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
Sanders is pretty bald-faced when it comes to opportunistically seizing the Party's apparatus for his own gain while refusing to participate in its inner workings. He gives Democrats the finger with one hand while pocketing Democratic cash with the other.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."Yeah, I'm not a Sanders fan by any stretch of the imagination, and I confess I'm already getting sick of seeing his fans moan about Perez winning the DNC chair.
They were both eminently qualified candidates, and now we have both of them running the DNC. We ought to be over the moon. Instead we're bickering over nothing while the GOP brings the country down around our ears.
"We'll take the next chance, and the next, until we win, or the chances are spent."You keep making leaps. I didn't say that either. I'm saying there's a branch of progressives in the Democratic party loyal to him. That is the Sanders wing. I didn't say all progressives are part of the Sanders wing as long as they swear loyalty to him. I did not say the progressive wing and the Sanders wing is the same although some people do think of it that way.
The sad things, despite my misgivings about Sanders and his ilk, I still would have voted for him in the general election if he had won the primaries. I just really, really hope I don't have to face that situation in 2020. I'd prefer someone younger, more accomplished, someone who's actually a member of the Democratic Party...
edited 25th Feb '17 9:40:46 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedWhat he initially presented himself is different from what he did.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/obama-is-a-republican/
There is plenty of continuity between the Obama and Bush administration.
edited 25th Feb '17 9:42:47 PM by MadSkillz
Oh are we back to hating Sanders again? Nice to see people wishing for his death because they are annoyed by a bunch of Green Party trolls.
Please the 'Sanders wing' is wrongly named, it would be better if it was called the "superior wing", in that it's members care for nothing more than feeling superior to others. Sanders himself could have been elected DNC chair and they'd have turned on him the same way they did when he endorsed Clinton. Ellison would have been disavowed the moment he made Perez his deputy.
Thease people were never Democrats, they never voted for Democrats and they were never going to vote for Democrats. They're Green Party supporters playing games with us and they've got us all in a huff.
There will be a few genuine losses due to this desicions as there would have been no matter which way it went, but I'm not heavily concerned. In the end his is actually a gain for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party (who I fully trust to stick around), when it came to the presidential ticket they didn't get the top or bottom, but here they've captured the bottom half of the DNC chairmanship, it's actually a gain in power compared to previously.
edited 25th Feb '17 9:45:29 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThe Sanders wing is a much larger part of the party than the Bernie or Busters. It's pretty much the majority of young Democrat voters under 30. And it's not just about winning Democrats. It's also about winning independents.
Frankly the Green Party in its totality would end up smaller than the Sanders Wing.
There is plenty of continuity between every administration and its predecessors and that you think this is some sort of killing point baffles me. You inherit the situations your predecessor created, and the apparatus they set up to deal with it.
Even that's a stretch. Keith Ellison is not a Sanders drone. Elizabeth Warren is not a Sanders drone. Who are these Democrats who take their lead from Sanders? The only person I can think of who constantly tries to benefit from associating with Sanders is Gabbard and that's because she's actually a Trump fangirl and grifter using the fact that she supported him in the primaries to deflect attention from that.
Sure it is. You basing this on anything beyond who voted for him in the primaries?
edited 25th Feb '17 9:58:02 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
![]()
That's just the progressive wing, which has aligned itself with Sanders at times because he's a well known progressive figure. However the progressive wing predates Sanders, will be around after his time, has a number of other figures within it and is not actually about Sanders or lead by him.
And a non-negligable portion of that wing does want to take over the Democratic party. (See link some pages ago where they pretty much succeeded in doing so in the California branch.)
IMO though having balance between the old guard and young Berners would be one of the better things that can be hoped for (ignoring for the moment whether it's actually likely). Getting everything they want fast is just not realistic. And I'm not sure all of their stated goals are actually achievable or desirable. (Some of that of course is the fiscal conservative in me talking.)
That's why I gave you a link to go read on how Obama's governed.
I'm speaking of voters. But I'm guessing any progressive politicians that endorsed him over Hillary would count.
Here's a list:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bernie_Sanders_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016
It's broadly fine. Given how the world works, it'd be surprising if there wasn't some corrupt individuals lurking in there somewhere, but at the moment I feel that making sure they don't get hijacked by extremists and promoting unity is more important than ferreting out any rot that may have snuck in under the radar.

And yet, amazingly, Obama's platform was about as progressive as it got. Centrist my ass.
No, it's not, because to imply that one must be loyal to Sanders in order to progressive is inane at best, a tautology at worst. One does not become progressive by swearing fealty to Sanders, and one can be plenty progressive without having anything to do with him. Or are you honestly going to try and tell me that Tulsi Gabbard's progressive bonafides are better than Joe Biden's, for instance?
edited 25th Feb '17 9:27:22 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar