A distinction needs to be made:

[Ken Burch]

Whatever can be said of whether outside forces used the Sanders campaign for their own ends, the popular support for the ideas associated that campaign is and was real.

Those ideas are not to blame and whatever comes of this, the party shouldn't put them off limits.

We need the ideas as PART of where we go from here.

[zaj]

1. Sadly, the same can be argued about support for Trump's ideas.

What we don't know is how much of the viral energy for each was amplified by the bots and how much was organic.

[Ken Burch]

2. That is true.

n/t.

[RandomAccess]

5. Don't be ridiculous

Give me ONE "idea" from Trump that warrants this treatment (aside from platitudes);

We need the ideas as PART of where we go from here.

[zaj]

8. "the popular support for the ideas associated that campaign is and was real"

There is a very real audience of RW voters who support:

Defund Planned Parenthood
Limit immigration
Build a wall
Roll back ACA

I don't like that people agree with Trump on these issues, but those are the ideas associated with Trump's campaign and they do have real voter support.

[RandomAccess]

9. NOPE.You apparently didn't read the question. I'll try again.

You said this:

We need the ideas as PART of where we go from here.+

And I'm tellin' you there are NO ideas from Trump that need to be part of where we go from here (aside from platitudes like more jobs). Your list proves my point.

[Ken Burch]

11. I never said T___p's ideas

T___p's ideas are evil.

[Ken Burch]

10. I Wasn't talking about T___p's ideas

I was talking about the ideas associated with the Sanders campaign, ideas that had nothing to do with T___p.

[Ken Burch]

13. That wasn't me saying that.

I was responding to another poster, any my intended meaning in my responses was that we can't know for sure how much support for T__p's ideas were artificially amplified by nefarious sources.

I'd never argue that any of Hair Fuhrer's ideas should be in OUR party.

Does that clarify?

[RandomAccess]

14. Sorry - I'll delete that. Got confused.

[Ken Burch]

15. Thanks.

n/t.

[GulfCoast66]

19. Ill give you one idea where Trump and Bernie were the same

TPP. And we are totally fucked we are not in it.

President Obama was shaping it toward making it a great deal for us.

Nationalist killed it.

[Caliman73]

22. The problem with TPP was how it was created.

The lack of transparency killed TPP. After NAFTA and CAFTA, the people were not too enamored with the idea of trade deals written by corporations and done in secrecy.

Looking back from where we are now, it was clear that the deal was done to prevent China from becoming the dominant player in Asian trade. Opponents of the deal must certainly admit that they lacked insight into the importance of the deal, but the administration did a piss poor job of explaining the importance.

[GulfCoast66]

25. Oh please. Looking back...

Preventing China from dominating the region was one of the main selling point at the time.

And those complaining here about lack of transparency were either nieve about how international treaties are negotiated, or as I think true in most cases, nationalist looking for any reason to kill it.

But the reason most people here were against it was because Bernie was against it. And were told then that they shared Trumps position, but to no avail.

It was as obvious then as now that we would be screwed if left out.

But nationalist did what nationalist do...used fear of others as a tool to gain power.

[MaryMagdaline]

28. All true but Hillary came out against it

NAFTA was on the ballot as well. The nativists were inspired by Brexit. It was a bad year for Globalists. Hillary did well to win the popular vote

[GulfCoast66]

29. I think opposing it was one of Hillarys largest mistake

It appeared to be pandering although I will never know.

And you are correct, it was a bad year for globalist and now we are paying the costs.

[Ken Burch]

36. The only real point of the TPP was "containing China".

How much does doing that really matter?

The tribunals would essentially have guaranteed that no government party to TPP could ever pass transformational social or economic legislation again...anything that challenged the neoliberal austerity consensus(the corporate argument that none of the post-1981 changes in the American and global economy which ended up being almost exclusively to the benefit of the rich) would automatically be blocked by the tribunals.

And once in place, there was no effective mechanism for changing anything in the agreement.

Why are you so sold on it? It wasn't going to create any significant number of jobs in this country and it wasn't going to leave any space for workers, the poor, people of color and indigenous groups to organize for any form of redistributive economics, it would block any significant increase in health or education spending(corporations in other countries would get those thrown out by the tribunals as "corporate subsidies&quot , it would simply have made progressive change on any issue other than MAYBE protection of choice and MAYBE LGBTQ rights(so long as the defense of those rights didn't challenge the privilege of the wealthy), so really, what the hell good was in it?

[GulfCoast66]

37. Suffice to say I disagree

And I always thought it curious that those who bitched to heavens end in one breath about how it was all secret and no one knew what was in it, in the next several breaths rolled out all the horrible things about it. Almost like they were ready to believe any negative and perhaps fake news about.

My opinion is they bought a pig in a poke believing every bad thing they read about.

I am happy to be with and trust President Obama in TPP. If others are more comfortable being with and trusting President Trump and Wilber Ross that is their business.

[Ken Burch]

42. It's not a question of trusting Obama OR trusting T___p

The people on the left who opposed it did so long before Trump did and unlike Trump, actually care about the fate of the workers.

[GulfCoast66]

43. I never questioned the Sincerity of those on the left opposed

And if I left that impression I apologize.

I do question their reasoning. I think the right and business community has been able to strip workers of their rights by blaming those poor foreigners who will work for peanuts and many on the left caught the nationalist fever and saw the problem through the glasses they were selling. And as nationalist always requires someone must be blamed.

Other nations like Canada and many in Western Europe are able to trade and while it has created tension in the labor market the worker protection laws have greatly mitigate it.

As long as we let the right oppress workers they will be oppressed and their wages kept artificially low. Regardless of our trade policy.

Have a nice day.

[CentralMass]

102. A six Part article from the Roosevelt Institute on why the TPP is bad for the U.S.

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/tricks-trade-deal-six-big-problems-trans-pacific-partnership/

a series of briefs, Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow and Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz analyzes the ins and outs of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, explaining why it would structure the rules in ways that would harm the economy and American workers. View the briefs below:

Part 1: Beware of TPP’s Investor–State Dispute Settlement Provision
http://rooseveltinstitute.org/beware-tpps-investor-state-dispute-settlement-provision/

Part 2: Who Gets to Write and Interpret the Rules Under TPP?
http://rooseveltinstitute.org/who-gets-write-and-interpret-rules-under-tpp/

Part 3: TPP’s Hidden Climate Costs
http://rooseveltinstitute.org/tpps-hidden-climate-costs/

Part 4: Will TPP Help to Curb China’s Rise?
http://rooseveltinstitute.org/will-tpp-help-curb-chinas-rise/

Part 5: The High Health Costs of TPP’s “Free Trade”
http://rooseveltinstitute.org/high-health-costs-tpps-free-trade/

Part 6: Why TPP Is a Bad Deal for America and American Workers
http://rooseveltinstitute.org/why-tpp-bad-deal-america-and-american-workers/

[Ken Burch]

32. The deal was already in final form.

It couldn't be reshaped. And the tribunals(a decision-making body that is always biased towards corporations and against the rest of humanity) could not be changed or reform.

That's what "fast-track" votes mean. Take a deal as it is, with no real possibility of ever changing it in any meaningful way, or leave it.

The administration COULD have invited labor, environmental, and POC groups in to help shape our proposals on this when he came in. Instead, the voices of most people other than CEO's were disregarded.

If nothing else, he could have made the possible language of the agreement public as soon as he came in, so that people COULD have a real say, rather than barring the members of Congress to whom it was shown from sharing the text of the agreement. It wasn't reasonable to expect everyone to trust that language agreed on in secret would be in their interest.

What does it tell you that the majority of the American people opposed this deal?

[Eliot Rosewater]

3. True.

But instead of $15, maybe we have to start with $12, for example. MW

[nocalflea]

4. I love your passion Ken.

I don't think anyone will ignore good ideas because of the person expounding them.

Unless it's Trump or some republicans and then it's more about questioning their motives.

[LanternWaste]

6. Who is arguing otherwise?

"the popular support for the ideas associated that campaign is and was real..."

