Talk:Justice Democrats/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it has amassed over 10 thousand followers on Twitter and likes on Facebook in just over one day. It has also received over 17 thousand signups and over two hundred candidate submissions as of the morning of January 24, 2017. Additionally, the movement is backed and promoted by The Young Turks Network, a large independent media organization with over 3 million subscribers on YouTube, so the influence of the movement will only increase as time progresses. It also has notoriety from the inclusion of senior staff officials from Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign. --Nightstar648 (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is an active political group that will likely grow in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.67.220.20 (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is an organized political movement founded by notable new media figureheads. Multiple legitimate sources have been cited including the official platform. Also, it has garnered over 12 thousand twitter followers and 11 thousand facebook likes in under 24 hours, saying that it is not reputable because there is only a single Washington Post article is frankly silly. It has absolutely earned it's wiki page from public popularity in such a short amount of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattstrass4 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is an organized collective headed by multiple notable figures and has been covered by multiple journalistic publications including Multichannel News and The Washington Post. In addition, based on the content found on the page of the individual who marked the article for speedy deletion, it appears it was marked purely out of political disagreement with the organization's goals. I'd recommend reverting the mark as soon as possible. --Slightlyflightyone (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

As an addendum, it appears that the same user who marked this article as needing to be speedily deleted has attempted to do so for at least one liberal public figure in the past, further strengthening my suspicions about the user's intentions. --Slightlyflightyone (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oh please. Drmies (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Corporate donations

The article currently states, "Justice Democrats must pledge not to take a single donation from billionaires or big corporations." Actually, even after Citizens United v. FEC, corporations aren't allowed to donate to candidates for Congress. They can make independent expenditures in favor of candidates ... but that doesn't constitute the candidate taking a donation from the corporation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Tell that to the group :-) They only just founded this thing, although at least one of them was involved in an earlier group. Presumably they'll refine their positions and respond to feedback. But at this point that's what sources say they are requiring. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: Social democracy =/= Democratic socialism

Social democracy is regulated capitalism with social programs.

Democratic socialism is socialism achieved through democratic means.

Justice Democrats do not represent the latter. -- Firestar493 / Nightstar648 12:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (We've given plenty of credible sources in regards to our cause and even Secular Talk himself has approved.) --Minespidur (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's wait and see about the proposed deletion. After all, this project was only announced this week. It could or could not turn into something to be reckoned with. Lynxx2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

A premature designation

Isn't it a little early to designate this a coalition within the Democratic party when no one identifying as a Justice Democrat has actually been elected yet? 99.253.207.194 (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should call it the "Justice Democrats movement" similar to the "Tea Party movement" since it's not a formal coalition yet. Kamalthebest (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

While I agree, it should be noted that there are elected officials that self-identify as Justice Democrats (such as Ro Khanna)

Political Spectrum of the Movement

It was my understanding (based on the fact that socialism is considered far-left, and Sanders and his followers believe in a strain of socialism) that the Justice democrats are far-left, or at least left-wing to far-left. Yet, the article calls the movement left-wing to center-left. Should I go ahead and change it?

Ephraimhelfgot (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• In the US, it would be considered left-wing to far-left, depending who you're talking with. In the rest of the world it would be considered left-wing to center-left. I think it's safe to simply go with left-wing. IntoTheWoods (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Not far-left, and definitely not socialist. Social democracy is different from socialism, and social democracy is considered the mainstream left in many parts of the world. Also, I'd consider looking into Political Compass, as the concept of the political spectrum is rather flawed. Here's the political compass with the 2016 POTUS candidates. -- Firestar493 / Nightstar648 01:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

In Europe at least, socialism is the term used for mainstream centre-left parties, such as the UK Labour Party, the French Socialist Party and Germany's Social Democratic Party. Culloty82 (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Point taken (@firestar493), although Sanders describes himself as a Democratic socialist (not a supporter of social democracy, although policy-wise you are probably correct). Also, in the US, socialism is considered farther to the left than in Europe.

