This message was self-deleted by its author

[NCTraveler]

This message was self-deleted by its author (NCTraveler) on Fri May 11, 2018, 01:36 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Sherman A1]

1. Yeah, okay

I really don’t think that the world cares too very much about what any one or any several people post on an Internet discussion board, but knock yourself out.

[NCTraveler]

3. Thank you for your support. nt.

[Sherman A1]

26. As you might have noted

there isn't any.

[NCTraveler]

34. I must be a bit more optimistic.

I appreciate you letting me know how much work is to be done.

[Eliot Rosewater]

76. Jesus, the first response you get on this board is that? Fuck this

[Kentonio]

108. Bullshit

You think anyone on the left is going to see this as anything more than yet another bullshit dig? If someone wants to stop being divisive and attacking Sanders, then good, shut the hell up and do it. Don’t write crappy self satisfactory threads that yet AGAIN attack the Senator and the left while pretending not to.

Fuck that.

[kstewart33]

90. I agree with you, NCT. But...

more than anything, your post is the hundredth or so example that whenever the name 'Bernie' is the subject of or mentioned in a post, the discussion immediately degenerates into a waste of time. Back and forths, back and forths.

Can we call a moratorium on Bernie posts for awhile? They are a complete waste of time and do nothing but damage the unity in our community.

[Cary]

67. How is your "don't think" not an ad hominem?

I'm not "the world" but I appreciate NCTraveler's thoughts. I am not "the world" but I do fancy myself as representative of the majority of Democrats.

It doesn't hurt anyone to be nice.

[Sherman A1]

71. How is it so?

Perhaps OPs posts are important to you and so be it. But the reality is that what any of us post here is mostly opinion. If OP believes that his decision to withhold criticism of Sanders or of anyone is much in the scheme of things, well that is his opinion. My opinion is that perhaps his opinion of his posts (based upon the OP in this thread) are perhaps a bit too much impressed with himself and his opinion.

There is no attack of any sort involved or intended here, it is simply my opinion vs another's and the posts have all been civil to my knowledge.

As to whether that is nice or not or NCTraveller's OP is nice or not you can choose to accept, reject or ignore.

[Cary]

72. Telling someone that no one cares about them isn't diverting to someone's person?

[Sherman A1]

105. If you believe that it was in your opinion

A personal affront then please alert on the post. I do believe that the OP has a very high regard for his own opinion and that he sees his potential influence as important. I however do not share that belief.

Opinions are likely a certain body part, everyone has one and his opinion is no more or less valid than anyone’s.

[Scoopster]

2. I already have.

Just like the clown pig lovers, it's not worth wasting my time trying to convince people who refuse to even consider that Bernie isn't who he makes himself out to be.

[JCanete]

39. wow, such solid proof that you've laid this stuff aside and stopped attacking Sanders...

I'm convinced.

[Gothmog]

57. Where is sanders magical voter revolution?

How many new voters did sanders promised? Does sanders need millions or billions or trillions of nee voters in order to get his platform and proposals adopted? Sanders promised enough new voters would magically appear so that the GOP would have to be reasonable. How can any of snders proposals be afopted without the aid of a magical voter revolution? Inquiring minds want these questions answered.

[JCanete]

62. so fight for those proposals, or stand in the way goth? Nobody can make people insist on something

or even want something. What do you want our government to do? If you literally don't want these things, then by all means say so. If, on the other hand, you just want to shit on Sanders for not achieving them all on his lonesome, and yet you actually do want these things...then I'm just confused. Maybe you're correct. If truly progressive ideals can't even win over the majority of democrats, then we're just screwed and people can just give up that ghost. Or maybe you're wrong and some things require the groundwork to be laid. Until very recently the label of "communism" has been able to taint any concept of reform that has involved regulation or "redistribution". It has taken time and work to wear that nonsense down. I doubt it will have breathed its last breath in my lifetime.

What you should appreciate, but don't seem to care to make the distinction about, is that there is a very real difference between saying" we need a voter revolution", and saying "I will achieve one." The former is true. the latter, I'm not aware of anybody saying. Can you show me where Sanders has claimed the magical powers you keep pretending he has claimed?

[Gothmog]

64. Or try living in the real world and not lie about magical voter revolutions

Last edited Sat Apr 21, 2018, 08:10 AM - Edit history (2)

Sanders promised in no certain terms that he would achieve a magical voter revolution. That is how sanders attempted to justify his platform. Are you saying that sanders lied? I can provide the quotes from sanders if you want.

Sanderst has not accomplished anything meaningful in the real world. Magic does not work in the real world. Making proposals that can never pass in the real world is a waste of time. These proposals all rely on a magical voter revolution. Sanders may believe in magic but I live in the real world. For example sanders failed to get single payor adopted in Vermont. Magical thinking does not workin the real world.

Again, you need to answer the question as to how many new voters are needed for this magical voter revolution? Does sanders need millions or billions or trillions of new voters? Again none of sanders proposals can be adopted in the real world.

For the 2018 cycle, the best that the Democrats can hope for is to take control of the House and a slight majority in the senate. There are not rnough senate sears available to overcome a filibuster or a veto. Reaging contol of the House and a small majority in the senate is sufficientfor me. We can investigate trump, see trump's tax returns and block future federal judges

Pretending that magic works is not a viable plan in the real world. In the real world, Progress takes hard work on the ground. Lying to voters about proposals that are only possible to adopt based on magic is not a good way to proceed

I saw the results of ssnders supporters who bought the sanders promise of magic. Your fellow progressives at the national convention had fun yelling obsenities at my daughter and calling her the C word because she would not try to geg me to change my vote. In the real world, campaigns vet national delegates so that these delegates represent the ideals of the campaign. If the sanders delegayes to the national convention represent the "progressive movement" then we are in trouble.

Please continue to believe in magic if you do not like the real world. I will continue to work in the real world.

[ehrnst]

68. +1000.

[Cary]

70. There is something magical about a turf that won't flush?

[JCanete]

73. when did he do that Goth? Show me a link to him saying this. So has every proposal ever.These things

have to start somewhere. Some start back as far as the nineties. Hilary Clinton's proposal for single payer was part of the work. Havem't you ever heard the adage, first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win? You seem dead set on not winning on these issues. You want to call even suggesting that we should get them "magical thinking". That is fucking tragic.

[Hortensis]

91. JCanete, let's face it, Sanders has not performed.

When Liz Warren decided not to lead the movement that first developed energy around her, Sanders stepped up, and a senator formerly distinguished only by the I in front of his name displayed a surprisingly strong ability to excite some people with his speaking style and simplified messaging.

And that's it.

But it was what happened before he stepped up that revealed the support for stronger solutions, previously undisplayed by Democratic voters and unrevealed by polls, that EMPOWERED our Democratic candidates to set their liberal goalposts higher. There was no ideological move farther left, that's media nonsense, and also profoundly dishonest. The new, exciting knowledge that mainstream Democratic voters wanted and would support bigger changes than realized was generated by Warren, not Sanders, and, as I can attest, it was absolutely thrilling to learn.

