Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Justice Democracy's (very excited)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Omegaphallic
    started a topic Justice Democracy's (very excited)

    Justice Democracy's (very excited)

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Democrats


    https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=zkdzpTQeZWs

    This is epic, hugely epic.

  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    It's also pointless statistics. He's using 19 votes, 15 of which are just cabinet nominations (and the one vote to let Mattis get a waiver to be considered) which the Democrats can't stop.

    There's no evidence of corruption in that video. And the closet definition of "corporate" Democrat seems to just be the centrist/moderate Democrats, esp. ones in very Republican leaning states. And, you know, if your a Democratic Senator and your state has a lot of Republicans in it... they voted for you because they expect you to not be a super hardline progressive and represent them too. That's not corruption... that's called doing your job.

    There's also a mistake made by calling these "Blue Dog Democrats." The Blue Dog Democrats are an actual organization, but just in the House. And their membership has shrunk to insignificant levels (and Nancy Pelosi has regularly proven capable of keeping them in line when they were at the height of their numbers anyway). The Blue Dogs are pro-business, but again, that's not inherently corrupt. They ran on pro-business centrist or even slightly right leaning on fiscal issue platforms and got elected. The people that elected them said, "yeah, do stuff that's good for those companies," because that's what they said they were going to do.

    If we had a European style parliamentary system, these people wouldn't be Democrats, sure. But that's not our system, and our system means the parties accept having a range of members along their ideological spectrum because it's better to have a Democrat that votes with the party 75% of the time, than a Republican that votes with the Democrats 20% of the time.

    None of this actually gets to a metric to objectively label people corporate Democrats based on being bought by corporations.

    Leave a comment:


  • semicasual
    replied
    Originally posted by Omegaphallic View Post
    Is "voted with Trump" our only metric for corruption? And what makes the democrats named in this video "corporatist"?

    Leave a comment:


  • Omegaphallic
    replied
    https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=taA3tbmMZOE

    Leave a comment:


  • Darksider
    replied
    Originally posted by Omegaphallic View Post
    Your being niave.
    ‚ÄčAside from the typo you are crossing the line into insult/personal attack territory. Dial it back please.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    Originally posted by Omegaphallic View Post
    The convicted either occurred or they didn't, I doubt even breitbart would invent a conviction.
    The conviction absolutely happened. Go check a decent source or 20.

    I'm far from Cenk's word is absolute truth, I don't know where you got it from.
    You're aping what he says without demonstrating any knowledge of the actual facts on the ground here. Cenk says the Democrats need to be purged because everyone that doesn't meet his purity model are inherently corrupt... which is what you're arguing.

    You're not questioning anything coming out of the TYT echochamber, and citing them repeatedly as proof of your points. That's where I got that from.

    I concider accepting massive corporate donations an act of corruption in of itself there is no way that just free money, corporations don't just do that.
    Remember, accepting donations from corporations is illegal in the US. Those donations don't actually go to candidates... they got to campaigns.. and can do so without the candidates say so.

    As well, a graph you cited earlier showed a distinct trend in this: massive donations are either given to both parties equally by corporations that want to stay at the table, or are vastly given to Republican candidates.

    There's something to the fact that most massive corporate donations to Democrats come from companies that are giving equally to both major parties. It's a very different point for those corporations than trying to "buy" candidates (something your own links actually discuss a bit too).

    And no sometimes they don't always get what they want, but they usually do get sometjing for what they spend or the money dries up.
    Sure. So where's the proof of what they got being contrary to the liberal or progressive policies Democrats have campaigned on? Because that's part of the crux of the issue. Buying influence is bad, sure, but are they getting some pork barrel spending or a sweet federal contract, or are they actually getting policy written for them?

    Leave a comment:


  • Omegaphallic
    replied
    The convicted either occurred or they didn't, I doubt even breitbart would invent a conviction.

    I'm far from Cenk's word is absolute truth, I don't know where you got it from.