Who is arguing otherwise?

[NurseJackie]

20. Thank you!

[betsuni]

21. I think that's a secret.

[Squinch]

51. Who is EVER arguing otherwise in these strange moments of Ken?

[NurseJackie]

88. Exactly! (Excellent! Thank you!)

[Squinch]

97. .

[uponit7771]

7. I agree, after today though I don't think he should be the front for those ideas. disappointed

[Ken Burch]

17. I doubt he will be, and I've been arguing since the "Identity politics" speech

that he shouldn't be. I hope you can accept that what I've been saying all this time is, in fact, what I've meant.

We're not in disagreement here.

[diva77]

16. +1,000,000. I wonder what the end game is for all the Bernie bashing going on. I feel like I tuned

into Limburger or Fux accidentally when I read some posts.

[Ken Burch]

18. Some of is is probably directed by the party leadership.

There have clearly been times when the personal dislike some felt towards Bernie has been weaponized against the ideas and, quite frankly, against unifying former Sanders and former Clinton supporters on the vast bulk of the issues, and especially on the need to stand against all forms of institutional and grassroots bigotry.

There has to be some reason why there's been this relentless insistence on not letting us move past recriminations about what happened in 2016, about refusing to admit that there it is a waste of time trying to lay blame on that rather than focusing our hearts, minds, and energy on the only thing we can have an effect on: the future.

There have been some forces desperate to keep us from moving on, desperate to keep us from reaching out to each other, desperate to keep us from truly joining in partnership, equality, and mutual respect.

It is THOSE forces, not anyone in this party involved in the politics of 2016, who are the enemy. It is against THEM we need to make our stand.

[seaglass]

23. If Bernie said that he absolutely was not running in 2020 a lot of the tension

would disappear. But he won't do it until he absolutely has to (if he decides not to run) because he would lose influence and many of his supporters would move on.

[NCTraveler]

30. Instead, Weaver is out there saying he is a front-runner for 2020. nt.

[seaglass]

31. Which is not even true, Biden is the front runner.

Not that I'm thrilled about that either.

[Ken Burch]

34. I doubt Biden would do well against T___p

Joe's a good guy, but nominating him would not present us as a party of the present or the future.

We need not to nominate anybody who ran before.

Nominating any former candidate sends no other message than "we're just going to do the same thing one more time-and we won't let anybody of the next generation have their moment until THEY are in their Seventies, too.

Can you imagine people in the next one or maybe two generations of Democratic public figures thinking they should even bother staying in office if they're not going to get a shot until it's too late?

Also, going with Joe gives T___p one more chance to pretend he's an outsider fighting Washington. Why even let him have those optics?

[Ken Burch]

33. I'd argue that he could be persuaded to guarantee that

if only the party would COMMIT, now, to including most of the ideas backed by his supporters in our platform and in the way we run the general election campaign.

It's not an unreasonable expectation that they would be.

The issues voters had with his candidacy were with him, and with the way he presented himself, not with the ideas as such.

For example, while POC had legitimate grounds to claim he wasn't addressing enough of the issues they center, they were never AGAINST the economic justice proposals-they'd have wanted them adjusted to account for historic oppression would have been their main point. ANd it's an absolutely fair point.

[Demsrule86]

46. I never thought Sen. Sanders ideas were unique...they are things Democrat have talked about for

years...Stop implying the left whoever that may be is somehow victimized by the Democratic Party...that charming little idea is what made people decide the parties were the same and cost us the 2016 election. You won't get everything you want in life or politics. How about making a pledge to try to win elections and support even flawed non-perfect Democrats. The Democratic Party is the only party that can stop the Republicans. Maybe then we could advance our progressive agenda instead of allowing the GOP to pack the Supreme Court, deport dreamers and starve everyone else. That would be nice...not perfect but nice.

[Ken Burch]

48. I'm not implying that the left will be victimized, OR that the ideas of the Sanders campaign

I'm implying that we will drive the way by insisting on running as a center party in every race that matters and reducing our pitch to "we're the only ones that can stop Trump-you HAVE to vote for us".