Judging by Sanders' very mediocre performance over his decades in congress before, by his role in 2016's historic loss, and especially notably by his failure to maintain, much less grow, this movement since then, his public speaking style is his one big talent. And I at least expect using it to become a national name in 2016 will turn out to be his crowning personal achievement.

I'm hardly alone in this evaluation. Splinter cap-P Progressive groups formed some time ago and are looking for a new leader or leaders to support in 2020.

[JCanete]

92. of course you're not alone in that observation. It doesn't make it correct. Sanders presence has

absolutely brought awareness to these issues, and given a voice to people's issues that have nary been addressed. I have no reason to not give Warren her due. I don't know what your reasoning for not giving Sanders his due is. A campaign that put up an actual challenge to the presumed nominee in a Democratic primary on small donor contributions is kind of a big deal. And I totally disagree with you that Sanders had no part in that happening, that he was simply there to capitalize on it when it did.

That's actually patently absurd. He only got traction at the beginning because there were progressives who did know who he was, who had listened to his fireside chats on Hartmann, etc. That took years to earn that trust and to situate himself among this constituency as a person we think would hammer home a truly progressive message.

I've addressed the bullshit claim that his performance is mediocre over and over. People want to look at accomplishments but brush aside horrific failures of their favorites....if those are the compromises it has taken in the congress and senate to do a little good here and there, was it worth it? Its unfair and ...ahem, profoundly dishonest to portray one side of that picture...to do only addition and no subtraction.

I'm willing to go with you on the fact that sometimes the political climate demands compromising one's principles, but only if you accept that it takes those who stick to them and continue to shout them from the rooftops to keep those issues alive for a future when something can be done about them. Of course Sanders didn't do any of this on his own. Of course Sanders success was a demonstration of where the people are today, but you would be absolutely full of it to say that without his staggering success(and yes, this was absolutely a success as an underdog playing by an entirely different set of rules to achieve such national presence and to take such a chunk of the democratic primary vote) the DNC would have presented as progressive a platform as they did, or Clinton would have, when tacking towards the general mind you, suddenly adopted these more progressive positions on issues of tuition and minimum wage, etc.

I'm all for leadership that fights for the same things that sanders has. I see no reason to make distance between them and Sanders if they are actually on the same page, and I see no way they could possibly make change if they don't cause some friction with the old guard, and why this matters most is that there is no good reason to try to diminish or squander the fact that Sanders has a platform now, with which he is using as outreach to the American public on economic justice issues that have been a third rail in politics for decades.

[Hortensis]

99. I gave Sanders his due for his role in 2016's outcome.

The one point I want to reiterate here is that Democrats' response to Elizabeth Warren's call to action revealed that we were already there in wanting to take bigger steps, belying all the polls that had failed to ask the right questions and failed to reveal strong mainstream support for stronger progressive actions than previously believed. Were our party leaders, like just about all of us, absolutely thrilled to learn this? You bet!

And then the undermining started.

Well, now the Republicans' shocking actions have disturbed the stasis of nonvoters who imagined it'd all be okay without them.

And it may even be that some of the people who continued after the 2016 primary to focus on one issue, repeal the ACA and replace with single-payer, may now have woken up to the reality that far, far more is at stake, including any healthcare system at all. I'm actually sure some will have.

[Gothmog]

111. I am at the airport but I made you run away on this issue earlier

Do you remember this post. https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10467960. Sanders sold his unrealistic platform based on a lie about a magical voter revolution. I can bury with quotes from sanders later if you want

BTW your claim that communism is now acceptable made me laugh. You will never be able to sell that crap in the real world. The GOP had hours of sanders pre aching the joys of communism from a course sanders taught. These tapes are evidently very damning in the real world

[JCanete]

113. my claim that communism is now acceptible? Jesus, that's a gop a tactic as I've heard on these

boards. I'm sure it wasn't intended that way, but wow. Socialism in any form is communism now? Or I should say, again? This democratic underground?

Yes, I do want to see the quotes you are referring to that promise a voter revolution. BTW, Promoting one is different than promising one. Hopefully this saves you time and cuts down on the links you feel the need to post. I want the promise that it would happen. That he would bring it. Show me that.

[Gothmog]

129. Do you ever tire of being wrong

Read the other thread. I am still laughing at your posts on that thread.

Sanders promised a magical voter revolution to justify his unrealistic proposals. Without aome serious magic none of sanders proposals can be adopted in the real world. Just because some "progressives" believe in magic does not overcome either a filibuster or veto. I never took sanders or his unrealistic proposals seriously and was amused that any one believed in magic

You are welcome to believe in magic.

[JCanete]

130. you're welcome to bother proving anybody ever said anything you are pretending was said.

You offered in your last thread to do so...I said sure, do so.

[Gothmog]

131. Again, Sanders lied and justified his platform based on a magical voter revolution

I am amused that you are in denial. Let me attempt to educate you. Sanders campaign was based on a promised voter revolution https://www.vox.com/2016/2/21/11081086/bernie-sanders-nevada

hroughout the course of his campaign, Sanders has promised to transform American government by bringing "millions and millions" of new voters to the ballot box.

This is in contrast to the incrementalism of Clinton's campaign, which recognizes the confines of a bitterly divided American electorate and offers to fight for whatever gains are available.

Sanders rejects the limits of this system. His "political revolution" is based on the idea that Democrats could win big with a message that gets a massive number of new lower- and middle-income voters continually engaged in the political process.

Bernie Sanders, Running for President, Promises a ‘Political Revolution’ http://observer.com/2015/05/bernie-sanders-running-for-president-promises-a-political-revolution/

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders officially kicked off his campaign for president today, promising a “political revolution” to combat income inequality, curb climate change and drastically reform the campaign finance system.

Mr. Sanders, set to speak in Burlington, Vt. a little after 5 p.m., said he would not launch “personal” or “negative” attacks against the unequivocal frontrunner in the Democratic primary, Hillary Clinton.

“Today … we begin a political revolution to transform our country economically, politically, socially and environmentally,” Mr. Sanders will say in prepared remarks provided by his campaign. “Today, we stand here and say loudly and clearly that: ‘Enough is enough.’ This great nation and its government belong to all of the people and not to a handful of billionaires, their Super PACs and their lobbyists.”

Sanders claim that the millions or billions or trillions of new voters would force the GOP to be reasonable https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/21/1483791/-Imagine-Bernie-Sanders-wins-the-White-House-Then-what

Given that likelihood, Sanders offers an alternate means for achieving his political revolution. He says he knows that a Democratic president can’t simply “sit down and negotiate” with Republican leaders and forge a series of compromises. Anyone who's observed the GOP’s behavior over the course of Barack Obama’s presidency would not dispute that, and in any event, no compromise with Republicans would ever lead to single-payer anyway.

