HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "Baby, You're a Rich Man"

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 11:08 AM

"Baby, You're a Rich Man"

Elite: a group of persons exercising the major share of authority or influence within a larger group:
the power elite of a major political party.


There are some interesting discussions on DU:GD as of late, often focusing on the words “liberal elite,” that include attempts to marginalize Democrats who were/are participants in the Sanders Revolution. As someone who continues to support Bernie – I have since first meeting him circa 1982 – I thought it might be worthwhile to express a few thoughts here. I understand that the majority of current forum members will likely disagree with what I say here, and that is fine. I have never been concerned about if my opinions are in the majority or minority. As Gandhi noted, even if one is alone in their understanding of Truth, they should speak.

Every group with more than eight members will have a hierarchy. If a group has millions of members, it will, by definition, include “a group of persons exercising the major share of authority or influence within (the) larger group.” Therefore, it would be reasonable to believe that the Democratic Party has “elites,” and unreasonable to hold that it doesn't.

All organizations with millions of members must, by definition, operate by means of a stratified bureaucratic system. That includes the Democratic Party. That stratification involves having some that are at the top. However, the lower levels also have power. In an organization that works well, those at the different levels work in a coordinated manner, to increase results that benefit everyone.

There are, of course, more than two levels within the party. Between the grass roots and the national leadership are local, county, and state Democratic Party committees. While this structure is similar to that found in the republican party, its functions are distinct: republicans as a rule campaign and vote for whoever their candidate is, while Democrats frequently invest their energies in those candidates that most represent their opinions, beliefs, and values.

If we consider why the Democratic Party has lost so many House, Senate, and state elections in recent years, it would seem important to assess if these levels are coordinating to benefit all. That requires that we understand, accept, and respect the fact that there are a variety of opinions, beliefs, and values involved here. Pretending that anyone who has different opinions, beliefs, or values than ourselves must be a “bircher” or enemy of the party is to be part of the concrete thinking that prevents positive change – and positive changes are clearly required if our party is to start winning more elections.

The differences between the two major groups within the party can best be understood by recognizing the differences between “liberal” and “progressive” members. Liberals believe the political-economic-social structure is basically sound, and merely requires some fine-tuning in order to be more fair to all. Progressives believe that structure prevents social justice, and requires a major overhaul. This core difference causes tensions within the party. This is where the Democratic Party faces its greatest challenge: if both sides work together for the commo0n good, we will win the vast majority of future elections; if we are divided, we will lose, even to the worst opposition possible – as the election of Donald Trump demonstrated.

When progressives speak of the “liberal elite,” we are talking about those with the economic, social, and political position that allows them to be “more equal” than the grass roots voters. There is no better example of “liberal elites” than the “super delegates” that decide our presidential primaries. Another example from 2016 was, obviously, the DNC. Liberals tend to believe what the elites say, and that what they do is for the common good. Progressives tend to think of the James Baldwin quote, “I can't believe what you say, because I see what you do.”

Consider, for example, the issues involved in fund-raising. Few members of the Democratic Party speak in favor of the Citizens United decision. Without question, corporate money has an unhealthy influence on democracy. It is safe to say that the liberal elite in DC listens closer to the corporations that donate thousands to their candidate and “Super PACs,” than to the individual who donates $10 or $20. And that is not just in the general elections – it holds just as true in the primary season. So as uncomfortable as it may be, we have the obligation to ask: if corporate money has an undemocratic influence on general elections, should it be allowed to determine the outcome of primaries?

Any politician can talk about protecting the environment. Donald Trump says he is protecting the environment, while doing virtually everything possible to advocate for the financial interests of the corporations that are destroying the natural world. We can't believe what he says, because we see what he is doing – not that any rational person ever believed him to begin with.

There are liberal elites who speak passionately about the environment. And, to be fair, some of them advocate for environmental issues with their actions. Yet there are many others who merely talk the talk, and fail to walk the walk. Some even express contempt for environmentalist when they are behind closed doors. This is not mere speculation, nor is it a paranoid conspiracy theory. In 2016, documents made public proved this beyond question. More, we saw what politicians supported the people in Standing Rock. We know who was there.

We are at a point where the grass roots progressive community is saying “no” to those who mistakenly believe they have the authority to dictate the “rules” they seek to enforce on others, but are unwilling to follow themselves. If we examine this within the context of the Democratic Party, that translates to people refusing to be an unconscious cog in a corporate machine. Some people understand that; others simply do not.

It includes the reality that Bernie Sanders is not merely a leader in the Democratic Party, but he is a member of the party. Bernie is as much a member of the party today as I am. And I am every bit as much a member of the Democratic Party, with an equal right to my opinions, beliefs, and values, as any other forum member. I recognize that I am not in any position that could be mistaken for “elite.” I'm proud to be an average member of the grass roots, at the lowest level of stratification.

My focus is empowering the grass roots within the Democratic Party. I accept the fact that I will never be invited to a fancy DC cocktail party, to bump shoulders with those beautiful people Lennon sang about in “Baby, You're a Rich Man.” I'm not at risk of either getting or accepting such an invitation.

I will, however, continue to attend rallies and demonstrations; speak to groups, including college students and environmentalist; and assist regional Democratic Party committees, send $10 or $20 to the individual candidates I trust, and invest my time and energy in their campaigns. I'm confident that this allows me to work within a large segment of our party. I am at peace with the reality that there are others who do not agree with me as an individual, and who do not support the issues that are most important to me. They have the same right to their opinions as I have to mine; more, they own their actions, just as I own mine.