Ephraimhelfgot (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Social democracy and progressivism

Social democracy and progressivism are the core ideas behind the Justice Democrats, as a contrast to centrist liberalism of mainstream Democrats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IWA1864 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, I think that New Deal Liberalism more accurately describes the Justice Democrats platform. Because if you go into the manifestos of Social Democratic parties all over the world the social democrats are quite significantly to the left of the Justice Democrats, even the moderate social democrats, like Francois Hollande, Antonio Costa, Helle Thorning-Schmidt etc are to the left of the Justice Democrats. I also think that the Justice Democrats ideology reflects the policies of Franklin Roosevelt, Henry A Wallace and Robert M. La Follette Sr. more, than say Clement Atlee, Jeremy Corbyn or Francois Mitterand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:63C3:F300:20BA:BDF4:3576:6069 (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about the others but Roosevelt was a social democrat. Either way all of that is just original research, you need to provide sources. Apollo The Logician (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Roosevelt was not a social democrat, he was a progressive. Social democracy is defined by the Merriam Webster dictionary as "a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means", Roosevelt never showed any intentions of wishing to turn America into a socialist state, therefor it can be reasonably assumed that he was not a social democrat.

One of the key principles shared by social democratic parties all over the world is the gradual nationalization of private industry into public control. To give a prime example of how far social democrats would go when nationalizing private industries, at one point Clement Attlee (Prime Minister of the UK) and one of the most successful social democratic heads of government in history, nationalized 1/5 of the entire economy of the UK. The founders of Justice Democrats (like Kyle Kulinski) have spoken out against gradually moving to full nationalization of public industry, he believes in a permanent mixed economy. Also, Kyle, Cenk and Bernie have all said at one point or another that they adhere to Keynesian economics. Robert Skidelsky who wrote a three volume biography on Keynes, made a distinction between Social Democratic economics and Keynesian economics, and said that they sought to achieve the same goals but through different means, with the Keynesians believing in free market capitalism but with government regulation and the social democrats believing in nationalized industry and public control.

So, with all of this in mind I would argue that the Justice Democrats are, in reality, more of a progressive, Keynesian political organization than a social democratic one.

Dictionaries aren't used as sources for political philosophies. Social Democracy is not what the OED describes it as. See the social democracy page.Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I did have a look at the social democracy page, and they referenced the Encyclopedia Britannica definition of social democracy as "a political ideology that originally advocated a peaceful transition of society from capitalism to socialism using establish processes."

However, when the social democracy page references politicians who have abandoned the goal of transitioning to socialism, they are referencing the Third Way movement. Third Way social democrats have abandoned social democracy and instead adopted the policy of Neoliberalism, therefore making these Third Way politicians liberals, not social democrats. Sheri Berman, the Associate Professor of Political Science at Barnard College described the Third Way politicians estrangement from real social democrats in her paper "Understanding Social Democracy".

Social democracy is traditionally viewed as a gradual transition to socialism, but social democracy also advocates the establishment of mixed economy, welfare state, supports the trade unions, labor rights, civil rights, promotion of social justice, and so on. Nordic model is the set of socioeconomic policies based on social democratc ideas.

Justice Democrat are inspired by views of Bernie Sanders. His ideas are based on social democracy and progressivism, he supports the establishment of a system similar to Nordic model and programs similar to the New Deal.

Kyle Kulinski one of the leading members of Justice Democrats is a self-described social democrat and progressive, and he described the program of Justice Democrats as social democracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IWA1864 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

You said Social Democracy advocates the establishment of a mixed economy, welfare state, support for trade unions, labour rights, civil rights and the promotion of social justice. That definition is so broad and generalistic that anyone and everyone even remotely on the left could call themselves a social democrat. By your definition of social democracy Hillary Clinton could be called a social democrat, because she believes in a mixed economy, a social safety net and civil rights etc, so are you saying Hillary Clinton is a social democrat?