So what then? How would a President Sanders get Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan to pass any of his big-ticket items? This is the model he proposes:

What we do is you put an issue before Congress, let’s just use free tuition at public colleges and universities, and that vote is going to take place on November 8 ... whatever it may be. We tell millions and millions of people, young people and their parents, there is going to be a vote ... half the people don’t know what’s going on ... but we tell them when the vote is, maybe we welcome a million young people to Washington, D.C. to say hello to their members of Congress. Maybe we have the telephones and the e-mails flying all over the place so that everybody in America will know how their representative is voting. [...]

And then Republicans are going to have to make a decision. Then they’re going to have to make a decision. You know, when thousands of young people in their district are saying, “You vote against this, you’re out of your job, because we know what’s going on.” So this gets back to what a political revolution is about, is bringing people in touch with the Congress, not having that huge wall. That’s how you bring about change

.

Sanders magical revolution failed https://www.vox.com/2016/4/25/11497822/sanders-political-revolution-vote

Sanders isn't just running on his policy agenda. He's running on the idea of a "political revolution" that will allow him to accomplish that agenda. The theory of the "political revolution" is that Americans are so eager for free college and Medicare for all that they will not only sweep Bernie Sanders to the White House if he's nominated, but will elect more, and more progressive, Democrats down-ballot will then vote to pass Sanders's agenda through Congress.

Among people who typically vote, these policies aren't that popular. The "political revolution" is only plausible if it's about changing the composition of the electorate: bringing new people to the polls who don't normally vote, even in presidential elections.

I personally agree with Kevin Drum that the concept of a voter revolution was a scam by sanders https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/heres-why-i-never-warmed-bernie-sanders/

With the Democratic primary basically over, I want to step back a bit and explain the big-picture reason that I never warmed up to Bernie Sanders. It’s not so much that he’s all that far to my left, nor that he’s been pretty skimpy on details about all the programs he proposes. That’s hardly uncommon in presidential campaigns. Rather, it’s the fact that I think he’s basically running a con, and one with the potential to cause distinct damage to the progressive cause.

I mean this as a provocation—but I also mean it. So if you’re provoked, mission accomplished! Here’s my argument.

Bernie’s explanation for everything he wants to do—his theory of change, or theory of governing, take your pick—is that we need a revolution in this country. The rich own everything. Income inequality is skyrocketing. The middle class is stagnating. The finance industry is out of control. Washington, DC, is paralyzed....

Why do I care about this? Because if you want to make a difference in this country, you need to be prepared for a very long, very frustrating slog. You have to buy off interest groups, compromise your ideals, and settle for half loaves—all the things that Bernie disdains as part of the corrupt mainstream establishment. In place of this he promises his followers we can get everything we want via a revolution that’s never going to happen. And when that revolution inevitably fails, where do all his impressionable young followers go? Do they join up with the corrupt establishment and commit themselves to the slow boring of hard wood? Or do they give up?

Sanders promised a voter revolution and use this promise to justify programs and proposals that cannot be passed in the real world.

The real world is a nice place. Change takes hard work and magic does not work. You are welcome to believe in magic. I will spend my time working in the real world.

[JCanete]

134. so, just looking at the first 2 to start, you are entirely mischaracterizing both.

Yes, he says "today we begin a political revolution." Sooooo??? What's your beef that it isn't yet achieved? That it may never be achieved if you have anything to say about it? Its not like he said at any point that his campaign would achieve that political revolution in full force, within that single year. I fucking hope its still going. I hope people are starting to demand from our government what we haven't for way too long, but if you say that's far from certain, or far from likely, you may as well tell me the sky is sometimes blue.

And yet, where did he say something that is untrue? There are absolutely candidates across the country who have responded to Sanders call for and are running while refusing to take big money. There are voters who do care. Enough "credible" news sources say that Sanders is among the front-runners going into 2020, and while nothing at all is certain or even likely("I am a realist&quot , that suggests that this revolution could still be in the works. But NOTHING here promises that this will happen, or that starting a political revolution won't simply end with a wimper either. Point to the words that are the lie.

The second one is first, a crappy article., its bullshit to think that anybody simply votes ideologically....if the GOP leadership thought that they were not simply going to lose a vote, but lose the congress for standing in the way of what the American people want, they would rush to the table to find a compromise that kept them in their seats. They never need to do that when democrats are in charge right now because we start with the compromise to make the Mccaskle's and Manchin's happy, and that allows the GOP to say "go to hell" with no risk at all. We don't go to the people. We don't rally them behind these causes. We think its all about giving a little to get a little, except that's not the way the GOP plays at all.

Second, suggesting that if he became president he would use the bully pulpit to help bring about this revolution kind of requires that he win the Presidency. Maybe you can point to him saying he thinks he can win that, or will win that, which is kind of in line with standard campaign rhetoric. Nobody says, vote for me and I am going to lose this race.

but hell, you feel free to claim victory. I know you will because you found articles framing his argument....good on ya. the whole premise of your argument is that if you campaign on anything, then when you don't win that means you promised and lied. I assure you based upon that same framework you could make Clinton a liar too. But in both caes its entirely bogus.

edited somethign out.

[Gothmog]

136. Sanders lied to his supporters about his proposals being feasible in the real world

Sanders' proposals are not realistic in the real world. For example Sanders failed to get single payer adopted in his home state of Vermont. During the campaign, Sanders told his supporters that all of sanders proposals were achievable due to a magical voter revolution. Without that magical voter revolution, Sanders would not be able to get any of his proposals adopted in the real world just as Sanders has been unable to achieve any major accomplishments during his time in Congress and the Senate.

As it turns out, there was no revolution. Sanders got the same amount of votes from existing democratic as Dean did in 2004 and Bradley did in 2000. Without this magical revolution, sanders was not viable in the real world which also means that his platform was not viable.

I agree with Kevin Drum, that the Sanders campaign promises about a magical voter revolution was a scam. In the real world, one needs to make promises that can be achieved. None of Sanders major proposals are possible without the use of magic. I an others never took sanders seriously because we do not believe in magic. You are welcome to believe in magic but do not be surprised when the magic does not work.

I like living in the real world. Right now, there is a good chance that real Democrats can regain control of the House and a decent chance that real Democrats could take the Senate. That would allow oversight over trump, force the release of Trump's tax returns and perhaps give the Democrats a way to block trump's judges. These is no way that we can get a veto proof or filibuster proof majority this cycle. We can accomplish these modest goals without the use of magic.

[ehrnst]

140. +1000. (nt)

[JCanete]

143. Goth, I can't go anywhere with this. Instead of taking anything I said and actually addressing it,

actually dismantling it,you're just on repeat. That does not help me to see your point. Frankly, it reinforces my opinion that you don't have one. That you're working with rhetoric. The real world you like to live in has a lot of straw men. If our real challenges were only as easy as taking those down.

What IS magical thinking is that you can get the GOP to compromise on modest terms by offering modest terms. I've said it before and nobody has appeared to have the guts to address this, the GOP goes right for the jugular when they are in power, and the democrats scramble to get them to compromise on a less vital artery. We go for a capillary and the GOP says "fuck it, I'm not helping you. What's the worst that can happen if I don't? I burst a capillary? No thanks. I'll just continue to paint your position as extreme no matter how much more moderate you try to make it to compensate."