Peace,
H2O Man

162 replies, 10210 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 162 replies Author Time Post
Reply "Baby, You're a Rich Man" (Original post)
H2O Man Apr 2017 OP
blm Apr 2017 #1
H2O Man Apr 2017 #3
panader0 Apr 2017 #2
H2O Man Apr 2017 #14
msongs Apr 2017 #4
H2O Man Apr 2017 #15
George II Apr 2017 #20
H2O Man Apr 2017 #22
George II Apr 2017 #28
H2O Man Apr 2017 #29
PufPuf23 Apr 2017 #98
H2O Man Apr 2017 #101
democrank Apr 2017 #5
H2O Man Apr 2017 #16
spanone Apr 2017 #6
H2O Man Apr 2017 #17
Autumn Apr 2017 #7
H2O Man Apr 2017 #18
ornotna Apr 2017 #8
H2O Man Apr 2017 #19
surrealAmerican Apr 2017 #9
H2O Man Apr 2017 #21
synergie Apr 2017 #40
murielm99 Apr 2017 #10
still_one Apr 2017 #11
sheshe2 Apr 2017 #12
Skidmore Apr 2017 #13
JHan Apr 2017 #23
H2O Man Apr 2017 #25
emulatorloo Apr 2017 #59
H2O Man Apr 2017 #66
beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #68
emulatorloo Apr 2017 #85
H2O Man Apr 2017 #95
betsuni Apr 2017 #30
JustAnotherGen Apr 2017 #36
synergie Apr 2017 #43
mcar Apr 2017 #44
NastyRiffraff Apr 2017 #48
brer cat Apr 2017 #50
BainsBane Apr 2017 #52
countryjake Apr 2017 #64
BainsBane Apr 2017 #74
countryjake Apr 2017 #91
beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #99
countryjake Apr 2017 #132
beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #139
H2O Man Apr 2017 #102
countryjake Apr 2017 #134
BainsBane Apr 2017 #103
countryjake Apr 2017 #123
emulatorloo Apr 2017 #61
yardwork Apr 2017 #84
Cha Apr 2017 #131
Gothmog Apr 2017 #150
Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #24
H2O Man Apr 2017 #27
Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #33
H2O Man Apr 2017 #34
BainsBane Apr 2017 #55
emulatorloo Apr 2017 #63
Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #75
Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #79
boston bean Apr 2017 #86
Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #120
beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #138
beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #60
H2O Man Apr 2017 #67
beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #76
H2O Man Apr 2017 #80
beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #140
synergie Apr 2017 #136
betsuni Apr 2017 #147
synergie Apr 2017 #148
emulatorloo Apr 2017 #158
oberliner Apr 2017 #26
H2O Man Apr 2017 #31
50 Shades Of Blue Apr 2017 #32
H2O Man Apr 2017 #35
JustAnotherGen Apr 2017 #37
H2O Man Apr 2017 #41
countryjake Apr 2017 #38
H2O Man Apr 2017 #42
boston bean Apr 2017 #39
H2O Man Apr 2017 #45
boston bean Apr 2017 #47
BainsBane Apr 2017 #54
boston bean Apr 2017 #62
murielm99 Apr 2017 #88
Break time Apr 2017 #46
H2O Man Apr 2017 #49
BainsBane Apr 2017 #51
H2O Man Apr 2017 #69
Sensitive soul Apr 2017 #121
BainsBane Apr 2017 #142
BainsBane Apr 2017 #53
H2O Man Apr 2017 #71
Cha Apr 2017 #141
melman Apr 2017 #144
tammywammy Apr 2017 #154
Post removed Apr 2017 #156
BainsBane Apr 2017 #56
H2O Man Apr 2017 #72
emulatorloo Apr 2017 #57
H2O Man Apr 2017 #73
emulatorloo Apr 2017 #89
H2O Man Apr 2017 #105
emulatorloo Apr 2017 #122
Cha Apr 2017 #146
beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #58
H2O Man Apr 2017 #77
beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #78
H2O Man Apr 2017 #81
YoungDemCA Apr 2017 #65
H2O Man Apr 2017 #82
boston bean Apr 2017 #87
BainsBane Apr 2017 #70
H2O Man Apr 2017 #83
emulatorloo Apr 2017 #90
H2O Man Apr 2017 #97
emulatorloo Apr 2017 #115
H2O Man Apr 2017 #117
betsuni Apr 2017 #137
BainsBane Apr 2017 #93
Post removed Apr 2017 #107
BainsBane Apr 2017 #114
YoungDemCA Apr 2017 #92
kcr Apr 2017 #94
H2O Man Apr 2017 #113
Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #125
BainsBane Apr 2017 #126
Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #129
JI7 Apr 2017 #133
BainsBane Apr 2017 #135
Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #143
emulatorloo Apr 2017 #155
Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #160
ms liberty Apr 2017 #96
H2O Man Apr 2017 #100
Name removed Apr 2017 #104
aikoaiko Apr 2017 #106
H2O Man Apr 2017 #109
beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #111
countryjake Apr 2017 #127
elleng Apr 2017 #108
H2O Man Apr 2017 #110
elleng Apr 2017 #112
H2O Man Apr 2017 #116
elleng Apr 2017 #119
SixString Apr 2017 #118
Tatiana Apr 2017 #124
mountain grammy Apr 2017 #128
shanti Apr 2017 #130
Bluepinky Apr 2017 #145
aidbo Apr 2017 #149
PatrickforO Apr 2017 #151
CanSocDem Apr 2017 #152
NeoGreen Apr 2017 #153
beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #157
steve2470 Apr 2017 #159
Warren DeMontague Apr 2017 #161
steve2470 Apr 2017 #162

Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 11:23 AM

1. I'm with Waterman.

I worked too hard for too long on GOTV efforts to diminish the worth of any active participant in our Democratic Party and its process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to blm (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 12:40 PM

3. Thank you!

Some of my favorite work has been in registering people to vote, especially on college campuses and low-income neighborhoods.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 12:00 PM

2. Thank you for this.

From another Bernie supporter.
The paragraph about the differences between liberals and progressives
stood out. I'm sure some will say "Bernie is no Democrat!", but to me,
he represents our party's ideals better than anyone out there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to panader0 (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 03:31 PM

14. Thanks!

It's funny that there are people -- including here on this forum -- that believe they have the authority to say Bernie isn't a Democrat. They are living in the past.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 12:54 PM

4. sanders was a superdelegate. by your own definition that makes him a liberal elite. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 03:34 PM

15. Nope.

Bernie is a progressive.

I do agree that his position in the US Senate provides him with an elite status. Luckily, he uses that position to advocate for social justice. Thus, he represents more than his state: Bernie Sanders represents the vast majority of progressives within the Democratic Party, as well as in the Democratic Left. You'd benefit from recognizing -- and respecting -- that reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #15)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 03:41 PM

20. "There is no better example of liberal elites than the super delegates "

That's exactly what you said above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #20)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 03:43 PM

22. Yes. Of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #22)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 03:53 PM

28. So then you think Sanders is an "elitist".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #28)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 03:55 PM

29. Every US Senator is,

by definition, in an elite position. Is this a new concept for you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:08 PM

98. Do you understand the excellent (and bridge building post?

Thank you for your nitpicking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PufPuf23 (Reply #98)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:14 PM

101. No.

Not at all, that one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 01:43 PM

5. My choice is the progressive bottom-up approach over the alternative, top-down approach.

Another choice of mine is to vote on issues, so I may or may not choose who is next in line, who the DNC wants, who has the highest poll numbers, or who is "trending."

It bears repeating....."I can't believe what you say, because I see what you do." James Baldwin

Peace to you, H20 Man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrank (Reply #5)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 03:38 PM

16. Right.

I am concerned about the impact that the poisoning of the environment has. That includes for everyone.

I'm hoping for single-payer health care.

I'm not as concerned about the economics of the upper class. They seem capable of taking care of themselves. I am concerned that this too often involves the exploitation of the lower economic classes. And I am concerned about the financial well-being of the remains of the middle class, and the poor.

