1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

DNC Chair Elections

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Roxfreak724, Feb 24, 2017.

?

Who should be the next DNC chairman?

  1. Ellison

  2. Perez

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Roxfreak724

    Roxfreak724 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,076
    Likes Received:
    1,464
    Interesting to see how things will work out this weekend, supposed to be close. I prefer Ellison, who is backed by Sanders. Perez looks to be the main opponent, the establishment backed candidate. Thoughts from some of the lefties on the board on who is the best going forward for the Dems?

    I think Ellison is willing to shake up personnel in the DNC and more loyal to values over party, which is reflective of his Sanders endorsement. I don't think Perez will go as far to flip the status quo, despite some of the things he says. He's more on the side of attempting to preserve the current DNC makeup while transitioning the party left, which is not possible in my opinion.
     
  2. Bobbythegreat

    Bobbythegreat Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Messages:
    63,182
    Likes Received:
    25,831
    I want them to pick Ellison. Sure he's a fringe left nutjob, but that's kind of where I want the Democrat party to go for the lulz.
     
  3. JayGoogle

    JayGoogle Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2007
    Messages:
    50,145
    Likes Received:
    40,819
    What positions that he holds that makes him a fringe left nut job?
     
  4. Roxfreak724

    Roxfreak724 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,076
    Likes Received:
    1,464
    None apparently. If BTG had any actual substance behind his opinions, he'd take an extra 3 min to bullet them out.
     
  5. Bobbythegreat

    Bobbythegreat Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Messages:
    63,182
    Likes Received:
    25,831
    Well this board is skewed so far to the left that I could see how he might not seem that far left by comparison. I mean, he's on record saying that black people have no obligation to follow the law because according to him black people do not live in a democracy.

    He thinks that the Constitution was a conspiracy by white racist people to subjugate others.

    He's a big fan of Louis Farrakhan.

    He's said that he wishes the Democrat party would come out against the second amendment outright.

    He's been on record in the past demanding that black people be given a separate homeland as reparations for slavery.

    He used to write under the name Keith X Ellison and had ties to Nation of Islam.

    He's compared 9-11 to the Reichstag fire.

    He's got a very strong anti-Israeli past and rampant accusations of antisemitism which isn't shocking given his Nation of Islam ties.

    Those may seem to be middle of the road type things for this board, but not when it comes to the country as a whole. The guy is a lunatic.....and he's exactly where I want the Democratic party to go.
     
    Astrodome and cml750 like this.
  6. Roxfreak724

    Roxfreak724 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,076
    Likes Received:
    1,464
    Hm, is this the one article you read to construct your entire perspective? Because miraculously, every single criticism you mentioned is in here:

    Now, this doesn't invalidate your criticism or concerns of Ellison, it just reeks of laziness.

    I'll address your concerns one by one, with some more sources so you can maybe try and a get a more nuanced perspective:

    (1) Now, a lot of some of his "out there" comments were made in his 20s. The guy is 53 now, so people change. That being said, what he said is not completely untrue. Black people, since the civil rights act, have lived in a de jure republican democracy. However, I do not think that black people, or much of the U.S. population, lives in a de facto republican democracy. Gerrymandering of districts, systemic racism, socioeconomic disparities, bullshit voter restrictions, and the influence of big money among other things contribute to one of the worst voting participation rates of "democratic" countries. Ellison's point is, in my opinion. that people who do not feel like their voice has any influence on their own governance or feel oppressed by their governors are not obligated to follow the law. Now, does this mean they are exempt from the consequences from disobeying the law? No, prosecution by the system you are resisting is a price you have to pay as you try to change it. A true lunatic statement would be "Black people don't have to follow the law and they shouldn't be held accountable for breaking it" which he has never said

    (2) Ya, a lot of the founders owned slaves. And southern representatives wanted three-fifths of slaves to be counted so that they could balance the North's representative power in Congress. Big whoop, nothing new. Calling it a conspiracy does make it seem a lot more sinister, so I agree a different choice of words would help. Most white people where, by default, racist at the time, not like they got together in a smoke filled room to design a "conspiracy". Also, his article wasn't really about that anyways, he was illustrating a point about the definition of racism. Again the dude is in his 20s, figuring **** out. Here's the original article if your lazy ass wants to bother to read something:

    (3) Yup, he definitely did defend Louis Farrakhan. He also admitted his mistake and said he failed to adequately assess, as a 20 something year old, Farrakhan's Anti-Semetic views in a letter he sent to the local Jewish Community Council in 2006. he denounced him and apologized. And oh, he also earned the support of a rabbi for his bid. Lulz. Here's a article about that:
    (4) That's not what he really said, it was more of a sarcastic response to a question bill maher posed. He spent most of the segment arguing for background checks and other gun control measures. Here's the segment if you want to watch it in it's entirety, ignore the title of the video and just watch it and think for yourself:

    (5) Well, again he said that in his 20s. He hasn't run a campaign for office with that as a main policy goal so I really don't see the relevance. I disagree with the policy position, not that it really matters.

    (6) Ya sure, he used a pen name with a reference, oh the horror. He organized marches and activities for the Nation of Islam for causes that he supported, no disputing that. However, he never took an oath of allegiance or whatever and has not worked with them for 20 years.

    (7) Agreed, a bit of a ridiculous comparison. But still, he's insinuating the media and public did not do enough to hold Bush to account for his actions post-9/11 and honestly, a case can be made for that. Completely lying about the motivations of invading another country and getting away with it is something that shouldn't have happened.

    (8) Israel is currently led by a far-right wing party called the Likud, headed by Netanyahu. They use extreme B.S. political strategy that basically labels anyone who disagrees with them as an anti-semite. Establishment jewish groups in the U.S. also have adopted this tactic. Ellison's criticism of Israel doesn't make him "anti-Israel", he's not against its existence. He just has a problem with the way the current leadership is handling things and with how U.S. politicians don't seem to want to criticize Israel at all. Obviously my summary here is oversimplified and deserves more nuance, so here is, you guessed it, another article (this is an op-ed tho):

    Lastly, please note that NONE of your criticisms have anything to do with the actual DNC job. Just bi***ing over some "out there" stuff he did in his 20s. It completely ignores his career as a congressman and strengths as a community organizer. It ignores anything he has done from ages 40-present, because for whatever reason, what he did in his 20s completely defines his life. It ignores the policies he wants to pursue as head of the DNC, and the ways in which he plans to achieve those goals. You're so suckered into a media narrative you don't even know it. At least try to read more than 1 article next time.
     
    #6 Roxfreak724, Feb 25, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2017
    JayGoogle likes this.
  7. Bobbythegreat

    Bobbythegreat Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2013
    Messages:
    63,182
    Likes Received:
    25,831
    No, there's not one source where i "constructed" my perspective. However it does make sense that an article voicing criticisms of him would say similar things given that the criticisms aren't new and are pretty well known. In fact, I hadn't read that article before I posted.

    Ah, so he just used to be a radical before he was running for office, gotcha. Also, the fact that you defend the statements by saying they aren't "completely untrue" and then making excuses for them suggesting that the meaning was different than what the words that he actually said just kind of shows that you are a bit "out there" yourself. I already pointed out that those on this board skew to the fringe left, so it makes sense.

    I've read the article, thank you for your ignorant assumption that I hadn't. Also, sure it's when he's young and before he had to clean his image up to run for office, but it shows where this lunatic is coming from. That's the point.

    Of course he "admitted his mistake" once he needed to court the Jewish vote when running for office. I guess that makes his entire history disappear.

    It wasn't sarcasm and I did watch it in it's entirety (here you go with ignorant assumptions again, seems to be a trend forming) and his response was directly to a question about coming out against the 2nd amendment and his response was "I wish they would".....there's really no way to misinterpret that, sure he walked it back a bit afterwards, but does that make it better? His stance on the 2nd amendment is essentially for extreme gun control measures and it always has been. He's still a politician so other than the one slip up he has to take the line that "Oh I love to shoot my grandfather's shotgun......but" when it's pretty clear what his intentions are.

    Again, it shows where he's coming from, it's the kinds of things he said before there were political consequences for them. Will he walk them back now? Of course, he has to, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's a completely different person today than he was then and that has to be your assumption if you support him at all.