    Let lay it out for to clearly. I concider accepting massive corporate donations an act of corruption in of itself there is no way that just free money, corporations don't just do that. And no sometimes they don't always get what they want, but they usually do get sometjing for what they spend or the money dries up. Your being niave.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    Originally posted by Omegaphallic View Post
    You do your own search for more.
    No no no. You don't get to make claims, fail to back them up, and then demand we prove your point for you.

    The first link this time... isn't about corporate donations. So that doesn't prove you point even if the favor trading for diplomatic posts is still stupid (and something every US president ever, literally all of them have done).

    The second link... is about Democratic donors not getting what they want... which is the opposite of your point. It shows that the Democrats are capable of saying no to donors.

    The third and fourth link are from Breitbart hacks. Breitbart is a hive of lies and shit. Even if they point to someone worth railing against, find a source that has not been demonstrated to value lying repeatedly more than anything else.

    That said... hey you finally found a really corrupt Democrat (seriously, how hard was that? I know I live in PA and I've known about Fattah for years, but come on, that was not hard).

    But a few things:

    1) We don't need to purge Fattah, because he was convinced of crimes and booted from office without that. The Social Democrats can't get from of Fattah because he's already gone. It's almost like it's possible to do this without insane purity tests.

    2) Fattah wasn't guilty of being bought by corporations. His big crimes were stealing public money for himself and his friends. Sure he took bribes too, but again, he was getting himself rich, not being a stooge.

    3) His actually voting history doesn't show any real big signs of being bought and paid for by corporations. He didn't sit around passing laws for the people giving him money (since he was mostly just doing his best to get away with stealing money).

    And thus we get to one of the problems here. Yes, there are corrupt Democrats (they're politicians, there's always corrupt ones), but the corruption they tend to engage in is not the kind you're claiming they are.

    Look if you take big corporate money donations your corrupt, I'm talking six or seven digits or more, not a hundred bucks, your bought and paid for, I gave you some links, but honestly I didn't have to because get real, that kind of money, isn't free, your niave if you think corporation don't expect something in return, if they don't get something in return for that money that does either boost or protect profits, they broke the law because Corporations can't spend money if it does support profits for its share holders.
    Sorry but it's not just about "providing links" it's about backing your claims. Which you still haven't done.

    You've yet to disprove the position that even if there is corporate influence in politics, that the Democrats are "bought and paid for." That despite the long and public voting history of the Democratic party not simply being whatever corporations want, that somehow they're all corrupt because Cenk told you so and you're pushing a, "Cenk's word is unquestionable truth" thing here.

    So yeah, again, if you actually care about the progressive movement in the US, actually learn something instead of spewing whatever ecochamber nonsense you've latched on to to convince yourself you know anything about what's going on here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Omegaphallic
    replied
    https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theg...ndroid-bell-ca

    https://www.google.ca/amp/m.huffpost...ndroid-bell-ca

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/8270/6...on-ben-shapiro

    https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.theg...ndroid-bell-ca

    https://www.google.ca/amp/www.breitb...ndroid-bell-ca

    You do your own search for more. Look if you take big corporate money donations your corrupt, I'm talking six or seven digits or more, not a hundred bucks, your bought and paid for, I gave you some links, but honestly I didn't have to because get real, that kind of money, isn't free, your niave if you think corporation don't expect something in return, if they don't get something in return for that money that does either boost or protect profits, they broke the law because Corporations can't spend money if it does support profits for its share holders.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    Yet again, you're not showing any actual knowledge of what's going on here (also, how's the examples of Democrats who have caved to corporate donors over their stated ideology going? Still waiting on you to come up with something).

    Indivisible groups are doing a lot more than protesting Trump. They're also organizing grass root activism to go after both Republican and Democratic politicians to ensure that the left's voice isn't ignored in a time of the right having so much control. Which is what we actually need the public to be doing: making it clear that a voter backlash is coming and they all need to realize which side of the line they want to be one when it comes.