Thus, I, too, believe in bottom-up change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 01:46 PM

6. K&R...👍🏼

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 03:38 PM

17. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 02:06 PM

7. Thank you for laying this out so clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 03:38 PM

18. Thank you!

Much appreciated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 02:08 PM

8. Another good read

Thanks H2O Man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ornotna (Reply #8)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 03:39 PM

19. Thank you.

I'm glad that you enjoyed it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 02:20 PM

9. I agree with you ...

... but I find your terminology confusing. Very few of the party elite would self-identify as "liberal" (I would argue that they don't embody traditions of liberalism either, but that's a different argument) - as a matter of fact, they mostly call themselves "progressive". This is why I have stopped using the term "progressive". Both pro- and anti- establishment factions have claimed this label, leaving it devoid of meaning.



... otherwise, very good post - k & r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to surrealAmerican (Reply #9)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 03:43 PM

21. Right.

The liberal elite does not self-identify as either "liberal" or "elite." Yet that does not change the reality that they are both.

My use of the words "liberal" and "progressive" is rooted in family experience that has been passed down since my grandfather came here from Ireland in 1879. It's based upon the teachings of elders who have been union activists, committee members, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #21)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 04:42 PM

40. The reality is that the people throwing out that phrase are usually the ones

 

who fit that definition more than the people they are trying to denigrate.

People who insist on being entitled to define terms due to their privileged status, they often cite their lineage and their inherited rights to rule over others.

My usage of the term is based on the actual history of the term and the dictionary definition.

I'm not an Irish male, and my family immigrated here in the late 1970's, and I was taught by my grandfather that English words have meanings and that they are best learned by looking them up in dictionaries and other resources to know the meanings and correct usage. While he visited the U.S. once in the 80's, he did do his due diligence in teaching his kids and his grand kids that to best fight oppressive regimes, especially entitled Europeans who like to throw their weight around, one must speak and understand their language better than they do.

So, my calling out of such BS is based on the teachings that my elders have passed on, it's how he and his peers successfully who forced entitled white men to quit his nation. It's invaluable what our elders have passed on, and it's imperative that we follow their teachings and stop letting entitled white men, who use their elitism, to call us names, make up definitions and wreak havoc, because they have delusions of superiority.

We make no progress by allowing this stale tradition to continue into this century. That era is over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 02:38 PM

10. Liberal elite is a phrase that has been thrown around by

the right wing to marginalize Democrats. It has been used by the right wing for at least twenty years. When someone on the left uses it to describe us, it is inexcusable. The marginalizing is being done by the people on the left, many of whom were Sanders supporters. The very use of the term "marginalize" is insulting.

Bernie has gone back to being an independent -- not a Democrat, an independent. He only has a leadership role at all because Schumer gave him one. His constant criticism of the Democrats has shown me that Schumer made a mistake. Bernie should be criticizing Trump and the republicans.

I am not an elite, but I am a liberal. I am not an elite because although my husband and I are both well-educated, I was a librarian, and a teacher. My husband is a retired farmer and printer. We are not wealthy. I am not an elite because although I am a lifelong activist and have held several party offices, I am not a decision maker for the party at a high level.

I am a liberal, not a progressive. Those on the so-called far left use the term progressive as a purity test. This party is a big tent. We do not need purity tests. There is another reason why I am a liberal: I refuse to allow the term liberal to be turned into a dirty word, whether it is by people on the far left, or people like Limbaugh and the other haters on the right. I refuse to allow anyone to hijack the language. For example, there is no alt-right. They are bigots and white supremacists. There are no people who are pro-life. They are anti-abortion. Neither end of the spectrum gets to define me.

There is another reason I am a liberal. JFK said it a long time ago:

"If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip our polices abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I am proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

Of course that is what "they" mean by a liberal. The definition has not changed over time. No one here gets to define me or subject me to purity test. We will not elect any Democrats in 2018 if this continues.

I will continue to attend Democratic Party events and demonstrations. When I feel that people are spending too much time rhapsodizing about Bernie, or criticizing our nominee and winner of the popular vote, when I feel they are spreading misinformation, I will point it out to them. I am very tired of the divisions here. And I believe the posts about the "liberal elite" were made to defend Democrats, not marginalize Bernie.

Potential alerters, this is not about the primary. This is not about rehashing the primaries. It is about actions and words that have taken place since the general election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 02:59 PM

11. well said muriel

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 03:03 PM

12. Brava muriel.

Well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 03:05 PM

13. +1 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 03:44 PM

23. Great post !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 03:49 PM

25. Good for you.

And I mean that: you strike me as a good person. And a good Democrat.

There are, of course, issues where we do not agree. However, the Democratic Party has room for people who think and act as you do, and room for people who think and act like me. When we work together, we are likely to win more elections; when we are divided, we will have loses such as last year's.

In the context of internal party discussions, I have zero interest in what the rabid right wing says. Sean Hannity etc deserve absolutely no room in such conversations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #25)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 06:28 PM

59. If you don't like the rabid right wing, stop using their terms to smear Dems/liberals

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #59)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 06:49 PM

66. It's not their term.

It is, as the dictionary definition at the top of the OP says, the actual definition. The rabid-right does not own language, the flag, etc, any more than Charlie Manson owns the Beatles' "White Album."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #66)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 06:51 PM

68. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #66)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 07:19 PM

85. You gave the "dictionary definition" of ELITE. "Liberal Elite" is a right wing-smear.

It is a variation on the right wing smear "Limousine Liberal."

You've apparently adopted the smear because Bernie used the term in an ill-advised way.

Bernie supporter here. Fact: Bernie's human. He makes we used to call "gaffes" now and again.

Your thread is one of many I've seen over the last few years with the following theme:

"What Bernie really is saying is ..."

So you've created an elaborate piece of architecture using semantic games to mansplain a Bernie gaffe. In doing that, you created a false dichotomy between liberals and progressives.

I've read many posts of yours, so I know you are neither an ideologue or a binary thinker, so this entire project today to divide liberals and progressives on such false terms mystified me.

You don't seem like a divisive person either, so again I am mystified.

Lastly, I found the pat on the head you gave Muriel rather condescending. She's your equal as a Democrat and a person. You have no right to address her as if she were inferior


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #85)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:03 PM

95. Read it again.

Focus on the last sentence. Okay?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 04:01 PM

30. Well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 04:27 PM

36. Thanks for this



I refuse to allow the term liberal to be turned into a dirty word, whether it is by people on the far left, or people like Limbaugh and the other haters on the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 04:50 PM

43. Excellent fact based post.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 04:57 PM

44. So well said, Muriel!

I am a liberal but far from elite. My husband of 32 years is a public school teacher. I've been out of work nearly 4 years and do some freelance writing. And we've got one kid still in college. We're barely scraping by.

I volunteered for HRC's campaign and am about to get involved in my red county Democratic party.

I believe in the Democratic party. I deeply resent those on the "left" who denigrate us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 05:15 PM

48. Great post!

I wish we could rec individual posts; this one deserves it. I particularly thank you for defending the honorable word "liberal." I'm sick of people right here on DU parroting the right wing, who shit all over that word and made it seem something it never was.

