Waleed Shahid wants a war within the party.

[BlueLucy]

"If that requires knocking out well-known elected officials and replacing them with more radical newcomers, so be it. And if it ends up ripping apart the Democratic Party in the process—well, that might be the idea.

“There is going to be a war within the party. We are going to lean into it,” said Waleed Shahid, the group’s spokesman.


https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/04/the-insurgents-behind-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-224542/

[The Magistrate]

1. Fuck These People Sideways, Ma'am

The left auxiliary of the Republican party, who won't even give them a kiss for their efforts when they succeed in delivering the country to the christo-fascist right.

[PortTack]

2. This +1000 times

[Hekate]

6. Salty but very apropos, Sir...

When people tell you who they are, believe them. These people are not our allies.

[Cha]

61. lol.. Spicy! But fuck yeah!

[sheshe2]

77. ...

[Cha]

81. Hello Fellow Lover of Democracy & NOT

Gaslit Bullshit!

[sheshe2]

82. Cheers!

[Cha]

83. Cheers!

to Democracy! We have Enough Fascist Assholes trying to Take it Away!

[sheshe2]

84. Love it.

LMPV should add that to his sig line!

[SheltieLover]

10. +1,000!

[sheshe2]

76. You have a sweet way with words, sir.

Love it+++++++++++

[Hortensis]

3. Well said. "The left auxiliary of the Republican party." These people have

just as openly stated that helping Republicans defeat Democrats is good. Republicans will cause such distress to the nation that anxious people will vote for their candidates, turning from one pack of predatory hyenas to another.

And in fact it did work for them and they did gain a little handful of wins after they helped Republicans take over in 2016. Almost none in 2018, but they got a few more in 2020: By last November's election, over 200,000 people had died of Covid with totals predicted to reach a quarter million soon after the new year, as they did.

[betsuni]

4. Expect whining that the article's from 2019, as if the goal isn't the same now.

They said exactly what they wanted to do.

[sheshe2]

5. Nothing has changed.

Nothing at all, their goal has not changed.

In one of, Justice Democrats deleted tweets they plan a hostile take over of our party.

[betsuni]

7. I remember that on their original website they said the goal was a hostile takeover.

They haven't been at all subtle or secretive about it.

[Wounded Bear]

8. Or very successful, either...

[betsuni]

9. Yes.

Because their ideas about the United States are wrong.

[Kahuna]

18. This. nt

[sheshe2]

99. True, dat.

[Cha]

87. Yeah, the article is like a look into their future..

they haven't changed their Gaslit Bullshit goals.

[George II]

88. The goal is even more so now. One only needs to subscribe to their email list to see that.

[betsuni]

12. I knew it!

[Celerity]

13. your post is the reason why I posted mine, so transparent what the OP is trying to do with a retro

based (especially the 'non-mention of the date' gambit) shit-stir

[betsuni]

14. But it's true. The goal hasn't changed.

Anyone familiar with Justice Democrats/Sunrise Movement and similar groups knows this. They say it in their fundraising emails.

[Celerity]

15. there the dated/misleading facts that a person reading it might assume are still in place

Last edited Tue Aug 24, 2021, 06:53 AM - Edit history (1)

1. Saikat Chakrabarti left as AOC's chief of staff over two years ago:

Resignation as chief of staff

On August 2, 2019, Representative Ocasio-Cortez announced that Saikat Chakrabarti "has decided to leave the office to work with New Consensus to further develop plans for a Green New Deal." That same day in an interview with The Intercept Chakrabarti said he would be starting work with New Consensus, an organization dedicated to the Green New Deal, the Congresswoman’s "ambitious climate, economic, and racial justice agenda."

A subsequent article in The New York Times suggested a connection between this departure and Ocasio-Cortez's adoption of a more moderate strategy for working with conservative colleagues.

2. AOC resigned from Justice Democrats 4 days after she won her 2018 primary, and before the 2018 general election. The article claims she was still the executive director, which was not true.