[Gothmog]

144. The fact that you are in denial about the premise of the Sanders platform is not my fault

The fact that you do not think that I have a point of view is so funny that it hurts. Thank you for the laughs. The fact that you are in denial as to the premise of the Sanders campaign and how the real world works is not my fault. I have seen what happens when sanders supporters buy the the lies used by Sanders to sell his unrealistic proposals. I was at the National Convention where fully vetted Sanders delegates acted out and among other things called my daughter the C-Word because she would not try to convince me to change my vote. The sanders delegates were told that there would be a magical voter revolution and when that lie was exposed these "progressives" acted out.

I never took sanders seriously. Sanders has not accomplished anything in the real world despite years of service in the House and the Senate. Sanders campaigned on a platform that was based on a magical voter revolution where millions or billions or trillions of new voters would rise up and force the GOP to be reasonable. Without such a magical voter revolution, none of sanders proposals or platform could be adopted in the real world. The entire sanders campaign was based on a scam and no one believed that Sanders proposals could be adopted in the real world. BTW, I am still laughing at your amusing use of the term "straw men" when it was the sanders campaign that was entirely based on a scam or straw man. Thank you again for the laugh.

As it turned out, the Sanders magical voter revolution did not happen. Again, Sanders has not accomplished anything meaningful in Congress or the Senate for a reason. Relying on magic is not a sound mechanism. There was no magical voter revolution and Sanders in effect got the same number and type of Democratic voters who supported Dean in 2004 and Bradley in 2000. Sanders sold his supporters a lie about a magical voter revolution that would allow sanders' unrealistic proposals to be adopted in the real world.

I live in deep red Texas and we are fighting to turn the state blue. This is being done by hard work and is not based on magic. Texas is a minority majority state and if we can get voters to turn out, then the state can turn blue. I am currently supporting a candidate who was attacked by the local Our Revolution group because that candidate is "not one of us" and "we do not want one of them" on the ballot (this is from the head of this group). According to a professor who I know and respect we can put this district into play by having an Asian on the ballot.

Link to tweet

From the NYT article

Richard Murray, a professor of political science at the University of Houston, told me to keep an eye as well on the 22nd District, a largely suburban swath of the Houston area that he described as a microcosm of demographic changes that are making the state ever more hospitable Democratic turf.

“The suburban counties that led Republicans to dominance here 25 years ago are getting significantly less Republican fast,” he said, adding that Fort Bend County, in the 22nd, is roughly 20 percent Asian-American now. The first-place finisher in the district’s Democratic primary, Sri Preston Kulkarni, is Indian-American. Murray said that if Kulkarni wins his runoff, that could be a significant boost to Democrats’ chances to nab this House seat.

In my opinion, it is critical that we take control of the House and if possible take control of the Senate this cycle. We can do this without magic. I know that you are against incremental change but at least incremental change can work. If we can retake control of the House, we can block future attempts to gut the ACA, have a proper investigation of Trump, look at trump's tax returns and exercise some checks on trump. If we get a majority in the Senate, we can block all or most of trump's judges. This may seem incremental but these goals are achievable in the real world and are the best we can do after Sanders did his best to help elect trump. The key is taking back control of Congress which can not be done with magic.

Again, go ahead and continue to believe in magic. I will live in the real world and try to actually accomplish something. Wanting to run on realistic proposals and living in the real world is not extreme. The goals that I have outlined above are achievable without the consent of the GOP. We need to vote the GOP out of control of the House and if possible the Senate. What is extreme is encouraging voters to act up and do stunts like attacking Congressman John Lewis at the National Convention because Sanders' promised magical revolution did not materialize. That stunt will haunt Sanders if he runs again (which I doubt).

[JCanete]

145. I didn't say you don't have a point of view.You clearly have that. But I"m tired of trying to

address what you say while you do a drive by past what I have said, and simply repeat the same mantra over and over. The point is this. I took your mantra to task. Perhaps ineffectively or perhaps incorrectly, but I put forward an argument that undercuts yours. To repeat yours without actually addressing the holes I see in it, or the holes you see in my arguments against yours, does none of the work. If you're speaking for the sake of hearing yourself speak, then more power to you. If you are saying the same thing over and over because it sounds good reverberating in this echo chamber, then more power to you. If you are speaking with me, then you have to actually converse with me.

[Gothmog]

147. The concept that you think that you have made valid arguments amuses me

You have not disproved the premise of my positions. Your claims are not based on facts but on your feelings about Sanders. You have done nothing to disprove the premise of my arguments with facts (your feelings about sanders really do not matter). None of your claims or feelings undercuts the premise of my positions which are based on the facts that exist in the real world.

Sanders has never accomplished anything in his long career for a reason. His proposals will not work in the real world. It is easy to make unrealistic and silly proposals when one knows that these proposals have zero chance of passing. For example, Sanders today proposed universal jobs for everyone with a guaranteed $15 an hour compensation https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210529165 In what universe do you think that this plan has any chance of being adopted in the real world. There are of course no specifics to this plan and the only way for such a plan to be adopted would be if the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a veto proof majority in the House. That is how the real world works. Again, I note that Sanders failed utterly to get single payer adopted in Vermont. Again magic does not work in the real world.

You may like to see unrealistic proposals and you may believe in magic. Sanders proposals are not popular with voters who actually vote in the real world which is why the magical voter revolution failed. https://www.vox.com/2016/4/25/11497822/sanders-political-revolution-vote

Among people who typically vote, these policies aren't that popular. The "political revolution" is only plausible if it's about changing the composition of the electorate: bringing new people to the polls who don't normally vote, even in presidential elections.

In the real world the conditions are simply not right for a voter revolution https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/04/heres-why-i-never-warmed-bernie-sanders/

But as Bill Scher points out, the revolution that Bernie called for didn’t show up. In fact, it’s worse than that: we were never going to get a revolution, and Bernie knew it all along. Think about it: has there ever been an economic revolution in the United States? Stretching things a bit, I can think of two:

The destruction of the Southern slave economy following the Civil War
The New Deal

The first of these was 50+ years in the making and, in the end, required a bloody, four-year war to bring to a conclusion. The second happened only after an utter collapse of the economy, with banks closing, businesses failing, wages plummeting, and unemployment at 25 percent. That’s what it takes to bring about a revolution, or even something close to it.

We’re light years away from that right now. Unemployment? Yes, 2 or 3 percent of the working-age population has dropped out of the labor force, but the headline unemployment rate is 5 percent. Wages? They’ve been stagnant since the turn of the century, but the average family still makes close to $70,000, more than nearly any other country in the world. Health care? Our system is a mess, but 90 percent of the country has insurance coverage. Dissatisfaction with the system? According to Gallup, even among those with incomes under $30,000, only 27 percent are dissatisfied with their personal lives.