I am a liberal. I am not a progressive, if by progressive you mean demanding purity, sacrificing the good to wait (in vain) for the perfect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 05:29 PM

50. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 05:51 PM

52. "Someone who cares about the welfare of the people"

VERY well said, Murielm99.

"If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip our polices abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I am proud to say I'm a "Liberal."


That thinking is being replaced by an ideology focused on self, an appeal to nihilism, where the idea of blowing up the system matters more than the lives of the most vulnerable destroyed. Removing wealth and privilege from the idea of elitism empowers a renewed form class and race oppression, in which the white, largely male, middle and upper-middle class justify their right to uncontested control through appeals to ego. The obscenely wealthy like Susan Sarandon call for revolution and express glee that the people are so "energized" under the fascist regime they wished on America. She and others lecture from a potion of stunning ignorance those who have literally risked their lives to fight for the rights of Latinos to unionize or women to have access to reproductive care.

The bourgeoisie claims that they, who sit at the top 2% of global incomes, are the truly oppressed, and that the poor, people of color, and single women struggling to get by are "elites" for failure to affirm that the only thing that matters are the views of a minority of white men certain that anyone who disagrees with them is "elite," or "corporatist," despite living at or below the poverty level. It is obscene in its callousness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #52)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 06:42 PM

64. The callousness is found in the moral superiority...

of those who condemn others of selfishness, ignorance, and bigotry merely because they've thrown their hands in the air crying "what does it matter?".... an almost snobbish refusal to even try to seek common ground with that sort of desperation or attempt to understand the very real concerns of a very large portion of our nation's population who have all but given up when it comes to politics-as-usual, functioning government, or an american dream.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to countryjake (Reply #64)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 06:57 PM

74. That would seem to be precisely what the OP is doing

How is it that Trump voters are more deserving that the majority of Democrats?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #74)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 07:38 PM

91. That you define the people I described as "Trump voters" ...

gives me a pretty good idea of how willing so many are to rolling up their sleeves and getting down to the work of recognizing the hopeless plight that literally millions of Democratic Party members now find themselves in and striving hard to unite and build solidarity, find common ground for all of us to stand on.

It's laughable to me that anyone could infer that DU's own Waterman is guilty of some of the things he's being accused of thru this entire thread.

Unity is what is required to succeed in fighting for the common good and that fact will sorely apply during next year's elections and all the ones after, despite the disappointing divisiveness some wish to continually dwell upon. A failure to accept and absorb criticism/self criticism may make or break the future of our Party and, sadly, our country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to countryjake (Reply #91)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:11 PM

99. Hey you.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #99)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 10:28 PM

132. Hello, old friend!

Nice to see you once again!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to countryjake (Reply #132)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 11:00 PM

139. And you as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to countryjake (Reply #91)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:15 PM

102. Very well said.

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #102)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 10:35 PM

134. A big THANK YOU for inspiring me to log in to say it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to countryjake (Reply #91)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:15 PM

103. Were you talking about Clinton voters?

I assumed you were echoing Bernie's oft-repeated remarks that the Democrats need to cater to the white male Trump voters. Did they not vote for Trump? If they voted for Democrats, why am accused of neglecting or insulting them? What precisely have I done to these people I have never met that is so obscene?

If the goal is unity, don't you think it best not to support posts that portray an us vs. them divide within the Democratic party, that declare people ideological foes without actually asking where they stand on issues? Does it really make sense to infer ideological opposition because people don't take kindly to one politician's use of right-wing tropes? Or is your call for unity not among Democrats but some other group?

I would love to see unity. I encourage you to deliver that message to Bernie Sanders. Because if the point is to talk continually about how the Democratic Party is so elitist and corrupt, the obvious outcome is more Republican votes, or possibly some future independent candidate, but certainly not Democrats.

I understand it's horrible for me to express disagreement on a public website. Twelve people in the world might actually read what I write! If only I made several television appearances each week to decry the Democratic party as elitist and corrupt, then I could have people defending everything I said or did, no matter what it was. But daring to suggest that elitism is not divorced from wealth or unique to the Democratic Party, that makes me divisive. Worse than that, expressing a view marginalizes people who insist that they or their heroes never be questioned or confronted with data. By dealing with evidence rather than acquiescing to a faith-based conception of politics, I am the oppressor. It's a wonder I can go on after inflicting such injustice in the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #103)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:41 PM

123. You talkin' to me?



Many been hit by that train long before Bernie ever dreamed of running for prez.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 06:31 PM

61. Thank you, Muriel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 07:07 PM

84. Good post. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #10)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 10:10 PM

131. Mahalo, Muriel, for your brilliant post!.. BS is the one who

labeled us.. "We need a Democratic Party that is not a party of the liberal elite.."

He called us "feeble" and "can't fight back".. why is he trying to marginalize us?

This is going on while our Dems are out there on the Front Lines Fighting for our Very Lives! They're our Fire Wall between us and Oblivion!

Thank Goodness for our Democratic Party!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to murielm99 (Reply #10)

Tue Apr 4, 2017, 08:53 AM

150. Great post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 03:45 PM

24. I wish I could recommend this twice.

Well Said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #24)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 03:52 PM

27. Thanks!

I'm fine with those who disagree with me participating in this discussion -- though I prefer talking with like-minded people like you. What is a giggle is those who try to argue that we do not have the right to our thoughts, beliefs, and values. Funnier yet are those who believe they can dictate what words we use in conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #27)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 04:13 PM

33. I like this part:

those who mistakenly believe they have the authority to dictate the “rules” they seek to enforce on others, but are unwilling to follow themselves.


Maybe there's some consistent psychological, I don't know, category for that. Hell, that's even been a phenomenon here, for years. Blows me away, the sheer hypocrisy of it.

Some of the most enthusiastic self-appointed hall monitors and ideological gatekeepers of what shall be allowed on DU have no problem themselves breaking all the damn rules in the book.

... I used to be more peeved about it, but now I just sort of laugh at all the energy expended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #33)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 04:19 PM

34. It is found

in the overlap of psychology and sociology. A good source for information on this topic is Erich Fromm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #33)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 05:58 PM

55. Wow. That's a truly ironic quote.

And I agree that the sheer hypocrisy is stunning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #55)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 06:37 PM

63. Seems like lots of psychological projection going on, huh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #63)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 06:57 PM

75. You said it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #55)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 06:59 PM

79. Who is hypocritical?

I obey the rules, here. I've never been on some misguided crusade to tell other people what they can or can't say.

