Democratic Party is very united

[RobertEarl]

The conservatives of the party are trying to divide us. Stop them, don't let them divide us.

The Cons keep calling out the Liberal base, claiming that by not falling in lockstep with the conservatives, the Liberal base is somehow hurting the party.

In fact, it is the PUMA's who are the major thorn in the party. These PUMAs - the Party Unity MY Ass, folks keep attacking the Liberal base of the party, time and again claiming that if you don't have complete and utter love for the leadership you are somehow no good.

It was the Liberal base that carried Obama into office. The Liberal base got out and voted and they took others to the polls, while the conservatives were too afraid of upsetting the "be careful" conservatives who supported bush/cheney wars and economic ruination.

Obama campaigned against the PUMAs and he won. Now the PUMAs, like zombies, are back from the dead attacking the Liberal base. Don't let the zombies win. Keep hard left making progress. Be an underground Democrat and keep fighting. Don't let the 'fabled' leadership overtake and divide the Liberal left.

[merrily]

1. IMO, it's about New Democrats vs. traditional Democrats,

not about PUMAs vs. Obama or vs. Obama's fans.

Both Obama and Hillary are New Democrats, something Obama was not exactly broadcasting until after he took office.

[RobertEarl]

2. It is about PUMAs

Whether new PUMAs or old.

The Liberal base is what makes the party go 'round. Everyone should have the utmost respect for the Liberal base and listen very carefully to what the base says.

As for traditional, i think you can say the traditionals are the new conservatives. They are like dinosaurs. We must control them and allow them only limited freedom as they only intend to divide us and have everyone attacking the base which is striving for progress.

[merrily]

3. That is your opinion. As far as saying that traditional Democrats are the

conservative wing of the party, that is just ludicrous. It's the opposite.

.

We must control them and allow them only limited freedom as they only intend to divide us and have everyone attacking the base which is striving for progress.

Yeah, nothing conservative about that comment.

[RobertEarl]

4. Look where they've got us

Just look at where the traditional leaders have the country.

Obama got elected by claiming hope and change. Change is the antithesis to conservative.

DU is based on Liberal Progressiveness. So, yeah, the cons are controlled here. We smack them down time and again. They deserve it, yes?

[merrily]

5. Again, traditional Democrats are not cons.

DU is based on Liberal Progressiveness. So, yeah, the cons are controlled here. We smack them down time and again. They deserve it, yes?

Define "liberal progressiveness," as you have used it, then distinguish that definition from Democrats like FDR, HST and LBJ.

DU is based on Liberal Progressiveness. So, yeah, the cons are controlled here. We smack them down time and again. They deserve it, yes?

Again, nothing conservative about that statement.

[RobertEarl]

9. FDR and LBJ traditionalists? Ha!

FDR gave us the New Deal.

LBJ gave us the War on Poverty, Civil Rights and Medicare.

They were not traditionalists in their time, and were they here today would be telling the cons in the party to STFU.

[merrily]

10. I didn't say they were traditionalists. I said they were traditional

Democrats. The two terms are not synonyms. A New Democrat is not a traditional Democrat. (Duh).

Also, it's bad enough you purport to speak for DU. Purporting to speak for dead Presidents? Also ludicrous.

BTW, where is your definition of "liberal progressive?"

[RobertEarl]

12. I am speaking in modern times.

The throwbacks as I have stated, were progressives in their days what with the New Deal and Civil Rights. The traditionalists of those days fought FDR and LBJ. Just as the traditionalists who are trying to divide us progressives from the party are doing today.

You keep bring up New Democrats as if they are magically delicious, when all they are are mirrors of days past.

Progressives are making stuff happen. From Gay rights, to legalization, to new tech, to combating the old ways of big money politics, we are now moving forward and crushing the old conservative traditional ways. We have to. The old ways are dinosaurs which are bad for the country and the world.

The hippies are always right. Don't ever forget that.

[merrily]

14. Um, I am speaking in modern times, too, given I have no time machine.

And no matter when or where you are speaking, "traditionalist" and "traditional Democrat" are not synonyms.

You keep bring up New Democrats as if they are magically delicious, when all they are are mirrors of days past.

No. I bring them up to distinguish them from New Democrats. Just as New Democrats named themselves New Democrats to distinguish themselves from traditional Democrats.

Progressives are making stuff happen. From Gay rights, to legalization, to new tech, to combating the old ways of big money politics, we are now moving forward and crushing the old conservative traditional ways. We have to. The old ways are dinosaurs which are bad for the country and the world.

The hippies are always right. Don't ever forget that.

Sure, when New Democrats, lobbyists and Republicans agree, things happen.

BTW the hippies were not New Democrats--and you don't speak for hippies anymore than you speak for DU or FDR.

[RobertEarl]

15. You've replied a lot here

But have said what?

All i get from your effort here is protection of conservatives.

[merrily]

19. If you don't want me to reply, don't post to me. BTW, what have you said?

That you want to control people and stifle dissent?

How proud you must be.

[RobertEarl]

24. Control and stifle are your words

The shame is on you for ascribing them to me.

Yes. DU is based upon being Underground. Which means that we are here because we are not in lockstep with the traditional leaders like Clinton.

[merrily]

27. The words of yours I quoted in my posts support my use of those words.

And stop pretending that you speak for DU.

[RobertEarl]

30. No they don't

You keep making up words and ascribing them to me. It is shameful that you do.

I have over 30,000 posts on DU. Been reading and writing here since 2001. I think I have a handle on DU.

And I do notice that you are striving to control and stifle moi. Bwahahaha!!!

[merrily]

32. Nope. I neither made up words nor ascribed any to you that were not

copied straight out of your posts. To ascribe words to you, I would have to put quotation marks around them. I did not do that with any words that I did not copy right out of your own posts and paste them, exactly as you posted them.

You may think you have a handle on DU. So do a lot of people who do not agree with you and who have a higher post count than you do. However, you do not speak for DU and neither do they. Skinner speaks for DU. His TOS are not consistent with your posts.

[RobertEarl]

35. Bwahahaha!

Now you are attempting to speak for DU?

I see what you are doing. See post 33 down thread. Bwahahaha!

[merrily]

39. I should have said "either quotation marks or block quote."

[merrily]

34. PS, Control was your word, and in more than one post.

Here is only one time you used it.

We must control them and allow them only limited freedom as they only intend to divide us and have everyone attacking the base which is striving for progress.

[RobertEarl]

38. Put in context

I said: "...new conservatives. They are like dinosaurs. We must control them.."

Fuck yeah! We must control the conservatives. It's in the TOS. Duh!

You, in context: "That you want to control people and stifle dissent?"

You've blown yourself away, again.

[Gravitycollapse]

17. In your rhetorical universe, have hippies become the sort of wise, savage shamans?

The cleansing, pure ideology of your dreams?

I want to create a punk band called The Hippies Are Not Always Right.

[merrily]

7. PS, Obama got elected by appearing to run to Hillary's left.

And we have not had traditional Democrats in charge of the nation since Carter, maybe not since LBJ. So, where we are now is where Reagan Democrats and New Democrats got us, not where traditional Democrats got us.

Also, kindly remind me of the source of your authority to speak for DU?

[nomorenomore08]

18. "So, where we are now is where Reagan Democrats and New Democrats got us."

This.

[Drunken Irishman]

41. Where did traditional Democrats get the party after LBJ?

Guys like Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale ... where'd they get us?

Lopsided losses. It's not a coincidence the only Democrats to win the presidency are often criticized as being too conservative. Traditional Democrats were a dying breed and we either adapted as a party or faced extinction - just as the GOP is now.

[Gravitycollapse]

6. Your OP is weirdly paranoid and almost completely detached from reality.

Referencing a vague "them," trying to portray "them" as undead enemies and Obama as some sort of oppositional heroic force, and, ultimately, doing exactly that which you seem to be railing against. Namely, by trying to argue a sort of monolithic identity for members of the Democratic party, and labeling anyone who doesn't follow the "liberal base" as its enemy, you are toeing the line for ideological entrenchment.