Like it or not, you don’t build a revolution on top of an economy like this. Period. If you want to get anything done, you’re going to have to do it the old-fashioned way: through the slow boring of hard wood.

Without some external event as described above, there will be no voter revolution. Millions or billions or trillions of new voters are not going to rise up and help sanders pass these unrealistic proposals in the real world.

In my opinion, Sanders is not likely to run in 2020 and if Sanders does run, he will not be the nominee. Sanders will have to release his tax returns to get onto the ballot in a number of blue states due to proposed and pending ballot access laws. Sanders would also face backlash due to stunts like the attack on Congressman John Lewis at the National Convention (the video of this stunt and the fact that Sanders refused to stop this stunt will not play well with the base of the party). The Our Revolution idiots and Nina Turner are generating a great deal of anger on the part of real Democrats towards Sanders and his proposals. There are a large number of Democrats who blame sanders for Trump's victory. You can count me in that group who blame sanders for trump's victory. In addition, a large majority of Democrats live in the real world and will not accept sanders unrealistic proposals. I seriously doubt that sanders runs and I am sure that he will not get the nomination. Again, there will be no magical voter revolution where millions or billions or trillions of new voters rise up to support Sanders.

BTW, I am former college debater and a lawyer. If you want to make some real arguments that are not based on your feelings, please do so. Your feelings are meaningless in the real world where magic does not work. You may want to read up on the issues and try using facts in your arguments. Facts are far better than feelings.

[Cary]

69. So you feel you are the arbiter of who espouses "progressive ideals"

That explains a lot.

Remind me again who exactly it was who appointed you to this lofty post.

[JCanete]

74. Well by all means feel free to define them for me yourself. Its my version of progressive ideals.

What do you think we should fight for? What do you think we should have as a society? Are you at odds with my vision here? Do you not want to end vast wealth disparity? Do you not want to end poverty and exploitation? Do you think that any of that is achievable by getting the people who are winning to simply come to the table and help you craft a plan where they give half of it all back?

[Cary]

75. At the moment we are besieged by fascists

In case you haven't noticed.

It's all hands on deck, battle stations. Put aside the petty differences with process and fight the real enemy.

Vote Democratic!

[Eliot Rosewater]

77. And not just Democratic but in some cases one must vote for the rightwing democrat

i wonder if my math lessons have done any good?

[Cary]

85. Some will, some won't, so what?

All we can do is state facts. Radicals are unfazed by facts.

[Hortensis]

93. Degree of radicalism/extremism can probably be quantified,

at least somewhat, by how much facts interfere with ideology, requiring rejection. But, just as with their conservative counterparts, a discomfort with conflicting truths beyond the norm all people experience is a defining characteristic.

There really is such a thing as common wisdom, even if it fails too often, and it comes from the somewhat greater overall ability of cultural mainstreams to recognize and accept truths, and to base conclusions and sensible actions on them.

A fact radicals will always reject. Only they have the wisdom needed to lead.

[Cary]

96. It takes all kinds.

I suppose.

[JCanete]

87. I do. I have. How is this relevant to what we're talking about? nt

[Cary]

88. Come on.

You know what I'm saying. I was clear.enough. Show me that you're better than this obtuse thing you think you have going.

[JCanete]

89. The original conversation was about what is magical talk and thinking...not about

what you do when faced with a choice between a republican and a democrat at the ballot box. So yes, I need this explained.

[Cary]

94. Rise above

You can do better.

[JCanete]

95. Cary, is your interest ever in having a conversation? Or do you think there are points involved.

I don't know what you're talking about, because you are intentionally being coy. Why bother?

[Cary]

97. Nice ad hominem

How is it that I only have this "problem" with those whom I refer to as radicals? Granted that is an imperfect label but it's the best that I can come up with.

And how is it that my fellow mainstream Democrats all identify the exact same "problem?"

And how is it that radicals invariably deny and deny and accuse me of all sorts of things? As I've told you many times, I don't believe you when you tell me that you don't know what you're doing and there is nothing you can say to convince me otherwise.

[JCanete]

98. how is yours not?

[Cary]

100. I added.to my answer

And again I remain convinced that you can do better.

[JCanete]

101. The same way you can get into a room with a bunch of people who all agree that

there's a war on Christmas Cary...its called an echo chamber. Please don't use arguments that are this easy to poke holes in to vindicate your own position. Support among your peers is not evidence of fact.

And you calling me a radical is somehow not an ad hominem? Why is that?

[Cary]

102. I see

You're not the least bit at fault. You have nothing to learn.

[JCanete]

103. I never said that. If you at any point have something to teach, maybe I'll learn from it.

You on the other hand, made it quite clear that you have nothing to learn from me. You said outright that nothing I say can change your opinion. huh...

[Cary]

104. You aren't listening

I pretty clearly told you that I think you don't understand because you don't want to understand. I think you're playing a game and I think you know that.

[JCanete]

106. And I think you're the one playing the game, so that's where we are. For my part,

it seems pretty clear that its not me who's speaking in riddles.

[Cary]

109. Unfortunately you just reaffirm my theory

I would love to see us all work together to defeat a common enemy but radicals take that and gaslight me with it, like you do now. I must revert to Occam's Razor. The reason radicals do this is because they don't want to work together to defeat the common enemy. The reason radicals do this is because they want to be radical and to be radical means radicals must be subversive.

I can't help you.

[JCanete]

110. You are literally attacking my motives. Your attack goes to my character, which IS out of bounds for

this discussion board, but by all means, if it makes you feel good, go for it. You are the one who has tried to shift the conversation from facts and philosophy to "what certain people" me included, "are like." If you were so confident you had a point, maybe you would just make it.

And what example do you have of me gaslighting you?

Everything I've said that you've said we literally have a record of.

[Cary]

112. I gave you my honest assessment

I don't need your approval. I don't reach this conclusion because I want to reach it. You do seem to me to be a fellow liberal and I would love to reach some meeting of the minds. You have no idea how disconcerting the anti-Obama and anti-Hillary schtick has been for me. But I am a big boy. If that's how it is going to be then I move ahead with mainstream Democrats.

I repeat: I would love to see us all coalesce to defeat our common enemy. I can only surmise that you refuse to do that because you don't want to.

I am not in your head or your heart. I have only logic, reason, and experience. It is necessary for me to ascribe this motive because the rabbit hole you try so hard to get me to down is a waste of my time.

Yes, I do not see you as a good faith negotiator. That's my right JCanete and I do have a reasonably objective argument for it.

I would ask you why you push back but I don't expect an honest answer.

[JCanete]

114. why I push back against your baseless assesment? And if I do then that's more proof that you were

right all along? Do you see how circular your reasoning is?

It is your right to see me how you see me, and we can both feel that way about the other, and I certainly think I could mount the better case, but then, that's from my perspective and I would not presume to know your thoughts.

[Cary]

115. I told you why you push back

You don't want to reach any agreement.

Nothing you can say will convince me otherwise.