And I've never tried to artificially amplify my voice through the creation of sockpuppets, or snuck back in after being banned under a new name.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #79)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 07:25 PM

86. No. But your oost here provides some insight into your thinking.

It really wasn't very kind. Was it??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #86)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:31 PM

120. It's only arguably "not kind" to the people who engage in that sort of behavior.

People who don't do that shit, shouldn't be bothered by it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #79)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 10:58 PM

138. *snort*

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #33)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 06:29 PM

60. I do as well. Authoritarianism isn't just for conservatives.

And I applaud your excellent powers of observation too:

Some of the most enthusiastic self-appointed hall monitors and ideological gatekeepers of what shall be allowed...



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #60)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 06:51 PM

67. Thanks!

Malcolm X often noted he could gauge how well he was doing, based upon how loud those "hall monitors" howled.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #67)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 06:57 PM

76. He was right. The louder they are the more likely it is you hit the target.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #76)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 06:59 PM

80. Yes!

We need more people who think and behave like Malcolm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #80)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 11:02 PM

140. And less howlers. I think I still hear them.

Or is that a pack of coyotes in the next field? I can't tell the difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #60)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 10:54 PM

136. Indeed not. It's stunning how much of that is found here on these pages.

 

So many conservative tactics, behaviors and talking points have made their way here, that it's almost amusing. The irony and the projection especially.

Kudos to you on recognizing this behavior! That is after all, the first step in eradicating it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to synergie (Reply #136)

Tue Apr 4, 2017, 01:53 AM

147. Good burn!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to betsuni (Reply #147)

Tue Apr 4, 2017, 02:21 AM

148. Hey now, I was just agreeing with all the cogenet and coherent posts.

 

Many are incapable of self reflection, when small strides are made, they should be applauded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #60)

Tue Apr 4, 2017, 05:37 PM

158. True, Authoritarians need a big strong Daddy to love and protect them

They can't admit their Daddy is human, fallible, and makes mistakes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 04:02 PM

31. For clarification:

One person stated that I don't have a clue about Bernie Sanders; the post was deleted, before I could respond. For the record, I am sure that, in the past 35 years, I have met with Bernie more often, both alone and in small groups, than that person. I will not speculate on any associations that go back further than 35 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 04:08 PM

32. K & R!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 50 Shades Of Blue (Reply #32)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 04:19 PM

35. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 04:37 PM

37. Trust



Differences between the two major groups within the party can best be understood by recognizing the differences between “liberal” and “progressive” members. Liberals believe the political-economic-social structure is basically sound, and merely requires some fine-tuning in order to be more fair to all. Progressives believe that structure prevents social justice, and requires a major overhaul. This core difference causes tensions within the party. This is where the Democratic Party faces its greatest challenge: if both sides work together for the commo0n good, we will win the vast majority of future elections; if we are divided, we will lose, even to the worst opposition possible – as the election of Donald Trump demonstrated.


There's another side to this - imagine liberal white men are the left side of the triangle, progressive white men are the right side of the triangle.

The bottom of the triangle are all of the marginalized Americans that vote Democratic. How can we trust you guys to not push us down and promise white male Republicans Jack shit at our expense?

I think you guys (not you -in particular) need to step back and see where Perez and Ellison take us.

Those two are the trust factor and truthfully? They get things those two arms don't get.

Quite pleased with Perez's statements this past weekend -and I hope they pissed white male Trump voting Republicans off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #37)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 04:48 PM

41. Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 04:40 PM

38. I'm here to applaud your post!

Much thanks to you for speaking up and saying it so clearly!

Solidarity.

Peace

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to countryjake (Reply #38)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 04:49 PM

42. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 04:42 PM

39. When was the last time a superdelegate decided the primary winner?

When have the superdelegates ever overturned the delegate count and make some one else the winner over who got the most votes??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boston bean (Reply #39)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 05:02 PM

45. If the Super Delegates'

influence was limited to simply casting a vote, that would still be evidence of an elite status. But, of course, their influence is not limited in this way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #45)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 05:12 PM

47. Oh really? They are ever powerful??

Can you tell me how much power they had in 2008? And how they used this alleged power to go against the people will of the voters??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to BainsBane (Reply #54)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 06:32 PM

62. Good point. Thanks BB!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #54)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 07:32 PM

88. Excellent article.

I don't remember seeing it before. I printed it.

We need to keep our super delegate system. It helps prevent our getting another candidate who will lose in a landslide. We have had too many of those in the past. And a big reason the repubbies got stuck with trump? No super delegates.

I am glad that our experienced, respected party elders are super delegates. I hope we can further safeguard our primary system by having closed primaries and doing away with the caucus system, an antediluvian system that does not work in the twenty-first century.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 05:12 PM

46. Yes

What you said, expresses exactly how it is and how I see it.. I wish I could also say what I feel as well as you do.. Thanks for speaking for those of us not as gifted in the ability to get our points across..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Break time (Reply #46)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 05:17 PM

49. Thank you.

Much appreciated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 05:43 PM

51. You are marginalized because people object to being insulted?

Last edited Mon Apr 3, 2017, 07:04 PM - Edit history (1)

Why is it that demeaning others is necessary for you to feel that you aren't marginalized? There are people who are truly marginalized in this country, not because they suffer the horror of someone disagreeing with them, refusing to accept their insults, but because they are poor, hungry, and subject to deportation, racism, and hate crimes.

You and others here are determined to enforce a hierarchy yourselves. You do it by insisting that we as mere citizens have no right to question our betters. How dare we CITE EVIDENCE. We must accept as an article of faith that anything Bernie says is absolute truth. Imagining that as mere citizens we have a right to express our views marginalizes people that believe if they don't control the minds of others, they are being oppressed. The audacity that we behave as though we are in a democracy by daring to think critically oppresses you. How dare we fail to realize that Bernie and everyone who follows and defends his every word deserve absolute deference as a matter of birthright. You don't accept a variety of opinions. You are here telling us that our expressing our opinion marginalizes you. If we cite exit polling data, point out that Republican voters are actually wealthier and that they too have an elite, you are oppressed.

Understanding why the party lost is not achieved through blind faith. It requires serious and dispassionate review of data. The claims Bernie, and thus his supporters who are unwilling to depart from him, makes about the election are directly contradicted by polling data, not only income but the reasons voters gave for voting. Those who listed the economy as their primary concern broke for Clinton. Those who cited immigration and terrorism voted for Trump. Bernie's narrative is unencumbered by evidence. He used the Democratic defeat as an opportunity to renew his decades-long criticisms of the party. It's not that some of his points aren't valuable, but that they aren't absolute truth. Yet here you are calling yourself marginalized because some of us dared to point to data that refutes his claims. How is it that you can only be relieved from marginalization by our acquiesce and silence, if we ignore evidence and submit to the absolute infallibility of Bernie? I have never in my life treated any human being with that kind of reverence, and certainly not a politician. I have no intention of starting now because you see my independence of thought as oppressive. It is simply not in my nature, and I am proud of that. I always question. I always critique, and I will until I die. I consider that critical thinking essential to being an informed citizen.