Progressive group disputes right-wing report that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was quietly booted from its board

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-progressive-disputes-ocasio-cortez-booted-20190320-w4zck4474fcxxiutfinfundm5y-story.html

A prominent progressive PAC pushed back Wednesday against a right-wing outlet’s report that it recently removed Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from its board under dubious circumstances. The Justice Democrats, a left-wing advocacy group that helped engineer Ocasio-Cortez’s midterm primary victory, flatly denied a Daily Caller report that the Bronx-born congresswoman was first removed from its board on Friday.

“There’s no real story here,” a spokesman for the group told the Daily News, adding that Ocasio-Cortez actually resigned from its board on June 30, 2018 — four days after her upset victory against longtime New York Rep. Joe Crowley.

The spokesman said resignation papers Daily Caller reported on were filed publicly in Washington, D.C., on Friday “for the sake of transparency.” “Justice Democrats was not required to disclose that resignation under federal campaign finance law, and was not required to disclose that resignation under D.C.’s nonprofit law until April 2020,” the spokesman said.

Ocasio-Cortez’s congressional office provided The News with an email dated June 30, 2018, in which the congresswoman wrote, “I resign from the Board of Directors of Justice Democrats effective June 30, 2018.” A formal resignation letter with the same date, also obtained by The News, corroborates the same. Andrew Kerr, the author of the Daily Caller report, did not return a request for comment.

[betsuni]

16. No.

[MrsCoffee]

20. Lol.

[NurseJackie]

22. Ha!

[George II]

33. In other words she was on the board of directors of Justice Democrats, who recruited her....

....throughout the primary campaign. And technically she was still on the board of directors during the general election campaign, at least for a few days.

It should be noted that on June 5, 2018, while she was on the board of directors, Justice Democrats contributed $5,000 to her campaign.

[uponit7771]

56. +1,

[George II]

25. The date is clearly in the link:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story /2019/02/04/ the-insurgents-behind-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-224542/

Even so, has the premise of the article changed? This was in an email from Justice Democrats sent just yesterday afternoon:

"We need to transform the Democratic Party"

[Celerity]

29. Yes the premiss has changed, as 2 people that are a main focus of the article are no longer (and one

was not even in the position when they made the claim they were) in the positions they discuss. That does change the framing to a large degree.

I already pointed this out:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15775547

The date being in the link or not (if I use an old article as the sole reference for an OP, which is very rare, I always mention that fact in the subject line or at the very beginning, besides just relying on the url), it just an old article dredged up for current pot-stirring, the same old same old.

[George II]

34. I don't know who the two people you're talking about, but the main focus of the OP...

...is Waleed Shahid and Justice Democrats. In fact the headline of the article is a direct quote from Shahid, who was Justice Democrats' "spokesman" and still is their Communications Director (i.e. "spokesperson" )

Shahid's Twitter profile:

Very Senior Democratic Strategist. Spox, @justicedems. Vote @JamaalBowmanNY + @CoriBush + @Marie4Congress . Fmr: @AOC , @berniesanders. #YNWA.

No, the premise of the article hasn't changed at all.

I wonder, was there equal outrage when a quote from 2019 (neither dated nor attributed) was posted yesteday?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=15771037

[Celerity]

39. lol, spare me the feigned perplexity

I don't know who the two people you're talking about

That is just a whole new level of disingenuousness and pettifogging, as I clearly was talking AOC and Chakrabarti, plus provided a link to that as well, just to remove all doubt, a link to my post that has those 2 people as MY subject of that post of mine, and why the old OP article is no longer germane when it comes to those two people's framings that the article does.

The time stamps betray you George, you had ALREADY read my post about AOC and Chakrabarti AND replied to it BEFORE you now claim to not know whom I was speaking of now


here you are at 4 11 replying to my AOC/Chakrabarti post



and now here you are at 4 18 claiming ignorance as to whom I was speaking (and again I specifically pit the link in to my reply to you)




you, with that reply directly above, were speaking to my post here: (again it has the link back to original post I made, just to remove all doubt)




birds eye view of all this, showing that you claim is attempted sophistry and not factual





now, as to the OP articles subjects, (the 2 that I was talking about, AOC and Chakrabarti, I made zero claims about other subjects in the OP article):


The OP article starts out by focussing on Saikat Chakrabarti (and because it is old, it is two years out of date in regards to calling him AOC's chief of staff), he is literally the first one quoted.