Just because Bernie Sanders SAYS he wants to be more like the Nordic countries does not mean that he really understands what the Nordic model is, the Prime Minister of Denmark actually said Bernie was misunderstanding the Nordic Model. And this wouldn't be the first time Bernie has misused political terms, like when he calls himself a "democratic socialist", Bernie's policies do not indicate that he wants to overthrow capitalism and replace it with socialism, therefore he cannot be a democratic socialist.

Just because Kyle calls himself a social democrat does not make him one. He also says he is a progressive and a liberal, you cannot be a liberal and a social democrat at the same time, liberalism is regulated free market capitalism, social democracy is Evolutionary Socialism and Reformism, you cant be both liberal and socialist, at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:63C3:F300:1489:3937:790F:FE0C (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Modern usage of "social democrat" means regulated Keynesian capitalism with social programs. It matters not what the term was founded on. In a similar vain, "liberal" is not necessarily a contradiction of social democrat on the sole basis that liberalism was founded on laissez-faire. You don't go to a self-described liberal and say, "Hey, you believe in regulation! You're not an actual liberal because liberalism was founded on laissez-faire!" So why are you taking this approach with social democrats? Scholars have agreed that Bernie Sanders's ideology constitutes social democracy, the same ideology that guides JD. -- Firestar493 / Nightstar648 05:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

You are not describing social democracy, you are describing the Third Way. All scholars do not agree that Bernie is a social democrat, when Noam Chomsky was asked "Is Bernie Sanders merely a New Dealer, or perhaps a European social democrat, or something further to the left?" Chomsky responded "He seems to me a decent and honest New Dealer", Chomsky continued "Eisenhower, for example, who said anyone who questions the New Deal doesn’t belong in our political system would be regarded as a raging leftist. So, Bernie Sanders is a decent, honest New Dealer.” So according to Chomsky who is one of the greatest political intellectuals of our time, basically said if you think Bernie is a social democrat, then you have to believe every other supporter of the New Deal was and is a social democrat, so by that logic you must think Richard Nixon was a social democrat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:63C3:F300:988D:17B4:6DD6:76FF (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders is a proponent of workplace democracy and establishment of employee-owned enterprises, and that is why he is socialist, democratic socialist to be more precise. Here is the video of Sanders talking about workplace democracy and employee-owned enterprises: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HClEOrbwVHM

His other ideas are more in line with social democracy and progressivism, that is, he supports the establishment of a system similar to Nordic model, and programs similar to the New Deal.

Bernie Sanders like many other Americans misuse term socialism when referring to the Nordic model, and that is the reason why the Prime Minister of Denmark said that he is wrong about Nordic model.

Nordic model is not socialism, but a type of capitalist mixed economy and welfare state based on social democratic ideas.

The program of Justice Democrat is based on Bernie Sanders ideas, that is the establishment of a system similar to Nordic model (social democracy) and programs similar to the New Deal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IWA1864 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Neutrality issues, cleanup of platform

The history section seems to have issues when it comes to meeting WP:NPOV ("Democratic politicians who supported their Super PAC donors over their constituents", "...or cause them to become accountable to their constituents") and WP:VER ("Many believed that..."). Having these parts in there are fine but it needs to be reworked to indicate that these are JD (and their supporters) views.

Additionally, I've removed the bulleted list from the platform section because it was almost entirely copied from the Justice Democrats' website. What remains in the section can be reworked, and even hopefully expanded, with more third party source citations. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 01:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion is ridiculous