We ALL want to beat the Right. Dems...it's just that we can't beat them by reducing our appeal to "get THEM out". "Get them out" isn't a program and unfortunately, in itself, can't lead to anything good later.

I don't feel there are no differences between Democrats and Republicans, so please don't associate me with that assertion.

What I do feel is that, to win, we have to accept that the Sanders phenomenon was and is real, and was and is positive in the ideas it championed and the young people it brought into politics. It means something that they trusted THAT campaign and no other, and we need to understand why that is.

All of us here are going to work towards beating the Right..you know that...what I'm trying to do is make it EASIER to beat the Right by getting the party to move out of what we all know is the hopeless strategy of saying no to what the insurgents want and then demanding their votes anyway. It doesn't work.

What is it about validating what the best of these folks did that so worries you? It's not as though there's votes we can win but only if we tell these kids to shut up and give up on what they want.

[Demsrule86]

49. Look we have to question the Sander phenomenon because according to Mueller at least some of it was

fake. And ultimately he lost. We need to move on.

[Ken Burch]

58. What would "moving on" mean? Shouldn't it mean "let 2016 go already"...

Shouldn't it mean "we won't keep talking about the past, because it's time to address the future"?

What Mueller said was that some of the online comments were fake.

It's likely the "bros" were fake, if anything.

The crowds at the rallies weren't fake.

The support at the ballot box wasn't fake.

The victories in numerous primaries and caucuses and the near-victories in several others weren't fake.

And the support for the ideas that continues to show up in the polls show it to be real.

We can't be a popular, winning party if we go forward without embracing anything significant from the Sanders movement, if we try to go back to what we were, in practice, as a party before that happened. It's not possible for us to be popular as a party that goes back to accepting the post-1981 changes in how the economy was run, the permanent absence of the Fairness Doctrine on tv, or the current state of affairs that gives corporate power the major say in how life is run while permanently denying the natural dream of justice, equality, security and community that most Americans hold in their hearts.

We can't be a popular winning party being pro-choice, pro-women, pro-LGBTQ and anti-social injustice(positions we will hold no matter who leads the party in the future or who is nominated in the future)but being "centrist" on economic issues, hawkish on foreign/military policy and effectively indifferent to the need to fight unemployment and poverty.

It wasn't a foreign plot that brought the economic justice ideas Bernie spoke of back into the discussion-it was a genuine popular wish that they be returned. Whatever any Russians did(and I despise Putin and all associated with him as much as you do)they couldn't create a phenomenon like the Sanders moment out of nothing at all.

Bernie shouldn't be our nominee. But we can't win without the emphasis his campaign re-introduced to the party staying part of us and without a real place for the activists and idealists.

There are no votes to be won by saying "we have no place for dreams".

"Shut up, do what we tell you, and check your hopes at the door" can't win us the voters we need. Demanding votes can't win us the voters we need.
"what you say is valid, we respect you, we need you and we will listen to you" CAN get us those votes, and we lose nothing in saying it.

[NurseJackie]

60. Oh, Good Grief!

[sheshe2]

66. Yep.

[NurseJackie]

70. Hey there!

[sheshe2]

71. Good to see you, Jackie.

So good to see Hill laughing again. I miss her.

[Cha]

74. Hillary's beautiful laugh is contagious..

she is so popular with those who cared about intelligence, compassion, courage, and having a laugh.

She's has the last laugh now.. sipping her tea and eating popcorn..




sheshe https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210281468

Mahalo, Jackie!

[Demsrule86]

84. Not some... millions...and that would explain a great deal in terms of election numbers.

And you talk about moving on but then demand that we embrace all of Sen. Sanders views. I don't like his college plan .... no income restrictions and I have seen the result of such plans in Georgia. I don't believe Medicare for All is realistic although I believe we get there with the ACA by including a public option when we get back in power.t we must strengthen and improve the ACA in the meantime. I was angered by the identity comments and the support for Mello. Of course I want the Democrat to win ...but no anti-choice candidate should be endorsed by a party leader. Most of Sanders ideas are Democratic Ideas...we held them before 16 and we will have going forward...not everyone agrees all points of course as we are the big tend and it is how we win.