    And what is this "vital work" that the Justice Democrats are actually doing? As far as I can tell it's just a bunch of pundits and high end political operatives trying to take control of the party to run things their way; which isn't working because most people on the left don't like their way. The US left is - generally speaking - happy that our versions of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck (sorta, he's actually gotten a bit better since he's realized how bad the hyper-conservative media thing turned out to be for his own beliefs), Alex Jones, and so on are not house hold names because they don't have major sway on politics. We don't want to fall into the pit the Republican's have fallen into of letting the most bombastic purity focused personalities constantly drag things further and further to the left until logic, reason, and policy all stop mattering in the name of ideological purity. Which is, as far as I can tell, all the Justice Democrats are really working towards accomplishing; whatever they say their goals are.

    If Cenk wants to be the new Rush, fuck Cenk, If you actually care about the health of the progressive movement in my country, how about you do more listening and research before you think you know enough to give "advice?"

    Leave a comment:


  • Omegaphallic
    replied
    Indivisible groups are interesting, but they are no substititute for Justice Democracts, the Indivisbles are focused on Trump, which is fine, the Justice Democracts focused on fixing the Democracts so they can take on Trump and know what to do once they get there. Indivisible is just a guide on how to deal with your local Congressmen. It has it's use, don't get me wrong, but it's no replacement for the vital work being done by Justice Democracts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    Cenk being bombastic isn't a good thing for long term success.

    TYT having a massive audience (though compared to what?) means nothing. An audience isn't a political movement.

    The key members of Sanders' team means... what? They couldn't mobilize enough to beat Clinton, and they couldn't mobilize enough to get progressive populists traction in down-ballot races either. Besides proving that they can raise a lot of money from the grassroots, what do they have a proven track record of actually doing on getting people elected or getting policies passed?

    And 100,000 isn't a beginning. It's a burp. You need ~50K voters to come out to win a primary on an off year in a small non-competitive not-high turn out Congressional district. And all of them need to be registered voters in one place. There's 435 districts to worry about. And 34 Senate elections which are mostly in states with a lot more primary voters than that. And this isn't something that they can grow in a few years. The next mid-term elections are in less than two years, which means mobilization needs to start in less than a year at a minimum.

    The Indivisible movement is already making the Social Democrats look like chumps. Their numbers are hard to know exactly, but they already have 6,000 local groups spread in almost every State, and greater public support than the Tea Party ever had. And they're doing it without "bombastic" self-sabotage purity threats. Instead of whining about corporate money, they're actually being the progressive grassroots and trying to turn the progressive anger about the election and first month of the administration into a movement that will change the face of elections to come.

    Leave a comment:


  • Omegaphallic
    replied
    Cenk is always been bombastic, but the TYT has a massive audience, and Secular Talk has a sizable audience as well, plus there are key members of Bernie Sanders team, so 100,000 members are just a beginning.

    Leave a comment:


  • Caitiff Primogen
    replied
    Originally posted by Beriorn View Post
    The coalition's been founded by someone who's a co-founded of a news channel named after a group that took part in the Armenian Genocide, which is still being denied to this day.

    That's not a good thing.
    Maybe they're just big Rod Stewart fans...

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    Yeah, that was not really a great way to convince any of us that look at his "rhetoric more than substance," approach that he'll need to do if he thinks 100,000 national progressives is enough alone to primary anyone.

    The "get rid of them all" attitude isn't going to work, even if he has any good points to make. It's also kinda of depressing to see him jump on the whole "alternative facts" bandwagon has he rails against corporate money in politics, while name checking FDR and LBJ... who were completely in bed with various corporate powers. It might be strange, but US political history shows (repeatedly) that progressives can fight for progressive policies and still have corporate donors (and frankly, neither FDR or LBJ were particularly strong progressives in a modern sense, and having more centrist appeal was a huge factor for both getting the progressive stuff that they did done).

    Slogans over substance might make win some elections in the short term, but isn't not something that's going to sell well to people that want a government that actually works.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X