    It's more than that though, like you said, he used to work for them, he really WAS that guy. Of course once that became too politically toxic, he walked it back....doesn't mean he's really a totally different person though.

    Yet again defending indefensible statements after calling them ridiculous.....I mean why not just say "Sure the guy is a radical, but so am I" and be done with it?

    He's been anti-Israel for a LONG time, so the current government is kind of irrelevant. Again, he was a Nation of Islam kid. His antisemitism is pretty deeply ingrained even if he has to deny it for political reasons.


    It shows what I was pointing out, that he's an absolute radical nutjob. If you are fine with that, just say so. Also, you really are going to have to do something about the ignorant assumptions, it really makes you look simple minded and you are already admitting to being a radical nut yourself with your defense of this guy. Not a good look.
     
  8. durvasa

    durvasa Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    37,910
    Likes Received:
    15,377
  9. NewRoxFan

    NewRoxFan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    53,825
    Likes Received:
    53,619
    Always wondered why Ed Rendell or Brian Schweitzer were never considered as DNC chairman. Both very experienced, seem very popular, great speakers, seem to attract Independents and middle America types. Since neither would have Presidential aspirations (ok, maybe Schweitzer might still) they could be outspoken when needed.
     
  10. shastarocket

    shastarocket Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2006
    Messages:
    13,773
    Likes Received:
    1,082
  11. JayGoogle

    JayGoogle Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2007
    Messages:
    50,145
    Likes Received:
    40,819
    Nah, he's right. The man has a political record, judge him on that and not things he's said decades ago. I mean after all, you've been saying this about Trump since he's been elected. That we should just ignore the crap he's said and wait to see what he's done. So this applies here too. After hearing that excuse from the right for so many years, only fair to hear it back.
     
  12. No Worries

    No Worries Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    29,840
    Likes Received:
    16,695
    That's not how Fox News defines fair.
     
  13. Roxfreak724

    Roxfreak724 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    1,076
    Likes Received:
    1,464
    If we were talking in person I really don't take anything for granted, but due to the slow nature of online communication I'm more abrasive, so sorry for being pretentious af. I was more frustrated with the fact that you basically criticized his life based on his 20s. I mean, the guy was raised a Catholic, then converted to Islam, and was heavily interested in race in his 20s, wrote some very edgy articles, associated himself with radical groups, became more and more involved in community organizing, ran for congress, and is now running for the DNC chair. All of these things make up a person, and people tend to be quite complex, so I would say look at the whole picture rather than just a piece of it.

    Btw, I honestly did not know anything about his personal life until I had to research it after reading your post. I supported Ellison for his past policy positions, endorsements, and vision for the Democratic Party, nothing more. I guess I'm more focused on his record as a legislator while you're more focused on his time as a law student. Maybe that's more important to you but I think his political career is more relevant since he's running for the head of a political party. Some more effective arguments against me might be the amount of money he has raised for the Dems from special interest groups and Super PACS (over a quarter million from Super PACs in the last election) or his support of intervention in Libya. Ellison isn't all rainbows and unicorns, I'm well aware of that, but his position as an outsider of the establishment and strengths as an organizer are also important.

    Now, if he was raised in a fundamentalist Islamic, anti-semite household I think you would have a much stronger case because early childhood development tends to have a large influence over the rest of our lives. If you have evidence of that, I would very much want to read it. Another potential piece of evidence would be using his political office as a means to supported the Nation of Islam or pushing forth an anti-semitic agenda. And no, being against some of Israel's policies or insinuating that their interests have far too much influence of our politicians doesn't make someone an anti-semite.

    Lastly, it wasn't my intention to defend anything he has done. He's made mistakes and done some good things. In short, it's called living a life. I know a lot of very smart people that say stupid things at times, I don't ignore what they say but I also don't give it too much weight in my evaluation of them.
     
  14. Cohete Rojo

    Cohete Rojo Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    10,344
    Likes Received:
    1,203
    They should probably consider, no matter who they elect, a split of the Democratic Party into a liberal and a moderate party each. A moderate democratic party, at least one that isn't so "opportunity for all" and instead is more "opportunity for America", would win over a lot of the Obama-Trump voters.
     