[JCanete]

118. please tell me you're just fucking with me already. To literally

say "you don't want to reach an agreement" in the same breath as "nothing you say will convince me otherwise...." is pretty fucking hilarious. Its like the Beatles song we can work it out.......if we do it my way. You are literally saying you aren't trying to reach an agreement unless that agreement is that I recognize that you already have the right answer.

I'm probably done with this exchange, unless you say something that deviates slightly from your current direction. Its wasting both of our air. But by all means have the last word.

[Cary]

123. Your words are not the words I expect to hear from an honest broker

So spare me your righteous indignation.

[ehrnst]

141. Especially one who accuses everyone else of "playing games." (nt)

[Cary]

146. Yes he is always about how others are at fault for not toeing his line

Never is it about how we might work things out.

[panader0]

4. Bernie gets more criticism here on DU

than Putin, Trump, the corrupt cabinet, Ryan, McConnell and more, all put together
from a certain group. During the primaries, Senator Sanders held a 3 to 1 approval
here at DU. He had more individual donations than anyone ever.
Exclude him at the peril of the Democratic party. (He ran as a Democrat)
I hope he doesn't run again, but he has a lot of clout with progressives.

[FSogol]

6. Nonsense. n/t

[NCTraveler]

7. Can you link to the forum you are talking about?

This is the one you are currently posting in.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1002

[panader0]

8. The forum is DU

and if you haven't noticed, well.....
Some posters main thing is to put Sanders down.
I've seen it over and over.

[NCTraveler]

9. Massive change from your first comment.

Like night and day.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

21. He said from a certain group and then later some posters.

I’m curious what is the “night and day” changes in those two statements?

[Hortensis]

116. "...at the peril of the Democratic Party."?

"Peril?" Is that typical JPR puffery?

Tell me, why wouldn't it be everyone's peril? Are you satisfied with the outcome of 2016? A common line with those who fled to JPR was that there was no real difference between Democrats and Republicans. I know there are some intractable cognitive functions over there, but do people in general over there still sing that song?

As for "progressives," almost all Democrats are progressives, even to some degree most of our small conservative faction. And Democrats don't kick progressivism in the teeth out of spite. It's not an on-and-off thing for us but the real thing.

[NCTraveler]

11. This really has me scratching my head.

It doesn't make any sense at all. It's things like this that make me feel what I have written is important. Claims completely void of reality used in a manner to be divisive. It just makes no sense.

Edit: It does now. https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/regarding-the-comey-interview-today/

[SidDithers]

47. Well, there's a surprise...nt

Sid

[Eliot Rosewater]

79. WAit, how in the FUCK can the person who said what is in that link be allowed to post HERE?

HERE?

It took me over a minute to type this when it should have taken 20 seconds, my hands were SHAKING so bad in RAGE

[karynnj]

13. Agree completely to his clout, as many previous Democrats noted we need both wings to fly

To those stating that Bernie has little support in the Democratic party, I can say they are totally wrong. I just went to the J Street conference. J street is not the most progressive action group on Israel. It is to the left of AIPAC, but to the right of Jewish voice for peace and others.

There were many speakers, including Barbara Lee. The one who got by far the biggest applause and many standing ovations was Bernie. The cheers came from women as well as men.

Now, the crowd was dominated by two age groups.Many were young including 1200 students who attended. The other over represented groip were retired people. Obviously, most were Jewish. I realize it was a nearly all white crowd and not the least bit representative of the Democratic base.

However, the crowd was almost entirely Democratic and, given that we were there, activists. I think it entirely likely that someone younger will be the nominee.

Whoever the nominee is, getting Bernie out for the nominee will be a big help.

[NCTraveler]

14. You shouldnt completely agree with a blatant lie.

I know honesty is your thing. A bit taken back with your “completely agree” comment.

[karynnj]

15. The way I parse it he is not lying on anything

I think the comment on getting more criticism than Putin is unfortunate, but it was qualified to being from a subgroup of people.

What I completely agree about is that there is a large, significant group that Bernie has clout with. That is what I saw in the real world. Not for everyone, but the excitement for his speech was real and I had not expected that.

Now, I would caution people on the other wing, that every thing I said would be true for Hillary. It is abundantly clear that there are groups of Democrats who she could move behind a candidate.

Not to mention, both should and likely will be involved in 2018 where candidates would like them to be.

[NCTraveler]

16. The lie is blatant.

Black and white. Things that clear don’t need to be “parsed”.

[karynnj]

17. I am missing something -what is the lie.

Are you meaning the relative popularity on DU? That would have been hard to measure, but the site always leaned to the left. In 2004, there was a time when Kuchinich had more support than Kerry.

If it makes you happy, I will edit to limit my complete agreement to his last sentence. Bernie DOES have clout.

[panader0]

18. Exactly, what is the "blatant" lie?

That Sen. Sanders was more popular at DU?
That he had more individual donations than anyone ever?
I didn't mention that he won 13.2 million votes in the primary. But nearly all of those
voters went on to cast their votes for HRC. (By a larger percentage than HRC voters
went on to vote for Obama in 2008)
That a certain group here at DU is obsessed with denigrating Sen. Sanders?
You need only to review their posts and you will see. So where's the blatant lie?
Perhaps you believe that it's politically savvy to alienate those 13.2 million voters.
I do not.

[rainin]

28. You just can't talk to some people. I've tried many times to point out

the stupidity of alienating so many voters, but some people are either too tribal or too bitter to come together. It's so destructive, I wonder sometimes if they are trolls. Who knows. At the end of the day, dems will lose if they don't drop this ridiculous Bernie hate

[NCTraveler]

32. Spot on outside of your last sentence.

https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/regarding-the-comey-interview-today/

[NurseJackie]

22. Ha!

[NCTraveler]

23. But her emails.

https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/regarding-the-comey-interview-today/

[Docreed2003]

29. Wow...that explains so much!

[Eliot Rosewater]

82. If we lose to the russian KGB again I will know why

[FSogol]

5. Back in the DU primary wars, I proposed the idea of promoting your preferred candidates w/o bashing

other Democratic candidates. It is possible to do. If your candidate success requires tearing the party apart, then they aren't really that great of a candidate.

[Blue_true]

10. I have issues with Bernie.

I hope neither he nor Joe run in 2020. But that said, we need to lock-in like a laser on the 2018 midterms and support democrats across the board, even ones that we would not have voted for in a primary race.

[4now]

12. This is how we win

[Hortensis]

19. This is how we win. IF we live our words.

Resist REPUBLICANS.

(No more threads like this one. Put it away for the next 200 (only!) days.)

[RandomAccess]

20. Well, that's good

I hope you can drag a few others with you in this endeavor.

[RandiFan1290]

24. lol

[progressoid]

51. ...

[Tavarious Jackson]

25. You're a better person than I am.

I can not forgive nor forget.

[Gothmog]

58. I am watching the local Our Revolution attack an Asian candidate due to race

According to the local Our Revolution group, the Asian candidate is "not one of us" and is one of "them"

[Tavarious Jackson]

60. Not surprised at all. nt

[democratisphere]

27. Bernie, along with Jill Stein, are largely respondsible for drumpf residing

in the oval office. DEMS can not allow this kind of thing to happen again. No excuses!

