2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie's endorsed HRC...nobody here supports any third-party candidates...
There is no reason for anyone here to post any further OP's baiting and attacking the left.
Doing so hurts the party AND our nominee, Secretary Clinton.
The only way we can be sure to win in the fall is reconciliation and unity among all.
No one still posting here is the enemy.
still_one
(92,394 posts)beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)The NRA controlling our safety.....this is the time....
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)on the best things we stand for.
We need to win by trying to get people to vote FOR our candidate.
GoneOffShore
(17,340 posts)SCVDem
(5,103 posts)I could list the differences but this is DU. We know what they are.
Let's just end this with this; Donald Trump disses a sitting Supreme. At the moment he is a minnow in the scheme of things.
RGB delivered her first amendment right to freely speak.
The worst is the Turtle going insane over BLM and calling out our President. Fuck Him!
He plotted to bring down this President from day one! Him and his group of treasonous bastards.
Explain yourself douche!
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
SCVDem
(5,103 posts)Trump just pisses me off.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)msongs
(67,441 posts)pnwmom
(108,994 posts)sheshe2
(83,898 posts)Raine1967
(11,589 posts)and I really do mean it.
people are allowed to be members of other websites and still be members here at DU. I am going to put those members of a hate site on ignore.
if others do, they will have less influence here.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)If they bash HRC on here, go after them.
If they openly campaign for other parties here, go after them.
We don't need to drive anyone else away.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)here.
GusBob
(7,286 posts)Sad he or she was voting for Jill Stein.
There is a reason they have the support Democrats rule
retrowire
(10,345 posts)No one is the enemy, and we're all a bunch of American citizens that need to work together?
Or you know... We could just say fuck that and fight some more.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Particularly Stein, who's only plausible objective is to siphon votes off of Hillary in order to get Trump elected. She's every bit as crazy as Gary Johnson, but at least Johnson takes votes from Trump at least as much as from Hillary, but Stein's campaign is a pure pro-Trump effort. It's not surprising that GOP supporters have run pro-Green ads in the past and even funded efforts to get Green party candidates on ballots.
Pharaoh
(8,209 posts)You brought her up, not me, but I am curious which of her positions are pro trump?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)She went to Harvard and has an MD, she's not totally braindead. So she knows she can't possibly win, and she knows she's taking votes from Hillary and not Trump. And so she knows the only effect she can have is to help Trump get elected.
Her positions are totally irrelevant because everyone including her knows she will never get anywhere near elected office where she could actually implement those positions. They are just a means of propaganda that she uses in order to take votes away from Hillary for the benefit of Trump.
TheFarseer
(9,326 posts)If they get 5%. Not that I'm on board with that, just throwing it out there since you asked.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)TheFarseer
(9,326 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)Pharaoh
(8,209 posts)but it's your opinion and you are entitled to it.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)These aren't particularly controversial facts, nobody thinks she can win, and nobody thinks she will take as many votes from Trump as from Hillary.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I imagine we often rationalize that voting based on conviction is an ethical negative, while voting on an efficient and utilitarian basis is an ethical good.
Truthful may be what it is... but truth A does not deny truth B, regardless of how we justify laying our convictions to side.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Or else they are purposefully deluding themselves, which doesn't place them on higher ethical grounds than the ones that know what they are doing.
HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)That is just simple math. If enough people vote for her in swing states, it could help elect Trump. Even Bwenien Sanders himself agrees with this. He talked about why you shouldn't vote for a third party spoiler in a TYT interview about a month ago. Plus, it basically happened in 2000 with Ralph Nader.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)Anything Jill does to chip away at Hillary's support helps him.
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)...and the progressive platform both campaigns worked together to draft...
We can win on the merits of OUR ticket and OUR promises.
The key to victory is mobilizing a high turnout for OUR party in November-not doing threads here that are intended to sow distrust and division among Democrats and progressive. We don't need loyalty tests and left-baiting "prove you're with us" OP's.
What matters is unity and inspiration and effort.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I hope you're not suggesting that we back off from criticizing Trump. Because he deserves to be criticized. It would be irresponsible not to criticize him.
And the same goes for the Green party. They are a tool of the GOP. In some cases literally: GOP-allied groups have run ads in the past in favor of Green candidates, hoping to pull votes away from the Democrats. In Texas, GOP allies funded petition drives to get Green candidates on ballots. Do you think they did this because they wanted to reduce carbon emissions? Of course not.
Because the Green party doesn't actually get any progressive policies passed. It has nothing to do with "left-baiting", the Green party isn't "left", all they do is help Republicans into office. And everyone knows this, it's an open secret. The GOP loves them.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Trump is the only other candidate who actually stands any chance of getting elected. If we are going to attack on qualifications, it is Trump we should be doing that to.
The response to the Green candidate should be based on pointing out that she can't win, that voting for her helps elect Trump, and that we've adopted a lot of positions in the platform that would appeal to her supporters(as well as to the majority of the electorate).
