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
"So how many people have actually declared they're running, and how many are in "haven't said it, but we're pretty sure they will" territory?"
Definitely running: 5 - Warren, Castro, Gillibrand, Gabbard, and some dude named Dulaney.
Undeclared: Unknown, but off the top of my head I can think of Harris, Biden, and Sanders.
And then we have a handful still mulling it over.
@Raining Metal: Speaking as Republican: We argue at least as much as you do here, and the Republicans are a little bit of a Broken Base over Trump. While most Republicans at least tolerate Trump, there is a divide between the ones who support him with clenched teeth and the ones who actually really like him.
Though to be fair, very few of the Republican talking heads I listen to, or any of my Republican friends and family, openly like Trump. The general opinion being that they're annoyed and bewildered he won the primary, but relieved he won the general election.
Leviticus 19:34Considering that I am an LGBT Woman, no I care a lot, which is exactly I think this is a bad move in the first place, you are quite wrong about it not being the same as rejecting it as a concept, because it is the most visible action of it as a concept.
Again, its like rejecting Kings marches, and saying you still supported civil rights back in the day, they also had shitty leadership, ones who spoke out strongly against women's rights, and ones who made calls to violence against police... but the thing is even with that the marches themselfs are a net positive force, and one what was needed both then, and now.
Speaking out agianst the marches, rather then just condoning the leadership IS a strike agianst them as a concept.
Definitely running: 5 - Warren, Castro, Gillibrand, Gabbard, and some dude named Delaney.
Undeclared: Unknown, but off the top of my head I can think of Harris, Biden, and Sanders.
And then we have a handful still mulling it over.
We also have Ojeda (blegh) and Jay Inslee (who?).
And according to this list of candidates
, we also have a man named Andrew Yang. Now, Wikipedia has him under the list of candidates that aren't featured in many polls and haven't been in office before, so I looked him up and found this article
.
Which, uh, is a thing I guess?
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -FighteerAgain, its like rejecting Kings marches, and saying you still supported civil rights back in the day, they also had shitty leadership, ones who spoke out strongly against women's rights, and ones who made calls to violence against police... but the thing is even with that the marches themselfs are a net positive force, and one what was needed both then, and now.
Speaking out agianst the marches, rather then just condoning the leadership IS a strike agianst them as a concept.
This is just wrong. They aren't speaking out against anything.
Women's March refers to a specific organization, the DNC is not withdrawing its support from women marching they're withdrawing their support from an organization with ties to a hate group, there is literally no reasonable reason to view that as anything other than commendable.
Is this seriously the hill you want to die on? The Women's March does not deserve anyone's loyalty, they're at best apologists for a hate group at worst actively bigoted.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jan 15th 2019 at 8:46:49 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangMy dad is always quick to praise Trump as some kind of savvy tough businessman. Probably a result of most of his friends in the USA being rich old white men who also love Trump.
He's too lazy to vote at least.
Yeah. If an organization's leadership refuses to cut ties with a hate group, the DNC is completely justified in not wanting to give them money anymore.
Edited by M84 on Jan 15th 2019 at 9:50:04 PM
Disgusted, but not surprisedOnce again King's marches were the same, seriously look at the actual history instead of just the rose colored googles we have now that he was vindicated.
Should every one have severed ties with them? Should they be seen hate groups themselves? History shows us that the answer was no, because the concept they are for is more important then the individual members of it.
By the whole leadership argument, The United States as a nation is a racist Cheeto that no one in there right minds should ever engage in business in, and every nation should just sever ties with them right now because it sends a bad message that there continuing to support him, and his party.
When you are talking about the largest and most notable one, there is no functional difference between the two.
Especially when you don't immediately take that endorsement and try to get a different one going, at least that would be a token to the side of still supporting the idea.
![]()
![]()
Seems that way.
On the whole Women's March thing: I guess my only hot take is that the DNC should support another group as a sort of replacement. I know why they want to disassociate with the March (I know I couldn't go again in good conscience), but condemning them while offering up no alternatives feels almost counterproductive.
Also, on the organizers
, Adam Serwer of the Atlantic wrote a bit on why activists still ally themselves with the hate group in question, even though said group spews, well, hate and bigotry.