Then, after the first line break in the article, AOC is then focussed upon.

starting here





Again, I clearly linked to my post to whom I was referring to in my reply to you

here




there zero chance you did not know who I meant

[George II]

43. The main focus of the article is Waleed Shahid and Justice Democrats. But even so, you said....

...(assuming you were talking about those two):

"the premiss has changed, as 2 people that are a main focus of the article are no longer (and one was not even in the position when they made the claim they were) in the positions they discuss.

Yes, Chakrabarti resigned in August 2019 (not for the reason given, however) but Ocasio-Cortez is still the position she was in when Chakrabarti resigned.

[Celerity]

49. what does this even mean?

but Ocasio-Cortez is still the position she was in when Chakrabarti resigned.

AOC's position (when Chakrabarti resigned on August 2nd, 2019, as her chief of staff) was (and still is, much to your chagrin I am sure) as the sitting Democratic US House of Representative member for NY's 14 Congressional District.

She (AOC) had officially resigned from Justice Democrats on June 30, 2018, over a year before. I already have documented this, but here it is again:


Progressive group disputes right-wing report that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was quietly booted from its board

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-progressive-disputes-ocasio-cortez-booted-20190320-w4zck4474fcxxiutfinfundm5y-story.html

A prominent progressive PAC pushed back Wednesday against a right-wing outlet’s report that it recently removed Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from its board under dubious circumstances. The Justice Democrats, a left-wing advocacy group that helped engineer Ocasio-Cortez’s midterm primary victory, flatly denied a Daily Caller report that the Bronx-born congresswoman was first removed from its board on Friday.

“There’s no real story here,” a spokesman for the group told the Daily News, adding that Ocasio-Cortez actually resigned from its board on June 30, 2018 — four days after her upset victory against longtime New York Rep. Joe Crowley.

The spokesman said resignation papers Daily Caller reported on were filed publicly in Washington, D.C., on Friday “for the sake of transparency.” “Justice Democrats was not required to disclose that resignation under federal campaign finance law, and was not required to disclose that resignation under D.C.’s nonprofit law until April 2020,” the spokesman said.

Ocasio-Cortez’s congressional office provided The News with an email dated June 30, 2018, in which the congresswoman wrote, “I resign from the Board of Directors of Justice Democrats effective June 30, 2018.” A formal resignation letter with the same date, also obtained by The News, corroborates the same. Andrew Kerr, the author of the Daily Caller report, did not return a request for comment.

The 2 and a half year old OP article falsely stated that AOC was still, in 2019, the executive director of Justice Democrats. Further making it non germane to the present day, Chakrabarti has long since (over 2 years ago now) ceased being her chief of staff. Those 2 things make the OP article no longer relevant in its framings about 2 of the central people it wrote about.


AOC is mentioned 29 times in it, Saikat Chakrabarti 8 times (and was the lead off subject and first person quoted)

Waleed Shahid is mentioned 13 times

37 times for the two people I discussed, 13 times for Shahid

that is an almost 3 to 1 mention ratio

Yet you include Shahid as part of your 'main focus' positing:

The main focus of the article is Waleed Shahid and Justice Democrats

I take that as an attempt to downplay my mentioning of AOC and Chakrabarti's information being either dated (Chakrabarti) or outright incorrect (AOC) on the part of the OP's article in regards to the present day (Chakrabarti) and truth in general (AOC).

I see it as an attempt to somehow downplay or discredit my debunking (of the false statement about AOC) as well as my pointing out of time-based non germane aspect (to the present day) in regards to Chakrabarti, as the role (AOC's chief of staff) that gave him his biggest exposure and actual governmental-based power is no longer one that he possesses, and has not possessed for over 2 years.

[George II]

53. The headline of the article is a direct quote by Waleed Shahid. He was spokesperson for JD in 2019..

....when the article was written and he still is. The main focus of the article is him and Justice Democrats.

In 2019 Chakrabarti was Ocasio-Cortez' Chief of Staff. He resigned later that year.
In 2019 Ocasio-Cortez was representative for NY-14. She still is.