The political landscape is almost nothing like what you seem to believe (assuming you actually believe what you've written here).

[merrily]

8. Thank you.

I was starting to think I was the only one who thought stifling differing opinions wasn't typically "liberal."

[RobertEarl]

11. They be PUMAS

The base of the party, to remind you, are the Liberal progressives.

Your personal attacks are not welcome here. Go away.

[Gravitycollapse]

13. Whether or not a group represents the exact majority opinion of the party, they are still the party.

The paranoia in your argument comes from what seems to be a sort of political splitting, in the psychological sense. On one side exists the pure ideology of your choice, apparently liberal progressivism, and on the other exists the pure ideology of the vilified "other" who you literally refer to as the undead.

This isn't constructive rhetoric. It's actually quite divisive and, I find, more than a little disturbing.

[merrily]

16. Until he complies with my request to furnish his definition of "liberal progressive," I

don't think we can have a clue what his ideology is. I am not even sure he has a clue what his ideology is (beyond desire to stifle dissent and to control others, not exactly leftist impulses).

On the one hand, he refers to PUMAS, who were supposedly backers of Hillary who became disaffected with the Party during the primary. On other other hand, he refers to party unity, while Hillary seems to have the mantle this go round.

On the third hand, he speaks of excising the party's dinosaurs (and party unity). On the fourth hand, he admonishes me to remember that the hippies, who dissented from the party in the 1960s because they considered it too far right, are always right. Well, the party then was a lot "lefter" than New Democrats.

[nomorenomore08]

20. He does seem a little confused about his terminology, if nothing else...

[merrily]

23. Pastor, you're preaching to the choir.

[DURHAM D]

51. No shit.

I stop reading the OP at the word PUMA.

[RobertEarl]

21. I told you what i think

And then you tried to tell me what I said.

All I can say is that you remind me of conservative Dems. And climate deniers, and pro-nukers with your style of discussion.

You say : "Hillary seems to have the mantle this go round. " I see now where you are coming from.

[merrily]

22. Nope, you never gave me your definition of "liberal progressive."

And if you think that I am a climate denier or a supporter of Hillary--or even a supporter of party mantles--you see absolutely nothing.

Please stop with the "left is conservative" bs. I don't know what the calendar says where you are posting, but it's not Opposite Day where I'm posting.

[RobertEarl]

26. You discuss like they do

LBJ and FDR were Liberal Progressives, practicing, for the most part, Liberal Progressivism, in their day.

I defined it earlier, go back and read it again, apparently for the first time.

[merrily]

28. Nope. You never defined "Liberal progressive."

And nope, FDR and LBJ never called themselves "liberal progressives." And they are not liberal progressives simply because you claim they are. And your unsupported claims that they are liberal progressives is not a definition of the term "liberal progressives."

[RobertEarl]

29. Nice dancing

You saying FDR and LBJ were not liberal progressives in their day?

That their progressive and liberal actions were not liberal and progressive actions?

I don't get you. You are not saying anything that makes any sense. Like I say, i get the same type of discussions from climate deniers.

[merrily]

31. More "the left of the Party is conservative and rw" bs. All you've got apparently.

And it's just a ludicrous this far down the thread as it was the first time you tried it.

You're on your own for the rest of this thread. BTW, you might try reading the thread. (Hint: It's not going your way.)

[RobertEarl]

33. I see what you are doing, now

You are just throwing shit against the wall hoping some will stick. And hoping i will write something to get hidden.

Obama got elected because the Liberal progressive base got out the vote. The conservatives will fight like hell to try and dis-unify us in 2016.

The cons in our party will help them. Yes, we need to keep them off of DU, at least.

[merrily]

36. Again, you see nothing.

BTW, I actually volunteered for Obama in 2008 to GOTV and donated.

I'm guessing you did in 2008 about the same thing you are doing on this thread.

Also, please see Reply 31. I won't be replying to you on this thread again.

[RobertEarl]

40. You'll be back

You can't tear yourself away.

Your personal attacks are very unbecoming. Go away.