[NurseJackie]

92. Again... a pitch-perfect response that relies on facts (not emotion or hyperbole) to make the point.

[Demsrule86]

93. You are so kind. I think you rock too. Mueller's report explains a great deal ...

There is no way to know what support was real and what was GOP or Russian...and I don't think it matter as we move on and leave one of the worst elections of my lifetime behind...the other was when Reagan was elected which I don't remember but I remember my Mother weeping because of it. I was terrified and as it turned out with good reason.

[Eko]

53. What should we give the insurgents?

[Ken Burch]

63. Respect as people whose ideas are valid.

Make them welcome in the party, and make it clear this can be a place where they can work for what they want.

[Eko]

79. No, no, no and no.

You don't just say ideas are valid, they have to be logical, workable and achievable. What you are advocating for is insanity. What we do as a party is give people the chance to introduce their ideas and evidence for them and to convince others of the validity of them. Any ol idea is not valid.

[NurseJackie]

89. You are correct! It reminds me of the climate change deniers demaning "equal time"...

... and insisting that their ideas are valid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_entitled_to_my_opinion

I'm entitled to my opinion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm entitled to my opinion or I have a right to my opinion is a logical fallacy in which a person discredits any opposition by claiming that they are entitled to their opinion. The statement exemplifies a red herring or Thought-terminating cliché. The logical fallacy is often presented as Let's agree to disagree. Whether one has a particular entitlement or right is irrelevant to whether one's assertion is true or false. To assert the existence of the right is a failure to assert any justification for the opinion. Such an assertion, however, can also be an assertion of one's own freedom or of a refusal to participate in the system of logic at hand.[1][2][3]

Philosopher Patrick Stokes has described the expression as problematic because it is often used to defend factually indefensible positions or to "[imply] an equal right to be heard on a matter in which only one of the two parties has the relevant expertise".[4]

[betsuni]

98. +1

[Ken Burch]

61. And it's legitimate for him to want to keep those supporters together.

If they broke apart from each other and went to just being disconnected individuals, they could never play any meaningful future role in working for progressive change.

The party should just acknowledge the basic validity of what his supporters are saying about the economy, the role of corporate power, and the need to work for a much more egalitarian and sharing society.

More and more Americans are wanting an alternative to the idea of life being run mainly on greed, and on the notion that what the wealthy want should always matter more than what the rest of us want. Why not help create one?

[sheshe2]

56. Party Leadership?

Response to diva77 (Reply #16)
Wed Feb 21, 2018, 11:59 PM
Ken Burch (50,248 posts)
18. Some of is is probably directed by the party leadership.

You are accusing party leadership(please name them) of directing/orchestrating Bernie bashing?

There has to be some reason why there's been this relentless insistence on not letting us move past recriminations about what happened in 2016, about refusing to admit that there it is a waste of time trying to lay blame on that rather than focusing our hearts, minds, and energy on the only thing we can have an effect on: the future.

You are saying that Muellers relentless investigations 2017-2018 are a waste of time and not allowing us to move forward? I for one sure as hell want to know their role in what played out or it will happen again in 2018 and 2020. Russia and the GOP do not give a damn about our 'hearts and mind' they care about cheating to win and underminding our right to a fair election.

For myself and many friends, we are going to be voting for every Dem on the ballot and we are going to do en masse. We will not sit out ONE VOTE or vote third party for purist ideals.

[Ken Burch]

59. And I'll be voting for every Dem and trying to get people I know to do the same.

And I wasn't talking about what Mueller is doing. That needs to go forward. The endless war that's being kept going inside this party, a war that serves no purpose, is what I was talking about.

There's simply no reason to continue to attack people who supported any Democratic presidential candidate or the ideas associated with any candidate.

Why can't we move towards dialog and unity? How can it help us win to keep trying to anathemize a large group of voters(Sanders activists, most of whom are young, and without whom we can't win), which is what it looks as though all the bashing threads are really about?

