggests that Democratic leaders pushed Perez to run because they viewed Ellison as too close to the Sanders wing.
It appears that the underlying reason some Democrats prefer Perez over Ellison has nothing to do with ideology, but rather his loyalty to the Obama wing. As the head of the DNC, Perez would allow that wing to retain more control, even if Obama-ites are loath to admit it. Sanders has been accused of re-litigating the primary in his criticisms of Perez, but the fact that Perez was pushed to run, while Ellison was quickly and easily unifying the left and center, seems like the move most predicated on primary scars. While Obama has stayed out of the race officially, Vinson Cunningham reports in the New Yorker that he is watching it closely:
These concerns about power, control, and money echo of the dismal failures of 2008, when top Democratic operatives decided to fold Obama’s online grassroots behemoth, Organizing for America, into the DNC. The story is infamous now: Party regulars wanted to ensure control of the group, rather than allowing it to flourish as an independent entity, one that could challenge the party itself. The muzzling of Obama’s grassroots support has been blamed for being partly responsible for the Democratic Party’s enormous losses in state and local seats over the past decade. Chris Edley, who pushed for OFA’s independence, told the New Republic recently about the choice, “If you’re not really that committed, as a matter of principle, to a bottom-up theory of change, then you will find it nonsensical to cede some control in order to gain more power.”
The same could be said of today’s battle over the DNC and the push to install a loyal technocrat like Perez. This reluctance to cede control comes despite the fact that Democrats have lost over 1,000 state legislature seats since 2009. There is no case for Perez that cannot be made for Ellison, while Ellison is able to energize progressives in ways that Perez cannot. The question that will be answered on Saturday is whether Democrats have more urgent priorities than denying power to the left.
edited 25th Feb '17 9:12:20 PM by MadSkillz
![]()
Sanders doesn't have a wing of the Democratic Party because Sanders is not a Democrat. That's his own damn choice. If he actually joined the party he could have run for DNC chair his own bloody self.
As for the rest, every time you try to position Obama as something other than progressive I swear I can feel my mind shutting down.
Don't you know it's different when they do it? We saw that with the superdelegates.
edited 25th Feb '17 9:15:55 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Seriously, that was low of them.
Consider yourself fortunate.
edited 25th Feb '17 9:16:39 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised![]()
Do your best to keep it that way. He's a slightly more respectable left-wing version of Billo the Clown. And that's only if you think his other somewhat sane opinions aren't entirely outweighed by the sheer insane stupidity of his genocide denialism.
I went through a phase of thinking he and his cronies were so great. Then I realized the innate problems with the name. Then I found out about the denialism. And then I got out of there screaming.
Don't you know that democracy only counts when the Progressive Messiah (TM) wins out and magically ushers in utopia? They know because they saw it in a cloud of smoke from their bong. (Note: not calling any of the Sanders supporters in this thread stoners. Some of the guys I've met on Facebook and elsewhere, conversely...)
edited 25th Feb '17 9:23:57 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Yes, yes, we all know he's not a Democrat. The Sanders wing is shorthand for the progressive wing of the Democratic party loyal to him.
Obama is a self-described centrist. I'm just listening to the man.
Oh and while we were fighting about Perez vs Ellison
Just fuck my Post-WW 2 Global Order up, Fam!
New Survey coming this weekend!

He was right about him being pro-TPP which isn't very progressive.