What we really need to avoid is OP's that are designed to try to bait people into making pro-Stein comments by maligning her on an excessively personal basis, AND posts that are just continued attacks on people who want our party to be more progressive. Posts that are meant as "loyalty tests", in a way.
We have no need for that kind of thing now.
With the platform we've adopted, we can win over left voters on the merits.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It's not officially associated with Trump, but it tries to help Trump win by attacking Hillary. And it has been documented that in some past cases, the Green Party's pro-GOP activities have been funded by GOP operatives. In Texas, Perry allies funded petition efforts to get Green candidates on ballots. In 2000, right-wing groups ran pro-Nader ads.
The GOP does this because it is an effective strategy. And for good reason. In 2000, it worked: Nader siphoning off votes was one factor contributing to W ascending to the presidency. Yes, there were others, the Supreme Court, the voter roll purges in Florida, etc. But there's no denying that Nader was a factor. In a close election (and with the polarization these days, all national election are pretty close), having a group willing to pose as fake allies to the progressive cause in order to reduce Democratic votes can be a powerful GOP tool.
The Green Party plays along either because they are stupid, or because they share the goal of electing Republicans. And I don't think they are quite this stupid. Like I said, Jill Stein is a graduate from Harvard Med, and you can't even get into Harvard Med if you can't do basic logic and arithmetic. Nader wasn't stupid, he knew what he was doing, and even bragged about it. Green Party surrogates also speak openly about how it is better to elect a Republican in order to "shake things up", for example Susan Sarandon's comments a month or two ago on Chris Hayes.
So, no, I'm not going to stop criticizing the Green Party, any more than I'm going to stop criticizing other Trump allies. I'm not trying to bait anyone, I'm criticizing a pro-GOP propaganda effort, the same way I would criticize Chris Christie or Rudy Giuliani. And if people think I'm trying to bait them into saying something good about Chris Christie, well, that's too bad.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)criticize other candidates.
Pharaoh
(8,209 posts)After all, that is what democracy is all about,
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)MidwestTech
(170 posts)Do you know why the gop is always kicking our ass?
We don't know when to put aside differences towards a common goal!
Having different ideas ably how things need to be run is great, that's why we're liberals!
But we need to band together on the things we agree on and put the others aside when it's time to vote!
We can argue about the others before and after the election but during if we don't vote as a block the gop well will continue to win even though they are the literal minority patty in every way.
So yes...suck it up until November
I am, you can too!
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Not asking you to give anything up(Bernie didn't give anything up today). I supported Bernie in the primaries too.
And my OP wasn't aimed at trying to silene you as much as at the kind of OP's intended to bait you.
4dsc
(5,787 posts)There is a reason behind this endorsement which will reveal itself soon enough. The Bernie folks should know.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Are you implying some nefarious plot is afoot?
DemonGoddess
(4,640 posts)He did concede. He suspended his campaign today
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)He conceded in his speech today, as follows:
http://time.com/4403264/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-endorsement-full-transcript/
Secretary Clinton goes into the convention with 389 more pledged delegates than we have and a lot more super-delegates.
(APPLAUSE)
Secretary Clinton has won the Democratic nominating process.
(APPLAUSE)
And I congratulate her for that.
(APPLAUSE)
She will be the Democratic nominee for president.
(APPLAUSE)
And I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)n/t.
pnwmom
(108,994 posts)Her Sister
(6,444 posts)(APPLAUSE)
Secretary Clinton has won the Democratic nominating process.
(APPLAUSE)
And I congratulate her for that.
(APPLAUSE)
She will be the Democratic nominee for president.
(APPLAUSE)
And I intend to do everything I can to make certain she will be the next president of the United States.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)That's what I figured.
calimary
(81,466 posts)Let's remember who the REAL enemy is.
IronLionZion
(45,528 posts)Jury: I'm for Hillary and donated already
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)(at least not without dinner and a movie.)
TheBlackAdder
(28,211 posts).
.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)in his interviews
IronLionZion
(45,528 posts)and is a generally kooky/goofy kind of guy
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)especially the green party because they take votes away from democrats.
Ralph Nader was paid off by Karl Rove and so the green party only stands for shaking down republicans for money to continue their pipedreams.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)eggplant
(3,913 posts)This is one of my favorite scenes from The West Wing (http://westwingwiki.com/category/the-show/season-4/page/3/):
JOSH: He's taking the President's votes. It's as simple... He is taking the President's votes.
AMY: Listen, I'm not indifferent to the situation, but that right there, that's the crazy part of your argument.
JOSH: Why?
AMY: They're not his votes.
TwilightZone
(25,479 posts)Last edited Wed Jul 13, 2016, 05:48 PM - Edit history (1)
Sure, ok.