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. Bullshit. More Clinton supporters defected to McCainin 2008 than Sanders supporters to Trump

Meanwhile the Libertarians got about 5 times as many votes as the Greens, many of those from younger voters who could have been expected to vote Democratic. Why no mention of that? Or of the tens of millions of voters who felt too apathetic about their choices to even vote?

[democratisphere]

37. Apathy gave them drumpf. Pathetic!

[emulatorloo]

42. Yes it was a dark day when President McCain was elected in 2008

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. Tens of millions of Americans made individual choices in both elections

So there were tens of millions of variables that went into both results. Once could argue that Obama won because he was the best candidate of of the bunch.

[emulatorloo]

49. Trump won the election because of around 100,000 votes in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania

It isn’t unreasonable for some to speculate about the impact of Bernie to Trump, Bernie to Stein, and Bernie to Johnson voters in those three states.

McCain didn’t win. Therefore arguments about PUMA percentages is Irrelevant.

It’s water under the bridge though. Probably not worth talking about any more so I think DU is better off moving on to 2020. After we are done working hard to win in 2018.

[progressoid]

53. Clearly it's not water under the bridge.

otherwise this thread and the dozens of others about Bernie wouldn't get the most attention here.

[emulatorloo]

55. I am saying it should be water under the bridge. I think it may be in the real world.

There’s nothing that can be done about 2016 now.

However I doubt threads about Bernie are going away, especially if he runs in 2020.

And I believe he is running in 2020, just hasn’t announced yet.

Not threads about 2016 general election so much, but threads about 2020. There are tough questions he’ll need to answer, as will all the other candidates.

[progressoid]

56. Right. IRL it's not a thing.

At least in my experience in my dealing with other Democrats on the local level, virtually nobody is still fighting this war.

However online, and DU in particular, it seems to be a big bee on some people's britches.

[radical noodle]

61. Bernie Sanders Voters Helped Trump Win and Here's Proof

Bernie Sanders supporters switched their allegiance to Donald Trump in large enough numbers last November to sway the election for the real estate billionaire, according to an analysis of voter data released Tuesday by the blog Political Wire. Since Trump’s shock victory over Hillary Clinton, much discussion has focused on the degree to which passionate Sanders supporters’ refusal to embrace Clinton led to the Republican winding up in the White House.

http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320

[JCanete]

63. yes, but what is that proof of? Is it proof that somehow Sanders turned voters who would

otherwise have voted for Clinton into Trump voters? Is that really your thesis? Do you really truly believe that? Or is it more likely Sanders was able to actually appeal to a margin of voters who otherwise were never going to vote for a democrat, or Clinton specifically, who then ended up voting for who they were likely to vote for in the first place once Sanders was out of the running?

As has been pointed out over and over, but its probably just not convenient to the narrative,but holy shit radical noodle, its literally in the article you posted, Sanders voters came out for Clinton at a larger margin than Clinton voters came out for Obama....

12 percent of Sanders voters voted for Trump.
25 percent! of Clinton voters voted for Mccain.. and yet Obama won the election. And yet you want to lay Clinton's defeat at Sanders' feet.

[Tom Rinaldo]

65. So half as many Sanders voters went with the GOP as did 2008 Clinton voters. And this...

What no one who supported Sanders last time has bothered posting here (because almost all of us were willing to move on and unify) is this: Many many thousands of voters registered for the 2016 election only because they got drawn into the contested race for the Democratic nomination, most often by Sanders. They watched some of the debates on TV. They were pestered by friends to go register so they could vote in their primary. That happened all over the country because virtually every primary in every state was relevant to who won the Democratic nomination. In particular that happened with younger voters who had not been involved in politics before. Many of them registered for the first time so that they could support Sanders in the primaries, and they like all Sanders voters overwhelmingly went on to vote for Clinton in the General. New votes for Democrats.

[markpkessinger]

121. It is estimated that something like 12% of Bernie voters voted for Trump . . .

That isn't Bernie's fault -- he certainly asked them not to do that, and certainly didn't support it. And the great majority of Bernie supporters supported Hillary in the General Election.

But there's another, more fundamental problem with your statement, and it is this: those people who supported Bernie in the primary, and Trump in the general election -- those people were never, under any circumstances, going to vote for Hillary for whatever reason. Bernie didn't take a single vote from Hillary (nor was it possible for him to do so, since as a candidate, he has no control over what people to in the voting booth). The folks who went from Bernie to Trump were certainly not likely to have been Democratic voters at all absent Bernie entering the race. So convenient as your narrative might be, it is utterly fallacious.

And let's face it: whatever Hillary's many strengths, being a great political candidate doesn't happen to be one of them. It was her decision to confine herself mostly to appearances at small gatherings of wealthy donors while Trump was barnstorming the country with his rallies. That was just a dumb move politically speaking, especially when, among certain parts of the electorate, she was already perceived as being rather elitist. And that's on her, not Bernie.

I am frankly sick and tired of the notion -- which seems to have many adherents on this site -- that a robust primary isn't a healthy thing. But as for what happened in the General, blame Russia if you want, blame Wikileaks, blame James Comey, and blame decisions by the candidate herself -- all of those things contributed. Bernie had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

[radical noodle]

124. Your narrative might be compelling

if we hadn't all watched what happened in real time. I will always vote for Democrats. No exceptions.

[markpkessinger]

125. Right, and so will the great majority of Bernie supporters . . .

. . . But Democrats cannot win by appealing solely to Democrats. It's a numbers thing -- unaffiliated voters are the largest single voting bloc, and for a Democrat to win, that candidate must appeal to a significant slice of those unaffiliated voters (as Obama certainly did). But Hillary had no appeal outside of the party. The reasons for that are many and varied, and may in many cases be rooted in plain old, garden-variety sexism, but it's a reality we face nonetheless.

So the question becomes, do we want to keep congratulating ourselves because we "only vote for Democrats," or do we nominate someone who can win?

[radical noodle]

126. I don't see any non-Democrats

who can win.

[markpkessinger]

127. If Bernie had won the nomination . . .

. . . he would have won it as a Democrat. Although he continues to identify as an independent, ideologically, he is much more an old-style, FDR Democrat, that a good number of Democrats currently serving in the House and Senate!

I'm not saying anybody needs to like Bernie or agree with him, or support him. I AM saying that blaming him for Hillary's loss is beyond childish.

[radical noodle]

128. No he would not have

I would say more, but rules prohibit it.

[JCanete]

40. bullshit devoid of evidence. No excuses for that. nt

[democratisphere]

43. Simple math makes it very easy to understand.

[JCanete]

44. The math does, it just doesn't back up your claim that Sanders had a negative impact

on the GE. Or show some shred that holds up to the mildest scrutiny.