We can't build a progressive electoral majority if we drive those people away, and there's no voters we can GAIN from anywhere else by doing so.

That's all I'm saying. Obviously Mueller must go forward, and obviously it would be a lot better if Bernie didn't run again. But we'll just be stuck at 49% if we drive his supporters out of political involvement, which could easily happen.

If there weren't people in the leadership of the party who wanted to make sure nothing changed, the discussion would be about the future, not about placing blame for the past, and certainly not about perpetuating the myth that there was ever a difference between Sanders and HRC supporters on the issues of defending choice and fighting racism, sexism, anti-LGBTQ prejudice and police violence against people of color. There were differences in tone on that between the candidates, but the supporters of those candidates are not responsible for that and the anti-oppression credentials of all supporters of all 2016 Dem primary candidates should simply be accepted as equally strong, and it should be accepted that we are all unified on THOSE issues.

[sheshe2]

65. I can't keep having this same conversation over and over again.

There's simply no reason to continue to attack people who supported any Democratic presidential candidate or the ideas associated with any candidate.

Who is attacking people that supported any Dem Pres Candidate...oh you don't mean any you mean Bernie.

Why can't we move towards dialog and unity? How can it help us win to keep trying to anathemize a large group of voters(Sanders activists, most of whom are young, and without whom we can't win), which is what it looks as though all the bashing threads are really about?

You keep repeating the same talking points over and over. Sorry if these young supporters that you speak of are so unaware of what is going on around them that they will not vote unless they get what they want and frankly I have no clue what that is anymore. We can't coddle or cojole them into voting. It is time they grew up and understand exactly what refusing to vote means. IE see tRump. BTW Ken, no one is calling them evil.
As for unity, Ken? That starts at home.

[NurseJackie]

72. They'll also be four years older and four years WISER than before...

... they'll be a little more critical when examining the facts, and less eager to accept/believe every promise that's made without questioning the most basic things (like: "how will we pay for all this?&quot

Age has its benefits.

[sheshe2]

73. I hope so, Jackie...

I will be looking for them in four years, however I hope they can make in the two. Midterms are going to be critical for us.

[NurseJackie]

75. People act like some voters are frozen in time...

... and that nobody learns from their mistakes.

I will admit, that there are some people who NEVER learn from their mistakes, but most do.

[sheshe2]

76. People change.

That is a good thing and do not need to be coddled to understand what is happening to them under a trump regime. They know, they are living it.

[betsuni]

77. Thank you NurseJackie!

She who laughs last, laughs best.

[RandiFan1290]

24. It gives the trolls a free pass to bash the 'left'

Last edited Mon Feb 26, 2018, 06:46 AM - Edit history (1)

As long as they end the bash by directing it towards Bernie and his supporters.


A hit dog will holler!

[Demsrule86]

47. I have never seen anyone 'bash' the left and what is the left...a person who supports Sen. Sanders?

Seems kind of a narrow definition.

[sheshe2]

57. If I might ask?

Who exactly are you calling a troll?

[sheshe2]

54. How is posting Muellers findings/indictments

And Bernie's own answers on the situation and questions bashing Bernie?

[NurseJackie]

94. "Well, uh... what I mean is... uh... it's just that... uh... IT JUST IS, THAT'S ALL!!"

[sheshe2]

96. Lol

[Mike Nelson]

26. Also...

...the Sanders campaign and the "outside forces" were never truly an alliance, unlike the Trumpsters. And, they would have taken a hatchet to Bernie's generally very good image.

[betsuni]

27. Do you still insist that Hillary Clinton co-founded the DLC?

A distinction needs to be made. Truth or not. We need the true ideas as PART of where we go from here.

[Ken Burch]

35. I made a small error there. Sorry.

She didn't co-found it, but she was involved in it for years and did play a leading role in the group for a long time.

It was a honest mistake.

And really, how much does the distinction between "co-founding" and "playing a leading role in for years" matter?

She never exactly hid her ties with the group and never made any particular point of repudiating its agenda.

I apologize for being imprecise.

It wasn't intentional.