This article meets none of the criteria for deletion, including criteria for speedy deletion (Oshwah removed the tag for speedy deletion). It would be nice if Drmies adds more details on why this page should be deleted, as the warning has no indication of reason. --Nightstar648 (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, it's on the AfD page. Not notable. Too soon. Only one single reliable source that discusses this thing. Borderline promotional, with the additional note that the three or four editors, and perhaps an IP or two, seem to have appeared out of nowhere to support/promote this one article, begging the question of their involvement with the subject. Just saying. So plenty of reason. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Justice Democrats have expanded significantly since these comments were written. Out of the thousands of nominations received at this point, they now have a joint nominee and have begun coordinating with Brand New Congress (an established group which has a Wikipedia page). Their membership and donor base has grown exponentially and will keep doing so. It has now been featured on several media outlets. The statement that Washington Post is a reliable source is not objective and is evidence of political opposition to Justice Democrats. The Washington Post was notorious for a stream of negative articles against Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries. Corporate media reporting on something or not, is not a valid metric to determine whether something is notable or not. For example: Bernie Sanders giving a rally to tens of thousands of supporters on the evening of a primary was not shown on a single corporate news network, despite that those networks showed every other Democratic and Republican candidate's speeches to far smaller crowds, most of them with a lesser position in their races, including showing empty podiums. IntoTheWoods (talk) 15:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
• Yeah, it's not like I Googled "justice democrat" after hearing about it, saw this Wikipedia page, and decided that it needed a lot of work. Also, learn to count bro. If it's biased language you're worried about, it will be handled. --Nightstar648 (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Nightstar648, I'm not your bro. I was counting reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Out of curiosity, how is it that NYT, Washington Post, NBC, MSNBC, and CNN are considered "reliable" sources when they are owned and their "journalists" are paid by the very people who have been trying to suppress the progressive voice from day one? --Miunouta (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

right wing supporters shouldn't delete this because political reasons. Wikipedia should reflect 'what is'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bartreligion (talk • contribs) 20:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Reformat of page and article reform

I have reworked this page to be more in line with the format of the pages of the various Congressional Member Organizations, specifically the standard set by the Congressional Constitution Caucus page, as all evidence points to this is what the Justice Democrats hope to become. They are listed as and act like a PAC, yet their lone representative wants to ban PACS (source). Under their proposed system of reforms, the only way the organization could continue to exist and still maintain their level of influence, would be for them to create a Justice Democrats Caucus, and tie that to the Justice Democrats Organization. This would not be unheard of, as the Ohio River Basin Congressional Caucus has done a similar thing.

Regardless of the organizations motives, I do believe my reformat to the page is necessary as the prior layout of the page was disorganized, and sounded more like an advertisement than an actual encyclopedic entry, which is what this is supposed to be. I am going to continue my work on this page in the future, adding a section on the organizations controversy, as well as completely overhauling the ideology section. On that note, I implore my fellow editors to refrain from just copying and pasting the bulletpoint list on the JD website into the ideology section, as this list is vague and unhelpful to the average reader. Let me illustrate my point by running through the list in its current form.

• Making the minimum wage a living wage and tying it to inflation. (does not define what a 'living wage' is)
• Ensuring universal health care as a right. (does not define universal healthcare nor state how they will accomplish goal)
• Ensuring universal education as a right. (does not define universal education. Are we talking about college? job training? Paying for private schools?)
• Ending unnecessary wars and nation-building. (does not define what constitutes an 'unnecessary war', nor does it define 'nation building')
• Ending the War on Drugs. (Does not define what the War on Drugs is nor how they will 'end' an undeclared war. Also does not state the groups alternate strategy for combatting illegal drugs, if there even is one.)
• Creating the New New Deal (does not define what a New New Deal is. What even is a New New Deal? There has to be a better name for it.)
• Starting the clean energy revolution. (again, no specifics are provided as to what a 'clean energy revolution' is.
• Ending the death penalty. (this is the most straightforeward, however it does not state how the organizations plan to accomplish this when they are only putting foreward Congressional candidates, and you need the support of state legislators to abolish it on the state level)
• Implementing ranked choice voting. (again does not define what ranked choice is nor how they plan to accomplish this goal,

The edit history shows this seems to be a game of editing ping-pong. Someone posts the list, then someone deletes it, then someone reposts it, then someone deletes it. Instead of going back and forth, I ask we take the list and expand it into its own section, so we are not leaving readers who are unaware of the 'new new deal' confused. I propose that instead of listing all of the policies of the Justice Democrats, we instead list HOW they differ from the mainstream Democratic Party's platform. In my opinion, this makes logical sense, as the Justice Democrats is a subset of the Democratic Party, so why do we need to list everything? This would remove the references to the abolition of the death penalty, universal healthcare, ending the war on drugs, and would reduce Universal education to a footnote, as the party platform is already mostly in line with what the Justice Democrats want.