[Eliot Rosewater]

83. Makes you wonder where certain folks fall on the whole "hanging chad" thing.

sigh

[HopeAgain]

30. I hate the word "righteous"

It is usually used when trying to squelch the thoughts of others. But enough of my etymological aside...

[NCTraveler]

31. Thank you for your thoughts about the use of a word.

I personally thing we are on a righteous path. We will keep working toward the betterment of society and bringing communities together.

[JCanete]

41. problem is that if that's your usage then even in your post about how you are not

going to criticize Sanders, you are making sure everybody knows that your criticisms were righteous, arguably that would make Sanders message or something, not on the righteous path?...you can't bury the hatchet enough not to throw a dig in in your post about how you're going to work to unify?

[Docreed2003]

33. I readily admit that I used to love Bernie

I had listened to him weekly on Hartman's radio show, I knew his positions, and I was all in for him during the primary. Then, two things changed: Bernie's supporters, at least some, became more concerned with protecting their image of the man than they were listening to honest criticism....(that's still true today, even though many of his so called supporters were ready to throw him right under the bus once he endorsed Hillary) , and I learned a great deal about the way Bernie ran his campaign, particularly in regards to people of color, and I was dumbstruck and felt more foolish than I ever have over an affiliation with a politician.

I completely agree with your post...we have bigger fish to fry right now. Bernie is gong to do what Bernie wants to do in 2020, that's a long time from now. For now, we all should be focused on the fight for the 2018 midterms.

[Gothmog]

59. I was a delegate to the national convention

I saw this conduct first hand. I saw:

1. A bunch of sanders delegate march into the delegation breakfast locked arm in arm to demand that we condemed Hillary Clinton and vote for bernie

2. There wad a planned stunt of booing Congressman John Lewis by the Sanders delegation. The Clinton campaign warned her delegates of the stunt well in advance and I was told that sanders refused to try ro stop this stunt.

3. A group of sanders delegates screamed obscenities at my daughter at our hotel and called her the C word because she would not try to get me to change my vote. My daughter was my guest at the convention and she was not impressed with these "progressives".

4. A sanders delegate weating a large cross stood outside of the Jewish caucus and yelled that we were bad Jews for not supporting sanders. The idiot was afraid to come in or get too close to the members of the Jewish caucus for some reason.

In a normal campaign, delegates are vetted. This is partly beacuse even pledged delegates can change their votes. The vetting is also done to make sure that these delegates reflect the values of the party. If the sanders delegates who I observed represent the values of the "progressives", then we are in trouble

[Cary]

66. +1

VOTE DEMOCRATIC!

[Eliot Rosewater]

84. And for the most likely democrat to win their demographic. Which might mean a rightwing democrat.

[Gothmog]

150. In Texas we support the Democrat on the ballot

[Eliot Rosewater]

151. Let me help you with that a little, you forgot the .

.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

35. Please no offense meant...

but what a great way to start a discussion about the subject your self imposed ban instead of just not posting anything about your subject.

[NCTraveler]

52. No offense taken. Thank you kindly. Nt

[alarimer]

38. Bully for you.

I am just fucking sick of the constant lying about Bernie Sanders that happens here on a regular basis.

[Demsrule86]

48. I will say one thing. I have not seen lies posted about Sen.Sanders they would disappear in a New

York second. There have been threads about his comments, his running for president...etc. Perhaps a link. I have to say I don't think people on DU are liars. That is pretty offensive and really if people are inclined to support Sen. Sanders, being negative can dissuade them.

[ornotna]

45. righteous critiques

Good for you, carry on.

[ashtonelijah]

50. Noble, but I will continue fighting to rescue my party from Bernie and his Bros.

The values and ideals that make the Democratic Party home for me are simply incompatible with a Berner takeover. Bernie brings out the absolute worst in white male “progressives” and I refuse to see the Democratic Party follow the GOP in becoming a party of sycophants and cultists that worship at the altar of one white man and are indifferent to the misogyny and racism and anti-LGBT attitudes of some of their compatriots on the path to that.

The Democratic Party is far bigger than Bernie, but in any space, Bernie wants to suck up all the oxygen. If allowed to reach power, he’d subsume the whole party to himself just as Trump as done with the GOP.

I want the grace and humility of Barack Obama, the seriousness and broadmindedness of Hillary Clinton, and the all-encompassing compassion of Joe Biden.

If the party goes to Bernie and the Berners, then I no longer have a party. Period. So I, at least, will keep fighting to ensure that never happens.

[PaulX2]

86. It Is Unfortunate How So Many Do Not Understand Why Millions Upon Millions Of Americans

Think Bernie is more of a Democrat than "main stream" Democrats.

I am one of them. And I like Hillary too. Strange isn't it?

I will work with all Democrats, because we need to take back the house and senate. I simply want power returned to the people, and not the folks who write the largest checks. The 1%.

I will push all I can to get the money out too.

[lapucelle]

132. Perhaps people don't understand

because there is no data to support the claim.

[Kentonio]

133. That's fine, many of us will feel like we finally do have a party that represents us again.

[ashtonelijah]

148. Ah, the magic of having an old white man wagging his finger on your behalf. Great again, are we?

nt

[Kentonio]

149. Careful, trying to insult fellow DU members by insinuating they are Republicans is against TOS.

Not to mention being quite a lame way to deal with someone else having a slightly different opinion on the best path forward for progressives.

[ashtonelijah]

152. Wanting a demagogue who hates the Democratic Party to hijack the party

and continue to destroy it and wreck its chances of winning elections while denying the importance of “identity politics” and focusing on the white working class isn’t a “slightly different opinion.”

It’s life or death for LGBT people like me who live in states like Mississippi.

[BoneyardDem]

54. when Bernie confirms the 2020 run his acolytes are pressing

....you are released form any decision to hold back.


ETA: Ummmmmmm, just go for it already
https://mobile.twitter.com/PuestoLoco/status/987064021575663616
https://mobile.twitter.com/ILoveBernie1/status/987061900595867649/photo/1

[BeyondGeography]

78. Righteous?

You rule!

[PaulX2]

80. The 1% Wins Again - When Will They Get Tire Of Winning?

Zero taxes for corporations, and the billionaires.

Who will complain now?

[SidDithers]

119. Yallow...nt

Sid

[democratisphere]

81. Channel your energy in a positive Democratic direction.

We don't need part time Democrats screwing things up again!

[kacekwl]

107. I have come to the point when I see a post with Bernie Sanders in the tittle

I treat it like a trump tweet. I read it then pretty much ignore it. Not worth the time or effort to respond here.

[Raine]

117. Good! nt

[nolabels]

120. Plus a thousand

[markpkessinger]

122. I guess, then, we should dispense with primaries altogether . . .

. . . hell, let's just have a coronation and be done with it!

[betsuni]

138. Yeah, the press says Sanders is the front runner: establishment, anointed,

coronation. Dispense with the primaries altogether! RIGGED!!!!!

[DiverDave]

135. "Righteous"

Sure. And a legend in your own mind.
LOL. BYE!

[NCTraveler]

137. Take care. Have a safe trip. nt