[betsuni]

38. Oh Ken, if you're not going to be honest with me I think we should see a therapist.

I'm not sure our relationship is working out.

[Ken Burch]

39. I am honest. I'm being honest in admitting I got that wrong.

If I was dishonest, I'd double down on it.

People make mistakes.

A mistake is not a lie.

I honestly thought she had been one of the founders.

If I'd known she wasn't one of those, I wouldn't have posted it.

With her years of heavy involvement in the group, I wasn't THAT far off.

And despite what you think, I never hated her. Just didn't support her for the nomination. I started telling doing posts here about a month out from the convention prepping other Sanders supporters for the likelihood she would be nominated, and personally endorsed her in a thread on DU a week before the convention, and I really had no alternative but to wait for that. I was never one of the people who pushed the "the contest is rigged" narrative.

Nothing I ever posted about her or anybody else caused T___p. it's ridiculously unlikely that anyone withheld their vote from our ticket-a ticket I spent months doorbelling/canvassing and phonebanking for once it was nominated, starting as soon as the Democratic campaign headquarters opened in my town.

At some point, you are going to have to accept the fact that I'm not THAT important or influential, and that I am not personally responsible for the current political situation. I didn't want T___p in the White House anymore than you did.

[Ken Burch]

41. This comment is personal abuse.

I didn't lie and it's out of line to imply that I lied.

I made an honest mistake, and it's not a mistake that even matters.

The differences between co-founding an organization and spending years playing a major role in it, and fundraising for it, are trivial.

What mattered is that she had a massive association with it.

[Cha]

69. It matters a great deal.. give

it up.

[NurseJackie]

78. ###

[Cha]

80. LOL.. Why thank you, Zolton!

You come up with the best gifs, Jackie!

[NurseJackie]

87. LOL! :-D

[betsuni]

81. Heh

[Gothmog]

86. Agreed

[betsuni]

85. ...

[Demsrule86]

45. Ken she did not found the DLC and didn't have that much involvment...and those tactics won back

the presidency I might also add. It was a different time. From WIKI...

"The DLC was founded by Al From in 1985 in the wake of Democratic candidate and former Vice President Walter Mondale's landslide defeat by incumbent President Ronald Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. Other founders include Democratic Governors Chuck Robb (Virginia), Bruce Babbitt (Arizona) and Lawton Chiles (Florida), Senator Sam Nunn (Georgia) and Representative Dick Gephardt (Missouri).[7]

The model on which the Democratic Leadership Council was built was the Coalition for a Democratic Majority. Founded by "Scoop" Jackson Democrats in response to George McGovern's massive loss to Richard Nixon in 1972, the CDM was dismayed by two presidential election losses and the organization's goal was to steer the party away from the New Left influence that had permeated the Democratic party since the late 1960s and back to the policies that made the FDR coalition electorally successful for close to 40 years. Although Senator Jackson declined to endorse the organization, believing the timing was "inappropriate", future DLC founders and early members were involved, such as Sen. Sam Nunn and Sen. Charles S. Robb.

In the early 1980s, some of the youngest members of Congress, including Representative William Gray of Pennsylvania, Tim Wirth of Colorado, Al Gore of Tennessee, Richard Gephardt of Missouri, and Gillis Long of Louisiana helped found the House Democratic Caucus' Committee on Party Effectiveness. Formed by Long and his allies after the 1980 presidential election, the CPE hoped to become the main vehicle for the rejuvenation of the Democratic Party.[8] The CPE has been called "the first organizational embodiment of the New Democrats."[9]

The DLC started as a group of forty-three elected officials and two staffers, Al From and Will Marshall, and shared their predecessor's goal of reclaiming the Democratic Party from the left's influence prevalent since the late 1960s. Their original focus was to secure the 1988 presidential nomination of a southern conservative Democrat such as Nunn or Robb. After the success of Jesse Jackson, a vocal critic of the DLC, in winning a number of southern states in 1988's "Super Tuesday" primary, the group began to shift its focus towards influencing public debate. In 1989, Marshall founded the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank which has since turned out policy blueprints for the DLC. Its most extensive series of papers is the series of New Economy Policy Reports."