You say you are concerned about the environment, but you refused to engage in a discussion about your solutions to how to provide energy, or how you thought a position on banning fracking were going to play with the white male Trump voters we are told we must cater to. You didn't answer if you favored coal instead of natural gas, or if you preferred dependence on foreign oil and the ongoing wars necessary to secure it. What is to be done until we can achieve independence from fossil fuels? Or is that even a goal you favor? It turns out that my daring to ask you to consider such questions "marginalizes" you. Why should you be expected to think of solutions? The point is to proclaim yourself progressive and others less. Those of us who think about comprehensive energy policy, ask questions that get to the complexity of enacting actual policy "don't agree" with you. You could very well find common ground on that and many other issues, but you refuse to engage. You don't even ask whether people agree on particular issues. You proclaim they don't so you can declare yourself separate, "progressive."

You declare a divide because it enables you to declare others as less, corrupt, corporatist, yet you don't engage on issues, the issues you proclaim "the other group" of the party in disagreement with. I expect you don't even know that Citizens United was a case about a corporate superpac that made a film smearing Hillary Clinton. Why familiarize yourself with the facts when insisting she and those who voted for her really support a decision that was about smearing her?

You made dozens of posts in my thread without directly engaging with the questions asked. You refused to acknowledge that wealth played any role in elitism. You insisted participation in the Democratic party made someone a "liberal elite" (yet inexplicably exempted Bernie) and repeatedly refused to answer a simple question: Were you saying that a social worker elected to lead her precinct was part of the elite, while a movie star with six homes and a net worth of $50 million was not? You exempted wealth, class, race, and privilege out of the conception of the elite to dismiss the poor, low- and moderate-income party activists as elites because they dare to get involved.

The irony is that the political ethos you have constructed in your post is itself elitist. You are "progressives," the rest of us lesser. You declare yourselves as "grass roots activists," while those of us who organized and protested for decades don't qualify, not because of disagreement on issues but because we refuse to accept Bernie absolute right to insult liberals and the Democratic Party. Our refusal to stay silent "marginalizes" you. Your not being marginalized requires our silence, absolute deference. By daring to question we are declared other, complicit in a corporatist corruption, not by action, wealth, or views on issues but because we dare to criticize Bernie.

Reverence for one man is not a proxy for ideology. Nor is it conducive to democracy. It promotes a hierarchical view of human worth in which citizens are deemed unfit to question great men treated not as public servants but as superior. The effort across the political spectrum to replace the rule of law with the rule of men contains the seeds of authoritarianism. I will not submit now or ever to such a political ethos, regardless of the individual in question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #51)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 06:54 PM

69. I've only read

your first sentence. But I think I might be able to clear something up for you.

I'm not "marginalized." I hope that doesn't disappoint you. I do, however, opt to live outside the margins. My choice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #69)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:31 PM

121. That's

As far as I could read too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #69)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 11:22 PM

142. Try reading your own first sentence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 05:54 PM

53. That your conception of the political spectrum doesn't go further left

Last edited Mon Apr 3, 2017, 07:05 PM - Edit history (1)

than liberal or progressive is telling. You should really read Marx. Remarkably, he doesn't regard the wealthy as oppressed by the poor.
Shocking. I know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #53)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 06:54 PM

71. You're silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #71)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 11:04 PM

141. All you have are insults.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #141)

Tue Apr 4, 2017, 12:15 AM

144. No

 

What that poster has is the smarts not to allow themselves to get baited. And after being attacked nonstop for offering a very thoughtful OP, that's not necessarily easy to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to melman (Reply #144)

Tue Apr 4, 2017, 10:38 AM

154. H2O Man had a post removed from this threat.

It was quite a nasty personal attack. That's why he's no longer participating in this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tammywammy (Reply #154)


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 06:07 PM

56. Also the claim that you are marginalized because you supported Bernie is nonsense

I had no idea who you supported until you came into my thread to dance, dive, and contort in dozens of ways to tell me I just didn't understand Bernie English. My memory simply isn't good enough to recall whom random posters supported during a primary resolved a fucking YEAR ago. My only experience with Bernie supporters is being told on a regular basis that I have no right to question him, that what he says is absolute truth and my audacity in daring to question him is unacceptable. So spare me the victimization complex.

There will never exist on this planet a politician I will not disagree with or criticize because my right--my responsibility--as a citizen is to think critically and question rather than submitting to the absolute dominion of any leader. They are our elected representatives, public servants. They are not monarchs, and they are not gods. They are not superior to any of us, even the low-income "elites" working in local party organizations. I criticized Obama and Clinton. I sure as hell have a right to criticize Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #56)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 06:55 PM

72. Ha!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 06:09 PM

57. Spend less time demonizing your liberal allies and more time fighting the right wing.

Last edited Mon Apr 3, 2017, 06:40 PM - Edit history (1)

Stop trying to falsely define liberals as reactionary. Because they aren't. Or insinuating that liberals are the opposite of progressives. Because that simply is not true.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #57)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 06:56 PM

73. Hilarious!

No thanks. I don't need "advice" from you. Got it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #73)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 07:32 PM

89. Spoken like a true self-appointed ideological gatekeeper

Congrats.

Sadly it isn't an official position, so Skinner's not gonna let you shut down discussion here at DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #89)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:17 PM

105. Silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #105)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:41 PM

122. What's silly is falsely claiming there's a vast ideological divide between Progressives and Liberals

because there isn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #105)

Tue Apr 4, 2017, 12:34 AM

146. No, it's not at all.. you're wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 06:20 PM

58. Well said, H2O Man. You nailed it as always.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #58)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 06:58 PM

77. Thanks!

My sides hurt from laughing so hard at some of the responses! I am so happy to get instructions on the proper way to behave, no matter what I think, from one joker a few posts back. Too funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #77)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 06:59 PM

78. Me too. Bad H2O Man, bad!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #78)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 07:01 PM

81. "A tiny chihuahua

is not brave because it yaps at a lion on a television screen" -- H2O Man

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 06:44 PM

65. Those who thought that the Sanders campaign was solely (or even primarily) about him....

 

...weren't paying attention.

Apparently speaking in an unfiltered way that isn't focused group to death by a bunch of overpaid career political consultants is bad politics. Well, it isn't anymore, because look at who the President is now. Hopefully Democrats will take the right lesson from that. Our world literally depends on them doing so.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #65)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 07:01 PM

82. Well said!

Thank you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #65)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 07:26 PM

87. Oh my. It hasn't changed in 4 decades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 06:54 PM

70. Since You have decided to refight the primary

(note to jurors. For two days straight the OP has been making posts that refight the primary. I have not responded out of concern for a hide. I have had enough and am responding directly to a point in the OP: "So as uncomfortable as it may be, we have the obligation to ask: if corporate money has an undemocratic influence on general elections, should it be allowed to determine the outcome of primaries?" In another post above he makes yet another post complaining about superdelegates. That follows others in a thread yesterday on the same subject, complaints I did not respond to. If he is allowed to repeatedly post about the primary, I think it only fair that I should be able to respond).