In conclusion, I think we can work together to rework the page to turn it from being a poorly-organized ad for the Justice Democrats into someday being a candidate for FA-status. I hope we can further refine this goal and form this article into one of the best Wikipedia has to offer. Firstclass306 (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Who is Koller?

An edit made today mentions in the lede someone named Koller resigning, while the rest of the article has no mention of who that person is. --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

According to an article on the Washington Post, Koller is the senior vice president of operations at TYT

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/22/cenk-uygur-young-turks-founder-apologizes-insensit/

-- GSWikiChampion 03:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The point is, the article never mentions Koller. Who is he? What position with the organization did he resign from? this earlier view of their website shows Uygur but does not mention Koller, though you have sourced that he is a business associate in leadership at Uygur's TYT Network. Until we establish (source) what Koller's relationship is to Justice Democrats, I'm going to remove his mention. Trackinfo (talk) 05:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Who are the currently elected members?

A similar who is question: The article mentions Ro Khanna as the first elected member in congress. The inbox shows two. The article does not mention who is the other. (reformatted to accent the question) Trackinfo (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

PACs do not have seat counts

As a note to fellow editors, please remember that PACs are not political parties and do not have seat counts in the House and/or Senate. Members who were elected with JD's support should be discussed in the article body. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 03:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

First Candidate For Governer Endorsement

https://twitter.com/justicedems/status/966720621894914048

Presumably not only does this mean there needs to be a section on the webpage of their 2018 governorship endorsements but maybe some remark in the intro is needed on how they now endorse in governors races and not just races for congress Disaster Area (talk) 01:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Rashida Tlaib

Why does it say Rashida wasn’t part of the general election even though she won her house seat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.222.123 (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Justice Department endorsements belong in the text of a politician's article - not the lead

Somebody has spammed "endorsed by the Justice Democrats" into the lead sections of half a dozen articles about politicians. I am going to remove it. Endorsement information goes in the article text, not the lead. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I would agree that, in general, what you are saying is correct.

However, there might be some cases in which a person's (a politician's) relationship with "the Justice Democrats" (whether ""endorsed by", or some other involvement or connection) might be an important part of the reasons for notability.

For example (and, this might not be a good example; ... but, even if this is a bad example, the above sentence starting with "However, there might be some cases [...]" could still be true) there were some recent articles -- such as https://nypost.com/2019/03/20/ocasio-cortez-booted-from-board-of-justice-democrats-pac/?utm_source=NYPFacebook&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&sr_share=facebook&utm_medium=SocialFlow&fbclid=IwAR20AafymhVl8R0V0P8nR-n_DO4SOv7-v1nzuHDSHbVaus71eo8sLnAny9w [1] ... which links to (and seems to sorta "stem from", and/or to be "based upon") https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/18/ocasio-cortez-justice-democrats-pac/ [2] -- which mention "the Justice Democrats" prominently, (and which deal with the [changing?] relationship between Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and "the Justice Democrats").

(Quote: from [2]: << "The New York Democrat and her chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, who served as her campaign chair, joined the board of Justice Democrats in December 2017, according to the political action committee’s website. It also said the two held “legal control over the entity” at the same time it was playing a key role in supporting Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign prior to her shock victory over incumbent Democratic Rep. Joe Crowley in June 2018." >>)

(where the word "said" was already a hyperlink to https://web.archive.org/web/20180710013817/justicedemocrats.com/about within (from) [2]; ... so, one may click on it, from [2] OR from here.)

This might not mean that these ideas about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's relationship with "the Justice Democrats" should appear in the lede part of the Wikipedia article about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; but maybe they should appear somewhere in that Wikipedia article (the one about AOC).

(right?) (Any comments?) --Mike Schwartz (talk) 06:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)