The two people that I now know you were talking about (although not the main focus of the article) are those two. It's not true that they're not in the position now that they were back in 2019. Yes, One resigned although stayed very active with all involved, the other is still at the same position.

It's irrelevant how many times people are mentioned, the article is about Waleed Shahid and Justice Democrats.

The initial point of the discussion is that Justice Democrats has all but declared war on the Democratic Party. That was the case in 2019 at the time of the article (indeed, in 2017 when they first announced their intentions), it was true in 2020, and is still true in 2021.

Just a casual review of both Waleed Shahid's and Saikat Chakrabarti's recent tweets show that's the case.

[sheshe2]

85. All those screen shots remind me of something.

Can't put my finger on it.

[betsuni]

94. ...

[sheshe2]

95. ...

[tirebiter]

19. You completely lost me at Chakrabarti

[Elessar Zappa]

21. Why are you posting such an old article?

Trolling?

[Bettie]

23. Almost seems like it's a job for

some people...I'm sure eventually, they will find that in third grade some progressive woman wrote a school report that renders them unfit for ever holding office, because...well, reasons.

They also swarm. Look at any post that mentions AOC even in passing...hating her is apparently a hobby.

They hate her far more than they dislike any republican anywhere.

[Celerity]

31. +10000

[George II]

36. "Some people"? "They also swarm"? "They hate"? Who are "they" or those "some people"?

[tonedevil]

46. It seems obvious to me.

Perhaps if you gave it some thought you might be able to answer your own question.

[George II]

70. I have and I can't.

[tonedevil]

73. That's cool. /nt

[tonedevil]

41. I have noticed that as well. /nt

[Sympthsical]

47. Got it in one

Sinema, who is actually derailing Biden's agenda, is taking some heat this week.

So, we had to find this.

The usual "Squirrel!"

[George II]

71. Kyrsten Sinema is neither a member of Justice Democrats nor derailing Biden's agenda. In fact....

....Senator Sinema is one of the group of Senators who have voted more in line with Biden's agenda than a number of other Senators - both Democratic and republican.

That's a fact.

[Hortensis]

58. Bettie, the complaint isn't about progressive Democrats, it's

about subversive ANTI-Democrats who call themselves progressive to hide among genuine progressive Dems. LW radicalism and extremism draws very little support, so they trick people into confusing them with Democratic progressives to disguise their hostile goals and to seem far more numerous than they are.

Remember, these non-Democrats deliberately threw progressivism, and all its noble goals, under the Republican bus in 2016 by lying about Democrats every bit as viciously as Republicans, refusing to vote Democratic, and encouraging people to vote against Democratic candidates.

It worked.

And greatly encouraged by their and the Republican Party's successes, the ANTI-Democratic left believes further Republican successes will destroy the Democratic Party for them.

[Cha]

68. Exactly Hortensis! TY for Explaining THAT!

[betsuni]

75. [phone]

[demmiblue]

72. Yep. n/t

[sheshe2]

102. Bettie, you have been here for a long time.

Almost seems like it's a job for
some people.

A job? That sounds like you are saying some people are being paid to post here. I am sure you do not wish to imply that any DUer is a paid troll.

They also swarm... hating her is apparently a hobby.

This is a discussion board and we discuss ideas and view points. We disagree but your use of the word "swarm" is OTT.

a large or dense group of insects, especially flying ones.
"a swarm of locusts"
verb
1.
(of insects) move in or form a swarm.
"a plague of locusts swarmed across the countryside"

move somewhere in large numbers.
"protesters were swarming into the building"

As for hate
that is a very strong word to use against people that disagree with your viewpoint.

They hate her far more than they dislike any republican anywhere.

Welp. The ones on DU you call the "swarm" and "haters" vote Democratic every dayum time. Your innuendo that we like Republicans more than a Democratic candidate is insulting at best.

I think you should reconsider your words and apologize to those of us you insulted. We can agree to disagree, yet insults over facts are unacceptable.

[betsuni]

104. At least DUers weren't called racists this time.

That's very popular.

[Cha]

105. Bingo, she! When anyone resorts to

insults.. they've already lost.