![]()
I meant picking a new group entirely to sponsor, not taking over the march itself.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Jan 15th 2019 at 9:04:51 AM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -FighteerAzurePaladin is not talking about changing the Women's March's leadership, but rather endorsing a different group as representative of the movement (i.e. indirectly displacing the Women's March from that position).
Edited by MarqFJA on Jan 15th 2019 at 5:05:47 PM
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.I'm fairly certain the DNC shows up on the sponsor list of other feminist organizations.
BTW, here's an article about the situation that points out that the DNC is not alone in ending sponsorship.
And yes, the title is a tad clickbaity.
The Democratic Party Drops Its Sponsorship of Women’s March Amid Farrakhan Blow-Up
“I didn’t call him the greatest of all time because of his rhetoric," Mallory said. "I called him the greatest of all time because of what he’s done in black communities."
Co-host Meghan Mc Cain, then asked a more pointed question.
"You're talking about women, you should be talking about all women, including Jewish women and conservative women," she said. "Do you condemn Farrakhan's remarks about Jewish people?"
"We didn't make those remarks," Mallory responded. "I don’t agree with many of Minister Farrakhan’s statements."
"Do you condemn them?" Mc Cain asked again.
"I don't agree with these statements," Mallory said. "It’s not my language, it’s not the way that I speak, it’s not how I organize... I should never be judged through the lens of a man."
“You won’t condemn it,” Mc Cain said.
That seems to have been the last straw for the DNC.
Last week, The Daily Beast reported the Southern Poverty Law Center, which has designated the Nation of Islam as a hate group, and EMILY’s List were no longer on the sponsors list. A spokesperson for SPLC told The Daily Beast that “other projects were a priority.”
Other notable groups that were partners and are now absent from the 2019 list include Human Rights Campaign, NARAL, and Center for American Progress. Less than half of the nearly 550 partners listed in 2018 have returned to support the third march.
Amnesty International has also dropped off the sponsor list, although a spokesperson for the group said it would send members to participate on march day.
“While not a sponsor this year, we continue to strongly support the principles of the Women’s March, and will have a delegation of members and staff at the Washington, DC event on January 19,” spokeswoman Robyn Shepherd said.
Not surprised the SPLC isn't on the sponsor list now. Their whole thing is identifying hate groups.
Edited by M84 on Jan 15th 2019 at 10:18:10 PM
Disgusted, but not surprisedThat isn't the same as providing an alternative.
If you remove a wheel from a car, but it still has 3 you objectively have a shittier car, you need to actually replace it. :/
And in this case, not at the very least providing a replacment shows that there concern about womens issues is lip-service at best.
Edited by Imca on Jan 15th 2019 at 6:19:13 AM
Yeah, I don't think anyone here is too broken up about the DNC dropping the Women's March (I'm definitely not, they don't deserve the sponsorship anymore in the slightest), I think the argument is that they should back more feminist organizations as well (which they frankly should do anyway).
Again, that is NOT what I'm saying. I'm saying they should then back more feminist organizations than they already do as a response.
Edited by AzurePaladin on Jan 15th 2019 at 9:25:55 AM
The awful things he says and does are burned into our cultural consciousness like a CRT display left on the same picture too long. -FighteerAnd it would also look kind of bad if the DNC outright announced "We think the Women's March sucks. Join this feminist organization instead."
![]()
![]()
It's more like having a bunch of cars you use on occasion and noticing that one of the cars has a serious engine problem. And no matter how often you tried to fix it, the problem doesn't go away. At which point you decide the car is no longer worth the trouble.
Edited by M84 on Jan 15th 2019 at 10:32:58 PM
Disgusted, but not surprised

What?
I just... What?
The DNC is a different organization than the Women's March, it simply isn't their place to suggest new leadership.
We are not talking about the DNC rejecting Feminism as a concept, we're talking about the DNC rejecting a Feminist organization which has ties through its leadership to the famous head of a hate group. An organization I might add that has had many opportunities to renounce that hate and yet refused to.
This... is deeply problematic. Do you truly care so little about the women who are a combination of Jewish or LGBT?
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Jan 15th 2019 at 8:31:18 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang