Random but anybody have a problem seeing tweets, facebook posts as well as other shyt here using Chrome?
DNC Chair Race: PEREZ WINS (DNC asks all staffers to resign)
- Thread starter Scoop
- Start date
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
I am also working class. I am not getting caught up in a philosophical discussion. The Democrats are not a party of and for the working class; it was the party of slaveholders ffs. The beatdown of the working class is a bipartisan endeavor and over several decades the Democrats have been able to get through anti-working class policies that the Republicans could only dream about. Yet for various reasons, whether it be a more moderate anti-working class policy here or a hat tip to identity politics there, the Democrats have maintained a reputation as being a pro-worker, pro-POC party. I think that is delusional and allowing them to maintain that facade does the working class no favors.
Make it easier to unionize. Roll back right-to-work. Remove the ban on solidarity strikes. [just about the entire labor regime in the U.S. needs to be undone] Provide (at least some) free higher education. Real universal health care. Raise the minimum wage. These are pro-working class policies to me. Sanders and other social democrats in the party are pushing for a couple of those but the establishment worked overtime the past two years to dead all of that.
I agree that political change isn't instant. Like Lenin said, "there are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen." And my criticism is grounded in an analysis of many decades of Democrats pursuing anti-working class policies, not a single election cycle or candidate.
1.
except the rich2. I'll grant that there are some differences around the edges. But I don't think any of those fundamentally get at how this country operates in terms of racialized capitalism, settler colonialism, ecocidal economics, and oligarchy though. Dems are marginally better on a number of issues.
3. No such civilization/society has existed since the rise of class society. However, under advanced capitalism, the working class has the potential to take the world beyond capitalism and toward a classless society. By fighting for the absolute equality of all members of the working class regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., those oppressions can be abolished once and for all. These are socialist principles and outlooks. I don't expect the Democratic Party to be speaking like that. As I said, they're a bourgeois party. The best that can be hoped for out of them is some mild social democracy and a maybe a rollback of some draconian laws regarding labor and third-parties in the electoral system, to create space for the working class to organize more easily and militantly for its interests.
But, my point with that question was if you had specific groups in mind -- for example, let's take Afrikans -- the system is inherently against us and the Democrats' policies represent, at best, a band-aid for a bullet wound (and only half a band-aid if we're talking establishment policies and not progressive policies). If I'm being told to choose between someone putting a band-aid on my gunshot wound (Dems) and another thumbing the wound to make it more painful (Repubs), I'm rejecting that and taking my ass to a surgeon to get stitched up and get my problem solved.
For the noobs in this thread who keep caping for or/and arguing Perez is as good a Progressive pick as Ellison:
MEMBERS OF THE Democratic National Committee will meet on Saturday to choose their new chair, replacing the disgraced interim chair Donna Brazile, who replaced the disgraced five-year chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Even though the outcome is extremely unlikely to change the (failed) fundamentals of the party, the race has become something of an impassioned proxy war replicating the 2016 primary fight: between the Clinton/Obama establishment wing (which largely backs Obama Labor Secretary Tom Perez, who vehemently supported Clinton) and the insurgent Sanders wing (which backs Keith Ellison, the first Muslim ever elected to the U.S. Congress, who was an early Sanders supporter).
The New Republic’s Clio Chang has a great, detailed analysis of the contest. She asks the key question about Perez’s candidacy that has long hovered and yet has never been answered. As Chang correctly notes, supporters of Perez insist, not unreasonably, that he is materially indistinguishable from Ellison in terms of ideology (despite his support for TPP, seemingly grounded in loyalty to Obama). This, she argues, is “why the case for Tom Perez makes no sense”: After all, “if Perez is like Ellison — in both his politics and ideology — why bother fielding him in the first place?”
The timeline here is critical. Ellison announced his candidacy on November 15, armed with endorsements that spanned the range of the party: Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Raúl Grijalva, and various unions on the left, along with establishment stalwarts such as Chuck Schumer, Amy Klobuchar, and Harry Reid. He looked to be the clear frontrunner.
But as Ellison’s momentum built, the Obama White House worked to recruit Perez to run against Ellison. They succeeded, and Perez announced his candidacy on December 15 — a full month after Ellison announced. Why did the White House work to recruit someone to sink Ellison? If Perez and Ellison are so ideologically indistinguishable, why was it so important to the Obama circle — and the Clinton circle — to find someone capable of preventing Ellison’s election? What’s the rationale? None has ever been provided.
I can’t recommend Chang’s analysis highly enough on one key aspect of what motivated the recruitment of Perez: to ensure that the Democratic establishment maintains its fatal grip on the party and, in particular, to prevent Sanders followers from having any say in the party’s direction and identity:
In other words, Perez, despite his progressive credentials, is viewed — with good reason — as a reliable functionary and trustworthy loyalist by those who have controlled the party and run it into the ground, whereas Ellison is viewed as an outsider who may not be as controllable and, worse, may lead the Sanders contingent to perceive that they have been integrated into and empowered within the party.
BUT THERE’S AN uglier and tawdrier aspect to this. Just over two weeks after Ellison announced, the largest single funder of both the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign — the Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban — launched an incredibly toxic attack on Ellison, designed to signal his veto. “He is clearly an anti-Semite and anti-Israel individual,” pronounced Saban about the African-American Muslim congressman, adding: “Keith Ellison would be a disaster for the relationship between the Jewish community and the Democratic Party.”
Saban has a long history not only of fanatical support for Israel — “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel,” he told the New York Times in 2004 about himself — but also an ugly track record of animus toward Muslims. As The Forward gently put it, he is prone to “a bit of anti-Muslim bigotry,” including when he said Muslims deserve “more scrutiny” and “also called for profiling and broader surveillance.” In 2014, he teamed up with right-wing billionaire Sheldon Adelson to push a pro-Israel agenda. In that notorious NYT profile, he attacked the ACLU for opposing Bush/Cheney civil liberties assaults and said: “On the issues of security and terrorism I am a total hawk.”
There’s no evidence that Saban’s attack on Ellison is what motivated the White House to recruit an opponent. But one would have to be indescribably naïve about the ways of Washington to believe that such a vicious denunciation by one of the party’s most influential billionaire funders had no effect at all.
The DNC headquarters was built with Saban’s largesse: He donated $7 million to build that building, and he previously served as chairman of the party’s capital-expenditure campaign. Here’s how Mother Jones’s Andy Kroll, in a November profile, described the influence Saban wields within elite Democratic circles:
When Clinton, during the campaign, denounced the boycott movement devoted to defeating Israeli occupation, she did it in the form of public letter to Saban. To believe that Democrats assign no weight to Saban’s adamantly stated veto of Ellison is to believe in the tooth fairy.
Saban’s attack predictably spawned media reports that Jewish groups had grown “uncomfortable” with Ellison’s candidacy (the ADL pronounced his past criticisms of Israel “disqualifying”), while whispers arose that the last thing the Democratic Party needed to win back Rust Belt voters was a black Muslim as the face of the party (even though the Detroit-born Ellison himself is from the Rust Belt).
As both Chang and Vox’s Jeff Stein have argued, the fact that DNC chair is a largely functionary position, with little real power over party policy or messaging, is all the more reason to throw Sanders supporters a symbolic bone. If Democrats were smart, this would be the perfect opportunity to capture that energized left-wing movement without having to make any real concessions on what matters most to them: loyalty to their corporate donor base.
But it’s hard to conclude that a party that has navigated itself into such collapse, which deliberately and knowingly chose the weakest candidate, who managed to lose to Donald J. Trump, is one that is thinking wisely and strategically. As Chang persuasively argues, it seems Democratic leaders prioritize ensuring that the left has no influence in their party over strengthening itself to beat the Trump-led Republicans:
That view, one must grant, is deeply cynical of Democratic leaders. But — besides fearing the wrath of Saban — what else can explain why they were so eager to recruit someone to block Keith Ellison?
If the plan to sink Ellison succeeds, the message that will be heard — fairly or not — is that the Democratic Party continues to venerate loyalty to its oligarchical donors above all else, and that preventing left-wing influence is a critical goal. In other words, the message will be that the party — which to date has refused to engage in any form of self-reckoning — is steadfastly committed to following exactly the same course, led by the same factions, that has ushered in such disaster.
I had hope for 2018 too.
JahFocus CS
Get It How You Get It
I had hope for 2018 too.
I think 2018 can turn out better than 2020... we really need to focus on local and state races, if Republicans run the table in 2018 and pick up more state legislatures and governorships, this shyt is a total and complete wrap.
Man On Fire
All Star
I told y'all the Demoncrats were gonna run Hillary again in 2020 
Grano-Grano
The Bando
I hate that Neera bytch so much.
If you don't realize this is 100% facts, off yourself.
I guess Ellison being deputy chair isn't all bad. He's in there in some capacity.
Gotta play the game somehow
DlAMONDZ
That pu$$y got me grinning
No lies detected
A white supremacist with a heavy anti-muslim message just became president and ya'll want a muslim, a black muslim at that as the face of the DNC
the next guy
Superstar
This is weak. It can't be "but trump!" forever because he won't be in forever, just like bush wasn't there forever. People have the right to withold support if they don't like they way the organization is being run. And it looks like that will happen with millenials once again.
So scared... so we will defeat his ws how... with tweets and buying stuff? If you don't push forward how do you progress. Shows the dems only care about lip service and not results on racism.No lies detected
A white supremacist with a heavy anti-muslim message just became president and ya'll want a muslim, a black muslim at that as the face of the DNC
*this post brought to you by the fine journalists at CNN*fukk wiki leaks