[betsuni]

24. Tweet from 2019 posted here the other day:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100215771037

[George II]

37. And that was posted without date, source (other than initials), or context. We only learned.....

....of the year after inquiries.

[betsuni]

92. Yes, and this OP has the date in the link right there.

Has something happened to time?

When an organization or person says the same things and has the same goals in 2021 as they did in 2015 or 2019 or last year, that suddenly doesn't matter? They have to say it today or it doesn't count? Do we have to do that with everything now? No more history!

The last two elections what the candidates did twenty, thirty, fifty years ago was of vital importance, the key to their characters, a guarantee of what they'd do as president. How many times did we have to see "Goldwater Girl"? But an article from 2019? OMG that's, like, ancient history.

[George II]

93. Boggles the mind, doesn't it?

[sheshe2]

96. Oh, This!

They have to say it today or it doesn't count? Do we have to do that with everything now? No more history!

I was thinking the same thing myself, history no longer matters. What was the past is past and should remain in the past? We heard "he walked with Martin" and repeated to this day, yet an article from 2 years ago is a no no when in fact it is as relevant today as it was then.

Sad that the GOP is trying to erase our past and will not allow it taught in schools because it is an 'embarrassment'. We are better than that.

[betsuni]

101. That's my favorite.

A couple years of early-sixties college activism makes one a life-long champion of civil rights. People fell for it!

[Budi]

27. See post #4

[George II]

35. It was written in February 2019, but the substance is essentially still valid, perhaps more so.

[Cha]

62. So? I appreciate exposing just who the

hell "JD" are.

Why should they be covered up.. just because it's from 2 years ago? They haven't changed.

[George II]

74. Yesterday there was a quote posted, without source or context, from the same year.

[PatSeg]

26. What was the point of posting that article?

It is over two years old. Initially, it got me needlessly upset until I saw the date. There are more than enough reasons to be outraged these days, we certainly don't need to create more.

[Budi]

28. He's still the same today as then. He's got a big piece in NYTimes now, same m.o. as 2 yrs ago

This is who & what Shahid gets paid to do.

The guy druels at the thought of complete annhialation of the Democratic Party.

He gets no protection from the revelations of what his mission is.
"Money & Media", after all..

[PatSeg]

32. That is really disturbing

One of those fools who wants to blow everything up. Such people have always been with us.

[Budi]

38. His entire bio is disturbing, his mission & who he surrounds himself with.

Zak Exley's Russian ties & the merge of his Brand New Congress back in 2015.
Cenk Uygur's Republican $$$ ties
Saikat Chakrabarti (where do I start)
Ryan Grimm
And more.

Waleed & the history of Momentum Movement

They are fair game when their organization is the destruction of our very Democracy.

Watching how they came to be, & the direction they are headed, the targets they've marked for removal & replacement & the m.o. they use, it is past time for giving them protection.

Odd how their mantra of the evils of millionares, capitalists, etc have since made them all millionares & multimillionares themselves!

"Money & Media" It's a slick game of self enrichment & comes from a place the Democratic Party & our Democracy has never been, & a place it should never go.

[PatSeg]

50. Yeah, isn't that funny?

Getting rich off of attacking wealth.

[George II]

86. His partner, Saikat Chakrabarti (co-founder of Justice Democrats, former campaign manager and....

....chief of staff of Ocasio-Cortez) is a multimillionaire. He worked on Wall Street several years then Silicone Valley. He was one of the founders of payment processing software company "Stripe", and has a couple of political LLCs located in suburban DC (Maryland, I believe)

[PatSeg]

90. Pretty lucrative scam

Evidently there are plenty of marks both on the right and the left.

[Demsrule86]

44. They are around and have caused damage 2000, 2010,2014 and 2016. However they are not

'with us'. They are with the GOP really.

[PatSeg]

52. Oh yes

Though I meant in general throughout history. We've always had the disruptors and agitators who have no plan aside from destruction. As for today's disruptors, I agree a lot of that comes from the right and probably even Putin. Creating chaos wherever they can in the name of liberalism.

[Budi]

55. Its a Right flank/Left flank war game strategy. With MSM & social media as their preferred weapon.

Which is why the use of media propaganda is so successful in manipulating the people of authoritarian govts such as Russia.

"Money & Media"

[PatSeg]

66. Cheaper and more effective than traditional warfare too

[Demsrule86]

69. I agree with you. Jill Stein had connections to Putin...there is a picture of her at a dinner

with Putin and Michael Flynn

[PatSeg]

79. It is like a Tom Clancy novel,

except too ludicrous to be accepted even as fiction and many of the characters are so over-the-top. Seems more like a satire such as Dr. Strangelove, though actually Dr. Strangelove had more believable characters.

[Demsrule86]

107. Sure is. I read all of those books. Did you ever read

the cyber-security ones?

[PatSeg]

108. No, what was it called?

I didn't know there more, as the Dr. Strangelove book was based on the movie.

[Budi]

54. Interesting to see them emerge from the shaddows they've hid behind as....

..as the truth of what they're after is now outed.

Thank you TeamBluePac 💙 and the relentless factcheckers who are dedicated to rooting out the facade from the shadows.
Because as we all know, "Democracy dies in darkness"

[Demsrule86]

67. Well Said!

[SidDithers]

30. Politico is trash, again...nt

Sid

[tonedevil]

40. It's 2019 again...

thanks for this trip down memory lane. It is so helpful.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

48. Noticed that too

What's the idea of posting 2 1/2 year old articles?

[Celerity]

51. ...

[Andy823]

59. You got it!

Seems like DU has seen in influx of "new chefs" who want to "stir" the pot!

[BlueLucy]

60. Is that your only complaint?

You have an issue with the date but what about the substance? He is actively engaging in trying to do what he said. Democrats need to be aware of who he is and what he is up to.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

63. Is he still doing it?

If so I'm sure there are more up to date stories out there.

[Cha]

80. It doesn't matter that it's 2 years old..

they haven't changed.

There's always articles on DU that are older that are qualified by it's "still relevant." That's what this is and I appreciate it.

They're Gaslit and they're Messing with our Democracy!

[George II]

91. Yes he is, and yes there are. Plus he, Justice Democrats, and Saikat Chakrabarti....

...(who is still deeply involved despite his "resignations" in 2018/2019) are very active on Twitter.

Easy to find recent activities similar to those in 2019.

[sheshe2]

78. Tell me what has changed in 2 1/2 years.

Most recently JD went out of their way to support a candidate that had to run as a DEM because her new Peoples Party didn't have time to get up and running for Ohio11. Turner was a third party voter and campaigner for Jill Stein. She called voting for Biden a half bowl of shit. Just take a look at who went to Ohio to help her. All associated with JD.

[George II]

97. There also are a couple of recent articles in NY Times and Seattle Times w/similar sentiments.

[sheshe2]

98. Thanks.

It is current events.

[Cha]

100. Touche'!

[sheshe2]

103. Danka.

[Cha]

106. Aloha!

[George II]

89. Similar articles, although not so explicit, were published in just the last two days....

....in both the NY Times and Seattle times.

[Demsrule86]

42. Yeah right...people saw who this sort was...won't work.

Have your pitiful primaries...waste your money...go for it. The trouble is while you may spoil elections, those you back don't win generally...or you are trading Democratic seats...why don't you just register as a Republican...Mr. Shahid...it is who you are.

[Budi]

57. Thank you. It is who they were before 2016, & that in itself leads us down another path...

...& the deeper you look, the more you find out, & here we are!
Standing in the pure light of truth

Democracy will survive in the end because we demand it not ever be lost to an unknown smooth talking charmer smiling our way, the one with the shine glimmering from his front tooth.

[Cha]

64. Really.. I didn't know that! WS was

a repub?

TY!

[Budi]

65. Cenk wasn't till around 2016, & many of the candidates they endorse weren't either...

...until they were commissioned to run for office opposing a Democrat.

Go figure!

#💙🍃 TeamBluePac

[mcar]

45. Who? Why should anyone care what this random person thinks?

Oh, and Politico, of course.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

109. Jim Clyburn goes OFF on Bernie Sanders/Nina Turner-aligned Our Revolution protesters

Link to tweet

[betsuni]

110. Wow! That was great!

Love it.