[NurseJackie]

90. Excellent reply! Factual and well-researched. But... you're unlikely to receive a response.

That user has left the building.

[Demsrule86]

91. Fact are stubborn things. Thanks for the compliment and your own stellar posts.

[Orsino]

40. But one corrupt or careless candidate can fuck it all up.

The MSM do not forgive liberals' perceived or actual failings.

[Demsrule86]

44. The fact that so many who claimed to support the candidacy were frauds means we

cannot deduce the level of support.

[Skittles]

50. whatever

[Cha]

67. Amen, Hoyt!

[NurseJackie]

95. Agreed! Hoyt deserves a round of applause for that!

[Cha]

99. It's a Bona Fide Truth.

And we love that!

[Gothmog]

100. Agreed

[bettyellen]

55. Sure- but only while acknowledging the support was actually overblown by Russian bots.

That’s an important part of the big picture, and it is relevant becasue we are just learning about it all now.

[Ken Burch]

62. That would be online support.

Support for the ideas was not overblown(the ideas are generally popular, and can be adjusted to meet the needs of those who couldn't support them in their original form).

Support at the polls was real.

Nobody caused people to vote for Sanders when they wouldn't have done so on their own.

I agree that there were people pretending to back him(especially the 'bros, who were clearly not actual Sanders supporters, and who were the ones most responsible for the behavior you rightly objected to) but the fact remains that the 43% of the primary vote those ideas received were the actual vote totals. That showing was real and there's no valid reason to try to delegitimize it.

If Russia was bound and determine to rig the election for T___p, they'd have been able to do it no matter what.

We can't win this year and 2020 if people won't admit that it's time to leave the last presidential election result to Mueller, while the rest of us move on.

[bettyellen]

68. RWers and Russians encouraged cross over voting for Danders...

[betsuni]

82. Someday, I hope you understand that the following things are not true.

(Talking points)

The Democratic Party is pro-war, neoliberal Third Way pro-corporation not against money in politics (status quo), not progressive; since 1978 the party has abandoned FDR economic policies and shifted Right, that without pressure from the Left the Democratic platform would be the same as the Republican one except for identity issues/abortion, doesn't stand up for the working/middle classes because they are corporate shills, no economic equality policies, no leadership or vision, no clear convictions, only cares about identity politics; "Stop Trump" is the only message, their only policy is to stay the course asking for as little as possible.

Dems are authoritarians, dogmatic ideologues, who demand loyalty and can't stand criticism: The Party is Always Right (again, just like Republicans); they have ignored a part of the base who have been left out in the cold for decades (true progressives).

"Avenge Hillary Clinton" is a dominate theme, "Democratic voters" means "Hillary supporters" (we are obsessed fans), there are forces desperate to keep us from moving on and working together, we can't win by leading with "Putin stopped Hillary"; the Russian/Comey/voter suppression factors deny that there weren't any significant campaign mistakes.

Hillary Clinton is a warmonger (wanted missile strikes against Iran, defender of everything done against the Palestinians), corporate shill, conservative centrist, had a flawed campaign with only negative ads against Trump, wanted to be seen as no longer holding any particularly strongly held social, economic or political values; NEOLiBERAL DLC, plus it's not enough to vote for someone because they're a woman or PoC.

And so much more. It's all wrong.

[Gothmog]

83. The Russian efforts were successful-just look at JPR

A number of Russian lies were pushed by former posters who are now posting on JPR. It is hard to say that Russian efforts were not effective if you read the material that is still being posted on JPR. At one point there were a number of threads on the pizzagate conspiracy theory on JPR.

Russian efforts appear to have been very effective.

[betsuni]

101. A distiction has been made. LOL.

hi:

[NurseJackie]

103. LOL! It most certainly has! Hasn't it?

A distinction has been made ... AND ... a lesson has been learned! (The hard way.)

[R B Garr]

104. HA, yes! You nailed it here.

A big distinction!

[H2O Man]

105. Recommended.

Thank you.