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
I’m saying that if you think being war crime blind and being center-right are indistinguishable from Republicans you need your eyes checked.
As for Cenk, I’m not gonna watch a video of his, so did he explicitly use the term genocide there or was he just comparing two sets of crimes? It’s possibel to recognise that bad things were done to the Armenians while still denying that it was a genocide.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranHe explicitly stated that it was genocide and that the Turks marched them out of the country and killed them. So no he was pretty unambiguous in that regard. And he did it without prompting.
I prefer other programs like ring of fire, but overall I think cenk is better than “classical liberals” who tend to agree with alt right talking points
edited 11th Jun '18 11:48:33 AM by LordYAM
Of all the progressives to defend...why Cenk? Why someone with a history of genocide denialism, sexism (why do you think he got removed from Justice Democrats?), and general asshole behavior? Shit, it's not like he's even been particularly effective — Justice Democrats hasn't done that much better than the trainwreck that is Our Revolution.
Disgusted, but not surprisedThat is progress on his part then, I’m glad he’s managed it.
He still needs to rename his organisation though, you don’t get to claim to be a progressive while running an organisation named after genocidal proto-fascists.
![]()
I dispute that Cenk is a progressive, it’s a big tent but running an organisation named after the people who commited a genocide is an instant out in my mind.
edited 11th Jun '18 11:50:26 AM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranYou don't get a free pass for being an asshole because you grudgingly stopped being one years after you were called out on it.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"It’s the first time anyone has informed me that he’s changed his view on it, I’m more than happy to update my view upon receiving new information. It’s not like he didn’t used to be a genocide denier, it’s totally fair for people to assume he still is until informed otherwise.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThe main reason why Trump might be able to keep the economy running until he is out of office is because the impact of political decisions on the economy is usually delayed. Currently the US isn't doing so well because of Trump, but because it still rides on the high Obama created. It will be most likely Trump's successor who will have to clean up the current mess, just like Obama had to clean up Bush's mess.
"Also a lot of old guard democrats do suck (Chuck Schumer defends Israeli war crimes for instance and Joe manchin has supported a lot of trumps policies.) frankly they should go"
Are you fucking kidding me? "Frankly they should go"? And who will in West Virginia will replace Joe Manchin? Do you honestly think there's a single person in that state who could be more liberal than him? Do you want the Democrats to be in government or fucking not? You start gatekeeping with Manchin, there won't be a single candidate running who'll fulfill your arbitrary, unrealistic, and frankly, completely brainless litmus test. This — this is the sort of attitude that leads to lost elections and permanent minorities.
You cater to the district — always. That counts for the state just as it counts for the municipality.
edited 11th Jun '18 11:58:30 AM by CrimsonZephyr
"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."Given that some red districts were flipped by progressives...... it’s not impossible.
And from what I’ve read the three pashas basically expelled the more liberal members of the group after a year long civil war. Those guys later formed the Freedomand Accord Party.....and lost
edited 11th Jun '18 12:01:13 PM by LordYAM
You can talk all you want about how such-and-such Democrat sucks, but unless you can also argue that they suck more than any viable alternative, it doesn't matter.
For all that people hated Hillary Clinton, in the face of Donald Trump becoming President of the United States her faults, real and imagined, were meaningless.
All the progressiveness in the world don't mean Jack if you can't get elected.
edited 11th Jun '18 12:03:17 PM by sgamer82
I voted for Hillary. So did a lot of berniesupporters. And yes they are still better than trump. But at the same time it’s frustrating having the same people who have been there for decades.
I live in Cali and though I voted against her I wasn’t too bothered that Dianne Feinstein won. At the same time she’s a bit of a dinosaur (she’s been in office for years) and you kinda hope for some new blood at least.
edited 11th Jun '18 12:05:36 PM by LordYAM
They're progressives relative to the politics of their district. We need Democrat asses in seats, period. If that means running a guy who'd be totally wrong for New York or Massachusetts, but a good fit for West Virginia or Montana, so be it. Someone like Doug Jones would be a terrible choice for a New England Democrat because he's not a New England Democrat. If they can work with Democratic leadership on at least some tentpole policy items, that's miles ahead of what a Republican would do. One size doesn't fit all, and we have to respect that if we want to win. And as for these progressives, many of them have had no endorsement or anointment by King Bernie, so he's done fuck-all to get them elected. His chosen few have been losing their elections.
edited 11th Jun '18 12:08:39 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"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."
x6 Exactly.
A two party system by nature must have big tent parties, and not every candidate is right for every state or district, and that's okay.
We also can't risk falling into the purity trap of voting people out because they aren't progressive enough. That's what happened in reverse to the GOP, when the Tea Party voted out the moderates.
edited 11th Jun '18 12:14:28 PM by megaeliz
@Swanpride
I disagree that it will create much more of a mess than was going to show up anyway. Inflation is ticking up a little bit, but it's nowhere near problematic levels, the US debt ceiling is suspended so no worries on the arbitrary and needless bankruptcy front, this seems to be about right in terms of required public spending. The trade war is the biggest problem, since it's just pointless damage done to various sectors of the US economy.
Of course that 1.5 trillion plus change should have gone towards buying the American people shiny things instead of increasing corporate profits that were already at record levels and piling up missiles for the USN, but if anything is going to go bang next it's China, since they're at 250% private debt/GDP whereas the USA and UK haven't exceeded pre-2008 levels yet IIRC.
Sure, Trump isn't going to actually fix any systemic problems or make another 2008 any less likely, but he won't cause an outright meltdown by spending too much money since governments basically cannot do that unintentionally. He might by ending NAFTA, though.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Bernie has an old man's physique, but a young man's egomania. He's gotten his first taste of fame and now he's drunk on it.
edited 11th Jun '18 12:13:11 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"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."

edited 11th Jun '18 11:44:42 AM by Grafite
Life is unfair...