If third parties weren't in the race, the people who vote for them would vote for the other candidates or they would stay home. The Greens that didn't stay home in that hypothetical sure as hell wouldn't be voting for Trump unless they're idiots.
eggplant
(3,913 posts)Following your logic, you could equally say "if republicans weren't in the race, we'd win for sure."
Anyone is free to run for office, with or without party affiliation. If enough people vote for them, they win. If other candidates make it so your candidate is less likely to win, that's their prerogative. If you want "their votes," then go out and convince those votes to vote for your candidate instead.
Otherwise, you are saying that those voters shouldn't have the right to vote for a candidate that more closely reflects their own beliefs, and that's not very democratic, now is it? More voters is a good thing, and more choice is also a good thing.
IronLionZion
(45,528 posts)since they are running 2 popular 2 term governors. It should make a difference in some swing states in our favor.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We can hold the Green vote down by running a campaign that features all of the progressive things that were added to this year's platform and by presenting ourselves as a party that welcomes activists and encourages the growth of grassroots movements for social and economic change.
If we attack the Green candidate too harshly on a personal level, it's possible we could solidify her support by making it look as though voting for our ticket is an endorsement of political bullying.
I'm not sure we should go after Johnson too hard, because it looks like he's only going to take votes away from Trump.
Obviously, no one can stop you from doing whatever you wish to do in your time away from here.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)if you're supporting greens?
I don't go on red state or free republic and insist on posting pro-Hillary screeds.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)What you have had is people, some of whom supported minor parties, coming on here to participate in progressive political discussion. This is not an intolerable thing.
The Democratic Party has been at its best when it endorsed policies originated either by people from independent progressive parties(which is where most of the progressive economic policies-though NOT the policy of appeasing segregationists-implemented by FDR came from)or social activists(the black freedom movement and anti-poverty leftists like Michael Harrington in the Sixties, LGBTQ activists starting in the early part of this century, Occupy to a degree during Obama's second term).
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)and they were all from outsider fringe?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Have fought for, worked at, and progressed forward. I really am not going to revise history here, and credit goes where due.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)bonemachine
(757 posts)To tell you that it's simply impossible that the radical left has ever been the least bit responsible for any of the positive social changes if the last century.
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)Hekate
(90,793 posts)HarmonyRockets
(397 posts)third party candidates or writing in a name instead of voting for he Democrat that have posted here as recently as today. So that's not true at all. They are becoming a small group here though.
TheBlackAdder
(28,211 posts).
Oops, sorry. That's Trump's running mate.
.
klook
(12,165 posts)... perfect description of Drumpf and his ilk.
nolawarlock
(1,729 posts)There are plenty of folks on here that are posting under the same screen names elsewhere and very much pushing third party candidates. So they are here. They just aren't doing it here.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We don't need to be starting threads intended to "smoke them out"-or about sowing distrust of people who are here who want to keep pushing THIS party in a more progressive direction.
Let's focus on winning positively and on the merits.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)people are not allowed to discuss Stein. She and her party means nothing to me, seeing I am a Democrat supporting our Democratic nominee. If she says something I want to call out, I will, as I did in the primary. Why are we sheltering Stein?
jcgoldie
(11,645 posts)That BS she put up in social media on mother's day still pisses me off. Screw Stein.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)There is nothing the Green candidate can do to us this year, if we stick to making a positive case for OUR ticket and the progressive platform we just drafted.
We can win on the merits.
The attacks should be aimed at Trump...he's the one who could impose fascism.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)same time.
You are wasting time on it right now. You are also being consistent in posting, certain politicians must be handled with kid gloves.
I have yet to see one of these Ops directed toward Clinton though.
Response to Ken Burch (Original post)
Post removed
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)It's wearisome.
charlyvi
(6,537 posts)Squinch
(51,004 posts)WTF are you afraid of?
Why would someone posting an anti Jill Stein thread threaten your sense of unity?
Just cut it out.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)(also, we shouldn't give her free publicity by mentioning her by name).
But, if we attack her harshly rather than focusing our attacks solely on Trump(the only other candidate who actually COULD win)we run the risk of making ourselves look like bullies and in doing so we could inadvertently shore up the Green candidate's vote.
And devoting ourselves to anathemizing the Green Party, a party that isn't electable this year, makes us look McCarthyite, which isn't attractive to voters.
It's not worth it.
And the 2000 campaign proves that that tactic just makes things worse for us.
Let's sell the country on OUR nominee and attack the person who actually poses a realistic threat to her-Trump.
The Green candidate is NOT that person. Our best tactic there is ignoring her.
Squinch
(51,004 posts)you need to stop trying to censor their opinions, as well as factual information about an opposition candidate.
You do not speak for the rest of us, you do not set the rules, and you should stop acting as if you do.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)has nothing to do with Hillary or the Democratic left.
JEB
(4,748 posts)horse races.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)I like them both, so it was a win-win for me no matter which one ended up the candidate. People like to 'talk', good luck getting them to stop.
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)?w=400&c=1