Why don't you tell us how corporate money determined the outcome? The FEC tracks campaign donations and spending. Bernie raised more than any candidate in history. He OUTSPENT Clinton by 2-1 or more in most states. He benefited from more superpac spending than any candidate of both parties. So what "corporate money" are you talking about? Whatever advantages or disadvantages Bernie faced in the primary, money was not one of them. Not even close.

He lost because of citizen votes, 3.7 million of them to be precise.


MRS. CLINTON WON NEARLY 3.7 MILLION MORE VOTES

Mrs. Clinton won the biggest states—Texas, Florida, New York and, on Tuesday, California. She also won the most votes: 15.5 million, compared with 11.9 million for Mr. Sanders.


Total votes
Hillary Clinton
Bernie Sanders
15,565,922
11,883,210
MRS. CLINTON WON AFRICAN-AMERICAN VOTERS
Mr. Sanders fought Mrs. Clinton to a draw among white voters, exit polls showed. But he was trounced among nonwhites, who cast four in 10 votes. The decisive edge for Mrs. Clinton: She won African-Americans by more than 50 percentage points.


African-Americans
75.9%
23.1%
Clinton
Sanders
Whites
49.1
48.9
MRS. CLINTON WON DEMOCRATS
Mr. Sanders won big margins among independents who cast ballots in Democratic contests. But he lost Democratic Party members by close to 30 percentage points. It’s hard to win the Democratic nomination without winning Democrats. Independents accounted for fewer than one-quarter of voters.


Democrats
63.7%
35.5%
Clinton
Sanders
Independents
63.3
34.3
Story continues after advertisement
Advertisement

MRS. CLINTON DID NOT CEDE LIBERAL VOTERS
Mr. Sanders promoted the more liberal policy agenda. But Mrs. Clinton also fought for liberal voters, moving to the political left on trade and energy. Mrs. Clinton tied her opponent among voters who rated themselves as “very liberal“ while winning big margins among “somewhat liberal’’ and “moderate“ voters.

Very Liberal
Clinton
Sanders
49.8%
49.9%
Somewhat Liberal
43.0
56.4
Moderate
37.0
60.3
http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/how-clinton-won/


and income.


?1453507423
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/23/1473857/-Poll-Meta-Analysis-The-Bernie-and-Hillary-2016-Coalitions-and-how-they-compare-to-2008-Obama-HRC

and: http://www.npr.org/2016/06/16/482153897/chart-this-primary-season-clinton-won-states-with-highest-income-inequality

Yes, I know I've provided data again, and my doing so oppresses you. That you dismiss those millions of citizens who cast their votes for their choice, a candidate significantly outspent by her opponent, is entirely in keeping with the elitist political ethos you convey in your OP. Those citizens are part of the people, the grassroots, whose lives and rights are equal to your own. It is your refusal to acknowledge that which is at the heart of the "progressive" elitism conveyed through your post. Respect for equality requires not dismissing the rights of citizens to cast votes. We have been told repeatedly how we must respect Republican Trump voters, yet you rhetorically erase many millions of Democratic voters because you find their existence and their votes inconvenient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #70)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 07:05 PM

83. You're confused.

Let me help you with this. Again, I only needed to read your first sentence to identify your error in thinking.

I'm not discussing the past. I am discussing the present, and the future.

That said, I do enjoy studying history. Reading a book of LBJ taped conversations today. More, I'm getting the second volume this week. You really should read them. You'd find them helpful for understanding politics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #83)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 07:37 PM

90. There's a strong pattern of condescension in all your replies to those who don't agree with you.

Especially this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8888575

I want to point out that's pretty elitist way to dismiss those who don't fully endorse the mischaracterizations and false dichotomies you've greated in your OP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #90)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:08 PM

97. I think you meant

"created," not "greated."

Actually, I didn't dismiss that person in the response you linked to. I was sincere. I understand that there are good people who think and act very differently from me.

On the other hand, the responses from several of you are hilarious. You can't blame me for that, now, can you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #97)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:23 PM

115. What's hilarious is playing "gotcha" over an auto-correct error.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #115)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:24 PM

117. So I'm low-tech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #90)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 10:57 PM

137. I agree, condescending and unpleasant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #83)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 07:53 PM

93. If you are discussing the future

How did you conclude corporate money would determine the results of primaries? Are you a fortune teller? Did it come to you in a dream? Or was it part of the propaganda campaign run by the Kremlin that got so much play at sites like Jackpineradicals?

And if you are so concerned about the influence of money in politics, how is it that you consistently evade discussions of campaign finance reform as POLICY? Hasn't it occurred to you that treating the influence of money in individual terms, denying the existence of some candidate superpacs while decrying others, doesn't do a thing to address the problem? Why not support public financing of elections, as I suggested yesterday? Why has Bernie "evolved" from calling for campaign finance reform to insisting everyone should raise money as he did? Don't you wonder why that is? Do you think candidates spending time raising hundreds of millions of dollars from private individuals is a good thing?

Another question: How do you feel about candidates paying themselves millions of dollars from their own campaign? Do you find that acceptable?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #93)


Response to Post removed (Reply #107)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:22 PM

114. You really have trouble engaging in a straight-forward argument

You continue to evade. That tells me you are unable to defend your point logically. Even discussing an issue you claim to support is unacceptable.

I have the respect for my own intellectually integrity to deal with issues and principles. I don't deflect or avoid responding to questions that relate to what I have said I support. I will consider contradictions in my argument when confronted and even, when appropriate, admit I am wrong. Perhaps none of that counts as self-respect for you, but it's what I've got.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #70)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 07:41 PM

92. Sanders raised more money than Clinton because so many small donors flocked to him.

 

It's not just about the amount of money, it's where the money is coming from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #92)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 07:55 PM

94. That's right. The FEC got pretty interested in that, IIRC n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YoungDemCA (Reply #92)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:22 PM

113. Right!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #70)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:53 PM

125. So quick question:

Think maybe we might be allowed to have more than 3 choices next time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #125)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:57 PM

126. In the next primary?

You do realize that is up to candidates themselves. I think there were five at the beginning, weren't there?

I really don't have a say in the matter. Amazingly, being elected to the number two position in my ward doesn't come with loads of power--or any.