[MineralMan]

54. Please do not tell other DUers to "Go away."

We are all guests on this website. It's inappropriate for you to attempt to decide who should be on DU and who should not.

[Gravitycollapse]

25. The reason why there are so many angles is that the argument is tautological.

It can be made to mean almost anything because it is valid through repeating the claim in the conclusion.

We can simplify the argument to mean:

The enemy of the Democratic party is that group which is the party's enemy.

Because the argument is valid, which isn't to say that it's true, it allows the label of "enemy" to be applied to any subject we choose. By failing to inform the argument, we cannot argue against it. That is why the OP is refusing to define the terms used. Which speaks to another tautology that "a definition is self-apparent because it is self-apparent." Yes, that is valid but it says nothing about what we're talking about.

[merrily]

37. You put is so beautifully, while I call it "the left of the Party is conservative" bs.

Yet I think we are saying similar things in very dissimilar ways.

[MineralMan]

53. That poster did not attack you. Instead, it was your OP that

was under attack.

You should probably avoid telling DUers to "go away." Truly.

[Squinch]

46. I agree. But that seems to be a thing with him.

[NCTraveler]

48. +1 nt.

[PowerToThePeople]

42. Not sure but.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=334x12288

3. PUMA stands for Party Unity My Ass. It was apparently started by

some Hillary supporters that cannot/will not accept the outcome of the primaries and do not support Obama for President. Their goal is to get Hillary named as the Democratic nominee at the convention instead of Obama. Rumor has it that RW money and influence is involved, which seems highly likely to me.

Hillary has no connection with this group, but many here are angry that she has not come out to publicly denounce them. Others feel that if she recognizes them at all she lends them legitimacy. You can google it for more info. I won't post a link here.

There are some here on DU who seem to believe that anyone who shows any respect for Senator Clinton or who voices any criticism whatsoever of Senator Obama must be a member of PUMA. There have been many such accusations thrown around in GD-P lately and, yes, it is being used as another tool to bash Hillary and her supporters.

I am considering myself to be a PUMA now, because I will not accept a Hillary coronation. I will not accept another turd way candidate. So, PUMA.

At least that is how i see the term being used.

[RobertEarl]

43. Wow

Someone actually responded on topic!!

If you do decide to not vote for the party's nominee and wish to express that view on DU come September, 2016, don't expect a pleasant journey.

I use the PUMA term for today's discussions, in light of my belief that cons are actively working to divide the party so that our progress is defeated. Defeated how? By beating down on the Liberals who want progress. In my view they will go after someone like you who expresses the opinion you expressed here about Clinton. In truth, they wish to control and stifle you, because you want to make progress and not be conservative.

Instead of letting the future be decided by the party, they are attempting via disunity to get everyone eliminated from DU that is in opposition to their personal favorite. The time for the decision of who to vote for is a long way off, so such beat downs are, in my view, divisive.

Thanks for the reply.

[PowerToThePeople]

44. 2016 is a way away

Hopefully I will not have to vacation from DU in the election cycle.

A lot of cons are deeply embedded into this site now, they have quite a following and do try to push out progressive voices. I agree completely with you here.

[RobertEarl]

45. Hope you are here all the way

Keep in mind a lot can and will happen between now and then.

Yes, there are some well hidden cons in DU. Best to root them out ASAP.

[NCTraveler]

47. I thought the term PUMA died in 2010.

It should have. Your op is dripping with irony. Can you see it?

[BKH70041]

49. This is too funny!

"I live in the Great Smokies of NC."

Me, too. I live in Biltmore Forest.

Using your terminology, who do you think controls the Democratic Party in WNC? Is it "the Liberal base," or is it large money donors like me and Bill Cecil and others of influence? Who do you think Cecil Bothwell, Brownie Newman, and others go to before they're allowed to open their mouth?

This "Liberal base" you view as separate from those of us who are the party leaders can't even supervise your own backyard.

[tridim]

52. I sincerely hope PUMA thinks twice about fucking up DU again.

But I'm guessing they wont. I plan to fight them with every fiber of my being, just like last time.

Fuck you PUMA. All of you.