  15. LosPollosHermanos

    LosPollosHermanos Houston only fan
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    28,582
    Likes Received:
    12,520
    Corrupt mofos. Screw the DNC.
     
  16. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,383
    Likes Received:
    15,808
    If the Democrats want to compete outside of the Presidency - state and congressional races - they need to move to the middle. As much as it may annoy progressives, all politics is national these days, and you can't win in red states by going far left. And you can't have completely different messages in California and in Kansas. Democrats need to figure out to reach out to the non-political types in the middle that swing elections. Trump did it with a very non-traditional message that appealed to that group. Democrats need to figure out the same on their side. Trump is the boogeyman that will energize the base in 2018 and 2020 - they need to figure out how to expand their voter base now.

    The South Bend mayor would have been great, but he's not really in the mix. Perez is probably the likely choice, and he's going to have to figure out how to get progressives and moderates to work together. While they can push progressive causes, they need to have a unified moderate message. They also need to re-implement Howard Dean's 50-state strategy that worked so well. As of now, even when there are good pick up opportunities, Democrats don't have strong candidates to take advantage of them.
     
    justtxyank likes this.
  17. JayGoogle

    JayGoogle Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2007
    Messages:
    50,145
    Likes Received:
    40,819
    The Democrats have been in the middle for decades now. As long as the GOP continues to go further right, the left will go further left and vice versa.

    I think too much is being made of when it comes to Trump winning, it was a very narrow victory and included a candidate that ignored the voters that Trump courted and basically whose main plan was to tell people that they couldn't vote for Trump and gave little reason as to why they should vote for her.

    In fact, the message from progressives is the same as Trump's. That corporations are taking over the country, all Democrats have to do is find the right messenger to deliver the message. Clinton wasn't because everyone believes she's part of the machine.

    I don't think the Democrats have to do anything major. The pendulum always swings and when it does everyone thinks the other side has to make major changes. They do have to understand that they just can't run on social policies any more though. I think after 4 years of Trump and Trump not being able to use the whole "Wasteland" rhetoric anymore due to him being president the Democrats will have a bit easier path to more power.
     
  18. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,383
    Likes Received:
    15,808
    I agree - but that's the problem, I think. You're looking the Presidential election, and I agree Democrats can win there. But Dems have been ignoring those other voters for the past 8 years, and they've gotten obliterated at the state and congressional levels for it. It's a much deeper problem than Hillary being a bad candidate.

    Also agree with this. But it only worked for Trump because he steals voters from the other side with it. It doesn't work on the left because you're not getting anyone from the middle or right with that message.

    I think there needs be a distinction between the Presidential and State/Congressional levels here. On the Presidential level, you're 100% right. The Dems are fine as a party and they had a really fluky election, which they actually comfortably won in the popular vote despite their own mess of a candidate mired in faux scandals. Location of the votes was a problem, but also that's secondary and changes each election, and Presidential elections are as much about personality as policy anyway.

    But on the state/congressional level, this is a much deeper problem. Democrats are being shut out of more and more states in that regard. The GOP is building legislative majorities in states that lean left nationally. Those are problems that absolutely have to be addressed. The Dems have to become competitive in the south and plains, just as the GOP has become competitive in Wisconsin and Michigan. Rick Snyder and Scott Walker and the like are winning in reliable blue places, and now the GOP is getting Senators and larger congressional delegations in those places as well. Dems have to fix that problem more so than the Presidency, or they risk becoming a long-term minority party.
     
    JayGoogle likes this.
  19. BleedRocketsRed

    BleedRocketsRed Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    7,089
    Likes Received:
    603



    Lmaoooooooooooooooooooooo. He's right too.
     
  20. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    48,669
    Likes Received:
    17,295
    Too bad that Ellison didn't win, but it was a smart move to make him the number 2 position right there. As far as Democrats winning in the future this might be a good choice since the winner was high up in the unions and probably has his ear attuned to the needs of folks who previously went to the Democrats but switched in 2016.

    I think they will definitely return to their past and weed out corruption since they've been busted and all eyes will be on them.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now