We have around 8 for Mayor. Is that enough for you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #126)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 09:11 PM

129. Were there 5? I only remember Hillary and O'Malley

Sanders didn't even get in until fairly late in the preliminary process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #129)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 10:30 PM

133. jim webb, lincolnl chafee .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #129)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 10:37 PM

135. Chaffee and Webb too

Rocky de la Fuente never appeared in any debates. Never appearaed on TV . . . Nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #135)

Tue Apr 4, 2017, 12:00 AM

143. right, and Vermin Supreme

Who can forget Deez Nuts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #143)

Tue Apr 4, 2017, 05:28 PM

155. So you are going to deny Webb and Chaffee ran? They both were in the debates.

That's not like you Warren. They both ran, but didn't attract many voters. That doesn't mean they didn't run or weren't serious candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #155)

Tue Apr 4, 2017, 07:02 PM

160. No, Im not denying anything.

I am hoping, however, that we have lots of candidates next time around, including several who are younger than boomers, from the west coast, and like the majority of Americans support legal recreational cannabis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:06 PM

96. Great piece, H20Man, and thanks

For expressing what I and many others feel. Some of the replies in this thread are just too bizarre. Almost all the people who make threads unpleasant are here! I'll have to check back later to see if the rest show up, lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ms liberty (Reply #96)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:13 PM

100. Well, thank you!

I merely pointed out a few facts that need to be discussed within the Democratic Party so that we can move forward and win elections. I didn't suggest that anyone else wasn't entitled to their own thinking, or needed to act as I do. Good golly gosh! A few of our friends find it upsetting that the Sanders Revolution isn't quitting the party. Odd, that!

I tend to dress casually and comfortably. I'm not much for stiff uniforms, especially the rigid ones that only come in the smallest of sizes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:19 PM

106. Your OP and the resulting thread is good for DU. Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #106)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:20 PM

109. Thank you.

I am enjoying the conversation here very much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #106)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:21 PM

111. Yup. It's easy to see why Waterman is a DU treasure.

Always thoughtful, original and dead on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #111)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 09:08 PM

127. Plus a million recs!

And now he's been blocked from his own thread



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:19 PM

108. Peace, Man!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #108)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:21 PM

110. Thanks!

The discussion here is delightful. Parts are interesting, and parts are funny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #110)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:22 PM

112. So good to see a DELIGHTFUL, and TRUTHY,

discussion here. And FUNNY!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #112)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:23 PM

116. "A splendid time

is guaranteed for all." -- John Lennon

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Reply #116)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:26 PM

119. :-)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:26 PM

118. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 08:51 PM

124. I find this discussion of liberal vs. progressive fascinating.

It seems like much of our base identifies as liberal or progressive. I understand the POV of those who identify as liberal. I hated that the right-wing often made it out to be a "dirty" word. I welcome the idea of Democrats taking the term back and promoting it as something to be proud of. However, it's interesting to take a look at our Senate Democrats. How many liberals are there on our side? How many so-called "progressives?" There's maybe a fourth of all Democrats: Warren, Duckworth, Durbin, Harris, Franken, Gillibrand, Wyden, Merkley, Brown... who else? This is a pathetic representation. The majority of our base is liberal/progressive/seriously left-leaning. But that's not who represents us. And that's a problem. If our interests were represented better, we'd probably have better legislation and better government. And we'd have a real check and balance on the Republican Party of Russia.

So what you say resonates a lot. Bernie did seem to represent a lot of people who felt like the system that has been in place for a long time needs to be changed. I really like Joe Biden. But he bears some blame for Clarence Thomas and the disrespect of Anita Hill's character. He was a leader and he failed us. Everyone makes mistakes. But we need some Democrats to stand up and be an equalizing force -- and the way to balance this extreme partisanship is not to cave to what the right-wing demands. It's to shove our agenda right in their faces and force them to back down. Democrats stuck together against the assault on ACA and it worked. If we can't depend on folks to sustain a filibuster, we really need to be on the ground finding more credible candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 09:10 PM

128. Proud to be the 50th rec..

I got about halfway through and thought, who is this? Waterman? But of course.

Just wanted you to know, I like what you said, I usually do, and I agree with you. As far as I'm concerned, Bernie Sanders is a Democrat, as are so many other Independents I know. This is a change for me, I used to get quite upset with folks who believe in most Democratic principals but remain outside the party, but no more. The Independents I met during our caucuses who changed their registration to Democrat just to participate in the caucus for Bernie made me see the light. Most of them changed their registrations back to Independent after the primary, but they all campaigned and voted for Hillary Clinton.

I will remain a loyal member of the Democratic party, but they'd better stand against trump. If the Democrats don't filibuster every evil republican deed they can, I will change my registration to Independent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Mon Apr 3, 2017, 10:09 PM

130. Another rec your awesome thread, H2O Man!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Apr 4, 2017, 12:29 AM

145. I appreciate your essay.

Some of the posters who don't agree with you come across as haughty and insulting, to the point of bullying. I suspect they are loud and opinionated in the flesh as well.

I am also a Bernie supporter (which doesn't mean I didn't vote Hillary in the election) and caught some flak for it in a different thread, which took me by surprise. A lot of people see hidden racism behind Bernie's words; there was also talk of a "purity test" when I described myself as a progressive, which I refused to even respond to. I see Bernie as a true populist, for his policies as well as refusal to rely on corporate and big money. I'm really happy we have his voice, as his ideas and opinions strengthen the Democratic Party.

So thank you for speaking your mind, I enjoy reading your posts (and some of your responses were very funny).






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Apr 4, 2017, 08:34 AM

149. Just a kick and a rec.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Apr 4, 2017, 09:12 AM

151. What I see, and very happily, is that

because of Sanders, Warren, and many others, people are waking up and saying, "Hey, wait a minute. I pay a lot of taxes. Why do I not have single-payer healthcare? How come people are talking about how Social Security is going broke? I need that. Why are we outspending the rest of the nations on earth on 'defense' when we can already destroy this world a hundred times over? How come we have to spend SO MUCH on national security? And why do we need the NSA anyway? We have the CIA, ATF, DEA, Secret Service, and FBI, plus the elite military units. Isn't that a bit of overkill?"

And, you know, if enough people start thinking and talking this way, and pressuring their legislators to vote this way at local, state and federal levels, then we will have a better world. Or at least one more pleasant for everyone to live in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Apr 4, 2017, 09:40 AM

152. Well said.

 



This discussion needs to take place if there is going to be social justice in the USA.

"The differences between the two major groups within the party can best be understood by recognizing the differences between “liberal” and “progressive” members."

K&R
.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Apr 4, 2017, 10:10 AM

153. Thank you for speaking, and acting, for the core of this progressive party...

...my only wish is that I could be so [strike]elegant[/strike] eloquent.

We the People...

I stand with the Waterman.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NeoGreen (Reply #153)

Tue Apr 4, 2017, 05:36 PM

157. Yes. Waterman speaks for me.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to H2O Man (Original post)

Tue Apr 4, 2017, 05:53 PM

159. You always have the best posts and manage to be CIVIL

I know you disagree vehemently with people at times, but you are always CIVIL. Massive kudos to you, my friend. I hope you and your family are doing well!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to steve2470 (Reply #159)

Tue Apr 4, 2017, 07:21 PM

161. setting a good example for the rest of this site.

Too many people here act like 12 year olds, unfortunately.

Waterman is a good egg.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #161)

Tue Apr 4, 2017, 07:47 PM

162. +1 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread