I posted some things two years ago about Kamala Harris that were I shouldn't have.

[Ken Burch]

I'd forgotten I'd even posted them, but they were just pointed out.

I unreservedly apologize for what I posted.

They were based on my belief that the identity of a candidate, while it can make some difference, can't be assumed to be transformative.

It may be, it may not be.

The things a candidate stand for, in my view, matter equally.

That is all I meant to say, and I could have phrased it a lot better.

I don't hate Kamala Harris.

I don't at this point have strong feelings about her.

I'm open to learning more about what she might have to offer.

As always, I will support the most progressive candidate in the primaries. As a progressive, that is my duty.

I don't support anybody or oppose anybody for the Democratic presidential nomination, and I don't think anybody should be the subject of a coordinated attack campaign.

[LuvLoogie]

1. A progressive is someone who does the work, advances the ball, doesn't mind getting

their hands dirty or their nose a little bloody. LBJ was a progressive. Jill Stein, not so much.

Don't apologize. Not buying it.

[Ken Burch]

4. I have never supported Jill Stein.

I campaigned for OUR nominee last fall.

[Ken Burch]

5. I have no schtick.

And I have no hidden agenda.

[Cary]

25. Why do you always seem to make everything be about you?

[sheshe2]

74. ...

[Eliot Rosewater]

116. ...

[NurseJackie]

126. ...

[Cary]

141. Hey y'all!

Vote Democratic!

And let's tell you know who too.

[mcar]

149. Hi Cary!

[Cary]

150. Hola

[Eliot Rosewater]

151. Yes, indeed. Vote democratic NO MATTER WHAT

[lunasun]

3. K

[George II]

6. Do you still feel that Kamala Harris "represents diversity-in-name-only"?

[Ken Burch]

9. NO.

Her victory would be a clear improvement over Trump.

I'd cheer for it.

In the primaries, I'd support the most progressive candidate on the issues, whoever that might be.

[bettyellen]

82. Wow is that ever feint praise- better than Trump?

You've wasted this time and can't say anything concrete about her work can you? WTF? Just stop it.

[NurseJackie]

104. Thank you for making a factual and realistic observation and plainly stating the truth.

(Sigh.)

[Ken Burch]

117. How much more do you need?

There was a New York Times article a couple of weeks ago saying HRC's donors preferred her.

She's a first-term senator.

She was a pretty good Ca. attorney general, from what I've heard.

The book she wrote on crime and economics looks good, as does her proposal on getting first-time drug dealers a chance to finish high school.

What I want to make sure of is what I want to make sure of with anybody else we might nominate:

A) That we don't go with another hawk-there's no such thing as humanitarian intervention and it's time to admit that, even if some wars might be necessary in extreme circumstances, none can ever be progressive again and none can ever have any effects beyond slightly reducing suffering;

B) That we as a party establish some distance from the wealthy and at least some economic priorities that don't put the rich first;

Because of those things, I'm not supporting anybody for the nomination at this point. And we're three years out, so what's the rush?

And as I've said, I'll campaign for her if she's nominated.

[bettyellen]

119. You already trashed Kamala as a hawk- with no evidence for that. You fucked up and showed your

Willingness to spread anti-Dem propaganda. And you claim you had no opinion. HA. Your "opinion" means nothing to me now, it's merely a repetition of anti-Dem talking points we've seen over and over again. It's not working.

[Ken Burch]

122. I'm as much of a Dem as you are.

Being a Dem doesn't mean accepting the idea that we can't ever have policies that are any more progressive than the ones we have now.

What I'm calling for is for us to be a party where we can have open discussion on all policies...including the use of force and economic policies.

I'm interested to hear what Senator Harris might have to say, as I am interested to hear what anybody else might say.

Do I have to say I'll support her for the nomination right now, no questions asked, to prove that I'm not being unfair to her?

What is the rush?

[bettyellen]

124. You've proved you're willing to baselessly trash Dems and spread lies about them, so you're words

Now mean nothing. You had no basis to claim she's interested in military intervention when you made that post a while back. You used the same tired list of accusations against other Dems recently . None of that was reasoned or well thought out criticism to actual policy positions, you could back up none of it.

We see you.

[sheshe2]

153. Did I read that right?

Kamala would be a "clear improvement over trump" WTF?

[bettyellen]

166. Wow... I can't even with this nonsense being here.

[sheshe2]

171. Oy!

[betsuni]

169. This whole thing is a passive-aggression festival.

[sheshe2]

172. Ain't that the truth. NT

[Ken Burch]

8. I didn't go all out racist.

If I held racist views, I wouldn't vow to support her if nominated. And I wouldn't have campaigned for Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama.

I'd be glad to see her elected...I simply wouldn't assume her victory would automatically be transformational simply because of who she is.

It would be progress.

[Weekend Warrior]

11. "If I held racist views, I wouldn't vow to support her if nominated. "

That doesn't make any sense. You think no racists voted for Obama?

I'm "getting it" now. Thank you.

Racism isn't something that one can proclaim to be free of, as you are attempting to do. It's about how thoughts and actions are perceived by others. I know you are aware of this. It's why your "I have a black friend" argument is even more disingenuous.

[Ken Burch]

14. Actually I don't think many did. I try my best to be antiracist. so I can't speak for racists.

How is it racist to say that, if we are talking about centrist politicians, that the race or gender of those politicians matters LESS than the positions they take on the issues?

I wasn't saying that centrists, or conservatives for that matter, who happened to be women, or people of color, or LGBTQ people, were exempt from being victims of grassroots or institutional bigotry. I wasn't saying they hadn't been victims of oppression, of course they have.

I can't say that nothing in my life has ever been shaped by race. These comments weren't. They were meant to be about issues.

[Weekend Warrior]

16. "I'm not a racist so I can't speak for racists."

That is a proclamation that is meaningless when made about oneself. You know that.

Your words speak on their own. Nothing out of context.

[Ken Burch]

18. I changed it to "I try my best to be antiracist".

Again...how is it racist to say that race matters less than what you believe on the issues?

And why are you so fixated on calling me out when I'm a progressive and an opponent of racism?

Do I have to prefer Senator Harris over anybody else who might run to prove that?

[sheshe2]

75. "Again...how is it racist to say that race matters less than what you believe on the issues?"

This is so upsetting. Race matters less than what you believe, which you have said is the economic equality.

[Ken Burch]

120. I have never said that economic equality was the only thing that matters.

Social and economic justice both matter, and are not in conflict.

[Gothmog]

32. Thank you for your post on the other thread

[boston bean]

10. Hahaha

[obamanut2012]

35. seriously

[GulfCoast66]

13. A simple question???

Is it really an apology if given only after you have been caught?

My dad called it mitigated the damage.

Have a nice day.

[Ken Burch]

15. What I said was wrong. I'd forgotten I posted it.

It was strictly a comment about issues.
And it was a comment I should not have made.

I acknowledge that it could be taken in ways I didn't intend. I'm responsible for that.

[LanternWaste]

17. It illustrates we often hold others to a much higher standard than we hold ourselves to.

It illustrates we often hold others to a much higher standard than we hold ourselves to. Realizing that as such is wonderfully effective first step in discontinuing the practice.

"and I could have phrased it a lot better..."
Oops... seems you didn't realize it at all, and are merely rationalizing and excusing past behavior. I get it. It's human nature.

[Ken Burch]

19. The point is to say that what I said was wrong.

I'd forgotten I posted those things.

[LanternWaste]

21. There is rarely, if ever, simply one, rather than many points available at any given time.

There is rarely, if ever, simply one, rather than many points available at any given time.

It's bemusing that you say you're were wrong, yet simultaneously rationalize that as the inaccurate inferences of others.

It's rather bemusing to watch you continue alleging sincerity.

[Ken Burch]

22. I wrote things that some people interpreted as racist.

I apologize for writing anything that even sounded like that.

I don't have to say that I had racist INTENT to sincerely apologize.

[stevenleser]

20. In the interest of honest discourse, what I see in your negative comments of two years ago and...

the negative comments of certain folks regarding Hillary this last election and the continued negative comments by the same folks regarding a large number of elected Democrats is a knee-jerk reaction to these elected Democrats that is not only destructive to the Democratic party but destructive to Liberal and Progressive goals in general.

[Ken Burch]

24. Is every progressive obligated to give unquestioning support to ALL Democratic officials

just to prove that we aren't having "knee-jerk" reactions?

We're talking about politicians, elected officials.

Why should we have to treat them as infallible?

[stevenleser]

33. And this is the same non-honest response we always get to that observation

My post was honest and I did not get an honest response.

[Ken Burch]

37. My response was honest.

It's one thing to say nobody should go nuclear on our own candidates...I agree with that.

But there has to be some leeway for critique and discussion, doesn't there?

Do you accept that there is some right to at least ask what they stand for?

I apologized for what I said two years ago-I was wrong to say it.

But we can't be a party in which nothing critical can be said about any Dem public figure.

[boston bean]

39. You are extremely invested in trying to get people to accept your constant criticism of democrats.

Can you change the channel on this or something? Maybe be positive.

[Ken Burch]

40. I AM a Democrat.

Just as much as you are. I don't have to pretend our politicians are infallible to prove that.

If I'm "invested" in anything, it's the idea that we should be making policy decisions from below, with all of us having at least close to an equal say.

Is that a bad thing?

[boston bean]

42. You asked. All you do is criticize democrats andd then when other democrats disagree, you whine like

a toddler who feels everyone is persecuting him and have an uncanny knack of trying to make people accept your criticism of democrats by telling them how you feel personally hurt by their disagreement or for expressing their exasperation with your constant criticism of democrats and the democratic party.

Thats a run on sentence. But there it is. You asked....

[Ken Burch]

44. I campaigned for the ticket all fall. I wrote an OP enthisiatically endorsing HRC before Philly.

And since the election, I focused mainly on making positive suggestions for the future.

Look, we are a party in crisis...what good does it do to pretend nothing's wrong?

[boston bean]

45. You didn't acknowledge one thing I just told you. But you

make an argument that you insinuate i have with you which you pulled out if thin air.

[Ken Burch]

48. I don't focus on "criticizing Democrats". I have criticized some at times, but so what?

You probably have, too, as have most people here at one time or another.

I did all I could to help elect Dems in the fall, as I always do.

And it's not "criticizing Democrats" simply to suggest different ways of doing some things-the point is to help more Dems to win.

I spend plenty of time criticizing Trump here.

But we can't gain any votes just by doing that.

[boston bean]

49. There you go again. Thanks for playing.

[Ken Burch]

52. I addressed your point directly.

My posts are about ideas, not attacks on people.

[boston bean]

53. Yeah. If you say so.

[stevenleser]

47. No it wasn't. No one said we shouldn't vet our candidates

that isn't an honest response to what I wrote.

[Ken Burch]

50. It's not honest to equate my past comments on Kamala to racism.

Or to imply that I was lying when I said I'd forgotten posting them. Those remarks were from two years ago.

Do you remember every word you ever posted?

Nor is it honest to accuse me(as somebody else just did)of helping found the anti-Harris crazies.

I don't read every single thread on this board and I'm rarely on Twitter.

What the hell is your long-standing issue with me anyway?

All I'm guilty of is not accepting the idea that we need to be as far to the right as you think we do.

It's not as though no one in this party has any right to disagree with you on that point.

[stevenleser]

192. Since I didnt do that, this is another dishonest response to me.

This is another common characteristic of a particular sect of the left these days.

If you can't discourse honestly and on point with people, that should tell you that you are in the wrong.

[Ken Burch]

193. I've always discoursed honestly. I'm not in any "sect".

And while you didn't personally accuse me of racism over that post, you dug it up when it had no relevance to this and set up the false accusations.

You know perfectly well I wouldn't be part of an online hate group and all of your allies in this know I have no problem with the idea of a woman or of a woman of color being our presidential nominee.

[BainsBane]

59. I don't care who you support

what bothers me is the obfuscation.

Name calling is not criticism. Demanding candidates who are women and people of color do what no so-called progressive has is manipulative. The poor and marginalized should not be pawns in political power plays. Using them as a rhetorical weapon, while arguing against policies that could improve their lives, is not a principled tactic.

You could say I support x, y, and z because It would really improve my life and those of people I know. There is nothing wrong with that. But pretending a focus on the middle to upper-middle class is about poverty and equality is not right.

And if you dislike someone because they aren't allied with Bernie, just say so. Don't hurl insults or corporatist and establishment toward people like Perez who was born without the privilege many progressives enjoy and devoted his life to civil rights and voting rights law. It's not honest.

[Ken Burch]

115. I don't have a focus on the middle-to-upper middle class

I don't even disagree with you on K-12.

I simply reject the ideas that

1) I was obligated to support HRC in the primaries to prove I cared about the poor or about POC;

2) College affordability only benefits the upper middle class;

3) It's either the K-12 things OR college affordability.

I care about the poor and about POC as much as you do.

And I campaigned hard for HRC in the fall, which meant I was campaigning for the exact things you preferred in the end anyway, so why are you still even angry with me about 2016? It's not as though it was a betrayal of the poor simply to not prefer HRC from the moment she declared her candidacy.

Also, I don't understand what you mean about expecting things from women or people of color that I don't expect from white men. I have the same expectations of all candidates. All I was saying in the cases HRC or Senator Harris was that the identity of the person is not in and of itself transformational. It can be of importance for establishing historical precedent, it can be important in the realm of creating role models and that has its value, but if those are accompanied by more of the politics of excessive caution that this party has specialized in since 1976, doesn't that at least somewhat limit the importance.

What I want is for us to be a party of boldness, for our nominees, whoever they are, to actually spend as much time trying to shape the fall narrative and win the argument on the issues as the Right does. The main reason we've been in trouble since '76 is that we haven't done that-instead our nominees have bought into the idea that most of the country is to our right, that we have to let the GOP set the terms of debate, that we can't even openly defend the idea that the Left half of the spectrum has as much of a place in the discussion as the Right. And I dream of the day we finally nominate somebody who will campaign in the fall on that basis.

And the reactions to the candidacies or potential candidacies were always about the sense that nominating those two would be about preventing change.

[regnaD kciN]

180. It seems to me the main take-away from this thread...

...is that all you need to do is utter the words "I am a progressive" here to be subject to a torrent of abuse similar to what you'd receive at FreeRepublic -- including having even your conciliatory statements dismissed, twisted, or simply ignored.

That's why I fear for the Democratic Party. Too many people seem more emotionally-invested in driving out progressives from the political arena than in driving out Trump from the White House.

[Ken Burch]

184. I know. Of all the places to run into McCarthyism.

And where the hell did we ever get to the idea that you're only anti-oppression if you're anti-Left?

[Eliot Rosewater]

30. His immediate response to what you said is "remarkable" and

very very familiar.

[stevenleser]

34. Yep, it's the same nonsense we always get.

[BainsBane]

58. The script is identical

Harris, Clinton, Perez . . . Many more to come, no doubt.

[NurseJackie]

60. You're not the only one to notice. It's not an isolated thing.

[Me.]

23. I Did Not Have Sex With That Woman

[Ken Burch]

26. No.

I said things I should not have said. I admit that.

Why is it so hard for people to believe I'd forgotten I'd posted those things?

Does everybody else here remember every single word they ever posted?

[NastyRiffraff]

114. Personally, I think I'd remember

if I posted something that could easily be construed as racist and misogynist. It would be so unlike me that I'd never be able to forget it.

You say it's unlike you, but you can't remember it? Ooookay.

[sheshe2]

154. +1000

[guillaumeb]

27. Very well said. eom

[samir.g]

28. It's time to start getting behind her.

Never too early.

[Hekate]

79. Don't play his game

Just a thought

[JI7]

29. There is a pattern with you always dismissing what majority of minorities want

And lecturing about what is best for us.

Always trying to say candidates who get minority support were shoved down the throat of the party.

All of the democrats who won the nomination of the party did well with minority voters.

[Ken Burch]

31. Not true.

If I felt that way, why would I have supported Obama in 2008? Or Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988? Or campaigned for the nominee in the fall?

Voters of color have the right to choose what they want to choose.

What do you want from me on that?

Are you going to keep banging on this until I say that Bernie should have dropped out after Super Tuesday?

[obamanut2012]

36. yup

[BainsBane]

54. Never based on substance

Or policy positions, but as is all too common these days, hurling names like corporatist and establishment at at people for the crime of failing to been the knee. And ALL of their targets are women and people of color: Clinton, Harris, Perez, Jaime Harrison, Pelosi, Jim Clyburn and John Lewis.

Notice the uniformity of the script: the same insults; the same arguments; and the exact same language. https://mic.com/articles/183105/democratic-rising-star-kamala-harris-has-a-bernie-sanders-problem#.N9UkCI4yB That she dares to consider a presidential run leads them to make blatantly false claims about her being "anointed." That term arises time and time again. The point is to smear, to engage in character assassination, not based on policy or issues but because she isn't one of them.

It doesn't stop at public figures either. We see entire races of people, the poorest and most marginalized voters, insulted as corporatist or establishment in order to engineer the economic and political dominance of a small, privileged demographic. We see the most cynical evocation of terms like "poverty and economic equality," while they actively argue against positions that seek to address both, only to insist the priority should be on proposals that benefit them and their class. They wont listen to what the poor and marginalized care about. They won't respect their votes. They use them as rhetorical pawns in a quest for power and even greater privilege.

Two examples: Jaime Harrison and Tom Perez. Harrison, head of the S Carolina Dem Party, ran for DNC chair. When he saw was unable to attract enough support to win, he dropped out. They sought his endorsement for their candidate Ellison (a good man who didn't deserve any of this). When Harrison endorsed Perez instead, he was suddenly maligned as a "corporatist." http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/sanders-revolution-resists-dnc-loss-235404 Nothing about him changed from one day to the next, except for his endorsement of Perez. That demonstrated in no uncertain terms that those labels were hurled for purposes that have nothing to do with the influence of capital.

Example two: Tom Perez, whom the OP himself insulted as a corporatist. Imagine, a man born into a poor immigrant family, who worked as a janitor to pay his way through law school and then went to work as a civil rights attorney is a "corporatist." A man who transformed the Civil Rights division of DOJ, who has devoted his entire life to fighting injustice through the law. He was a corporatist? Why? For one reason only. He didn't facilitate one faction's quest for power.

I've had it with the false rhetoric, the craven opportunism, and politics of white male entitlement obfuscated through lingusric exploitation of the lives of the poor and marginalized.

[Hekate]

80. THIS. What BainsBane said.

[lunasun]

84. Tell It !

[JI7]

86. he was upset Kamala HArris endorsed Clinton over Sanders so that was his reaction

the fact he can't remember it says a lot and how much it was just based on who she endorsed instead of what he knew of her.

that's what it always comes down to with this poster.

[BainsBane]

87. So true. Nt

[betsuni]

88. +1

[NurseJackie]

136. Excellent analysis. That makes a lot of sense.

[Ken Burch]

146. People say heated things in a campaign season. And I've apologized for what I said,

I wasn't upset that Senator Harris endorsed HRC.

I was bothered deeply that this fact was being used to try to pressure the candidate I supported to drop out of the race and leave his supporters in the later states with no one to vote for and no way to keep fighting for the issues they cared about, and to pressure those supporters into switching BEFORE the convention to the other candidate, when there was no good reason to apply that kind of pressure.

What was the rush in forcing him out? What was the rush in pushing his supporters to switch to HRC weeks before Philly?

Look...it wasn't the fault of the candidate I backed OR of those who supported him that the election result was what it was.

The result we had in November was the same result we'd have had if Bernie had suspended his candidacy on Super Tuesday, and the same result we'd have had if he'd never run at all.

Refighting the primaries is bad enough(which is why I haven't done it). Refighting the primaries when your candidate was the one who was nominated, in an effort to retroactively delegitimize the candidacy of the other candidate, is a total waste of time and effort. At a time when we need unity and need to work together, it does us horrible damage.

What we need to do is unite the base with the people who came into the process in support of the runner-up. If we take it out of the realm of personality politics and simply try to relate to each other as people, there are few if any actual differences on the issues between those two groups. Both of those groups want this party to be more on the side of the poor and the dispossessed. Most want a less-militarist foreign policy and fewer wars. Both are equally committed to fighting for social justice. Both want us to address income inequality and excessive corporate power. That's why I say the issues should matter more than who we nominate, and that it should be the party writing the platform based on what most of the party and most of the country wants, with t he candidates running on the platform the rank-and-file have created.

[Ken Burch]

123. My post about Perez was about the fact that he was being used as the stop-Keith candidate.

And in response to the disgusting slur that, if Keith were elected DNC chair, it would somehow mean that he'd be nothing but Bernie's lackey, that it would mean Bernie had taken over the party-something no one person could ever actually do.

I worked hard for HRC in the fall...why can't you let it go that I didn't support her in the primary?

[NurseJackie]

131. I didn't see any slur. Can you point directly to it for me please?

...why can't you let it go that I didn't support her in the primary?

I see no evidence to support this accusation.

[NastyRiffraff]

181. This!

Preach it!

[betsuni]

38. The Ken Show was really exciting today!

I think it's one of the best episodes so far, to be honest.

[R B Garr]

72. Many people are saying that.

That I can tell you.

[NurseJackie]

132. You crack me up!

[yardwork]

41. My suggestion, which you'll ignore, is that you stop posting about Kamala Harris.

You've made your points.

[BainsBane]

43. You posted some very similar things about Perez

only a few months ago. Did you forget those too?

[Ken Burch]

46. Ok...I said some respectfully critical things. I also posted an OP congratulating him when he won.

I'm glad that he's invited Keith to work with him.

[BainsBane]

55. There was nothing respectful about what you wrote

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9408558

The part about Perez addresses what you said.

[NurseJackie]

61. Wow! That's pretty bad. (I don't know what else to say.)

[Squinch]

51. .

[Warren DeMontague]

56. Me, I like Kamala Harris. I've always liked Kamala Harris.

I'm not sure what, specifically, you're accused of here that warrants this pile-on. I haven't gone back and read the exact relevant comments, but for what it's worth you seem to have apologized, so honestly I'm not sure what else you're supposed to do.

As near as I can understand it, the criticism of Harris- badly handled, by your own admission- in question came when she was an early endorser of HRC.

Another early endorser of HRC was Chuck Schumer. Yet just a week or so ago, here, some people were accusing Chuck Schumer of being a misogynist. I think the relevant quote was, "hates and fears strong women".... because he offered criticism of HRC's campaign.

Apparently Schumer transmogrified into a misogynist who hates and fears strong women, sometime between his early endorsement of HRC, and now.

Similarly, there was a thread on DU - later edited, I think, probably wisely- where Elizabeth Warren was accused of being a racist, for statements she made. Elizabeth frikkin' Warren, of all people.

I wonder if the folks who accused Schumer of misogyny and Warren of racism are ever going to apologize, as you have done here.

[BainsBane]

57. This is what his OP is responding to

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9405265

[Warren DeMontague]

62. Yep. He posted some things about her he shouldn't have.

I'm not sure what you want beyond an apology, though.

[yardwork]

64. I'll answer that. I would like the misrepresentations to stop.

I'd like it if people on the internets would stop breathlessly assuring us all that somebody is being anointed by the oligarchy on their way to seizing assets and faking support for maryjane.

I'd like to be able to nominate and elect a Democrat for once without a whole lot of so-called very very concerned progressives or whatever the hell they're calling themselves today shitting all over every non-Republican in sight.

I'd like it if self-identified white guys would stop telling women and people of color what to think.

Is that too much to ask? I think not and that's why I piled on. Guilty as charged. Shoot me.

[betsuni]

65. +1

[Warren DeMontague]

69. I am, as always, unarmed.

Do you remeber the fighting in 2008? 2004? The crap between the dean and kerry people?

This is a new wrapper put on the same old package. As Will Rogers said, "I dont belong to any organized political party- I am a Democrat"


But beyond that, i can tell you, after paging through far too many "neverkamala" tweets, it is being pushed up by republicans and russian trolls... If theres even a difference at this point.

[yardwork]

73. Your last paragraph is the salient point.

This is the same crap we saw in 2015-16.

[BainsBane]

77. +1

[bettyellen]

85. THIS. The phony hand wringing is over. We know it's all an act.

[Ken Burch]

118. I didn't say anything about the assets seizure issue.

Nor would I tell anybody what to think-and I'm sorry if I made it sound like that.

As to nominating and electing a Dem-I want that, too. But is the only way to do that to tell everybody that we have to get behind one candidate years before we even have primaries, and to take the attitude that nobody has the right to expect much of any specific policy commitments?

[BainsBane]

66. I want honesty

Not obfuscation. The same things continue to this day toward Harris, Perez, and entire swaths of the electorate. The script is identical, as I have pointed out in this thread and others. https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9408678

I don't care who he likes or dislikes. He is entirely within his rights to dislike Harris, Perez, Clinton or anyone else. What bothers me is the misdirection and manipulation that I personally have been subject to repeatedly. In this discussion, for example: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9368140
A tactic repeated elsewhere, which I commented on here: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9399299

Apologies don't mean much if the practice continues.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. You are linking to your own posts.

Its kind of hard for me to see how far dude stepped over the line if all I'm reading is your interpretation.

But, whatever. I get it. You dont like the guy.

[BainsBane]

70. I link to the discussion

If you're interested, read the subthread. I linked to my post about caucuses to demonstrate I never said or implied my objection to them was because they were supposedly unfair to Clinton, which they were not. He invented that claim to misdirect. The same with his claims about Harris in the other post I link to in the second paragraph.

The first link was just an elaboration of my argument because I didn't feel like rewriting it.

After a few dozen discussions where the same tactics are used, one gets fed up.

[Warren DeMontague]

71. If what he said is so bad, why not link directly?

But again, he apologized, which is more than many people do. No one is under any obligation to accept it, of course.

Do you think anyone will apologize for calling Schumer a woman-fearing misogynist or implying that Senator Warren is a racist?

[BainsBane]

76. I never saw anyone say that

But I assume by you determination to hold me accountable you think the person was a feminist.
If you have a problem, you should take it up with that person.

I explained the situation with Ken. If I linked to his post you wouldn't have the context, but then you don't want it. You don't care. You don't have to care. That's your business. But don't try the tired game of blaming me for some random shit someone else said. You have a long memory for slights on the male ego. I am not responsible for what other people say, and your repeated (at least the 10th fucking time) attempts to hold me responsible for such slights has long worn thin. And naturally you ignore the "progressive" assault on Schumer, for the crime of endorsing policies they had previously supported, to focus on a comment that you imagine is the product of evil feminism.

I am an individual human being. Unlike the comments that are the subject of this thread, I do not use a verbatim script repeated thousands of times on social media. If you can't distinguish me from any random poster you suspect shares the same chromosomes, that's your problem. That shit wore thin years ago.

[Warren DeMontague]

81. what, I don't get blamed for random shit other people say all the time? Yes, I do.

Point is, it's objectively no worse to accuse Schumer of being a misogynist or Warren of being a racist, than it is to have accused Harris of being a "corporatist sell out" or whatever buzzword Ken here is accused of using 2 years ago.

As for us all being individuals, fucking A yes, I've been making that point for years.

But in that vein, I 'have a long memory for slights on the male ego'-- I have a long memory for lines from crappy 80s movies, more like. "Male ego"? which one? I'm not a male ego or THE male ego, I mean I am the Buddha-nature as are we all , but on the level of the specific I'm just an individual as you are. Nor did I bring up any of this other stuff you're trotting out. You're doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing, here, i.e. Whose "progressive" assault on Chuck Schumer am I supposed to be responsible for, now?

Schumer, and Warren, are relevant because of the tendency of certain people on this board to change the rules around "unity" or "don't attack democrats" or "don't demand purity" on a week-by-week basis, depending on who said what, more specifically who criticized that which shall not be criticized.

And so on.

[betsuni]

83. If someone said something so bad about Schumer and Warren, why not link directly?

[BainsBane]

89. Apparently that only applies to other people.

[betsuni]

90. Yup.

[Warren DeMontague]

92. Oh, was there a 2 hour long time limit to respond to that?

Sorry, I had to walk the dog. Priorities, yo.

Plus, shit is harder to search for when people don't spell "Schumer" correctly.

[Warren DeMontague]

91. Fine, you asked.

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=9366298

The "weak man" who is apparently unable to deal with "strong women" can only be, in the context of the thread and subsequent post, Chuck Schumer (sic) ... of course, it doesn't really explain why he was one of Hillary's earliest endorsers.


As for Elizabeth Warren:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029008638

OP (wisely) edited out the most offensive implication in the OP, but it's still there in the edits.



So, so much for "don't smear Democratic officials", I guess.

[betsuni]

94. I thought that's all you had.

[Warren DeMontague]

95. So what those posts are saying, that's okay with you?

You know, they say exactly what I claimed they do.

And it's not like those posts exist in isolation, either... they're surrounded by several other threads of shit-losing over the respective episodes of Warren and Schumer wrongthink. At least, most of the other threads spell "Schumer" correctly.

I'm asked for links, I give links. Some never give links. I give links, yes sir.



Point is, it's not okay to "attack Democratic figures" here until they commit some form of thoughtcrime against the campaign of the most wonderful and perfectly blameless overqualified candidate for president in human history™, at which point all bets are off.

[BainsBane]

99. You are pissed off because pnwmom

criticized Warren for her attacks on Obama. Apparently your contrived notion of not attacking Democrats meaning remaining silent while others attack Democrats. And that is what has you upset. That citizens dared to criticize Warren's absurd statements that a man who grew up to a single mother on welfare and who worked as a community organizer in Chicago is out of touch with the American people. I don't know what makes Warren think she is so much more in touch with the American people. I'm going to hazard a guess she hasn't lived in low-income urban communities like Obama has. I think it's safe to say she has no idea of what it's like to be black in America. How could she? I think what we are seeing in her comments is quite narrow conception of who constitutes the people.

We see that argument that not attacking Democrats means remaining silent while others attack Democrats, or even that we are expected to support their claims that the party is hopeless corrupt and doesn't represent true "working people." We're supposed to ignore exit polls,. acquiesce to demonstrably false claims about the demographics of the 2016 election because promoting that narrative is more important than facts. I'm not going to do it. What I do when I have criticisms is I made them on the substance of the argument. I don't hurl insults, and I certainly don' rely on those insults as the beginning, end, and whole of an argument.

That said, this thread is not about "Democratic unity" or not attacking Democrats. It is about a very specific set of behaviors and comments by the OP. You asked why the apology wasn't enough, and you were told. You were told it wasn't a single errant comment from two years ago. You were told it was an ongoing practice that continues until as recently as two days ago. Rather than confronting that, you sought to distract by insisting we apologize for a comment another poster made that you couldn't even bother to respond to at the time.

You said someone called Schumer a sexist, something not precisely true, according to your link. What that member does say is that some men are threatened by strong women, and he implies that Schumer is one of them. I don't agree with that analysis--not because I claim to know Schumer's attitudes toward women, but because I don't see that episode as about that at all. I already gave my assessment of it in a separate thread, but I never even opened the thread you linked to. I'm certainly not going to now descend on that poster in a fit of outrage because you couldn't bother to respond to him at the time.

It seems to me that someone with the courage of his conviction responds directly to arguments he finds troubling. You did not. Instead, you now invoke it in what appears to be an effort to justify or distract from the OP. If you want to defend the idea that it's okay to say women and people of color are not representatives of diversity if they don't back Sanders, then say so. If you want to say that people without the "progressive" stamp of approval should not be allowed to run for political office, then say so.
But don't manufacture faux outrage about comments you didn't even care enough about to respond to at the time. If you want to support the OP's notion that the only acceptable public officials are those allied with Sanders, then damn well say so.

And no, I don't think the comments are comparable for a few reasons. 1) one comment in a subthead is not the same as an ongoing pattern. 2) arguments that seek to exclude marginalized groups from power are worse than than those that criticize what the writer sees as dominant cultural biases by white men. 3) Truthfully, the comments don't bother me that much. I don't think them applicable to that particular discussion and they may well be unfair to Schumer, but I know for a fact that many men are threatened by accomplished and powerful women. If that weren't the case, Clinton would be president right now.

I'm also not buying your claims that you are aggrieved by attacks on Democrats. We see attacks on the party as whole on this site every day, and I have not seen you voice any concern. To now pretend you are so broken up about it doesn't pass the smell test.

[Warren DeMontague]

100. Okay, speed-reading through the parts where you put words in my mouth

or otherwise tell me what I think and what my motives are...


yeah, yeah, been there, got it, yep, yep. Uh huh. Yep.

Okay, real quick:

The problem with the thread from pwnmom is the instant, knee-jerk, reflexive idea that criticism of Obama, Senator Warren's statement there, well, ding! racism! She edited it out, so she knew it was over the line. But it was where she immediately went.

Thing is, Elizabeth Warren is not a racist. I don't think she is. I don't for a second think her statement was coming from anywhere close to that place. So why is there a reflexive response- to Senator Warren, for fuck's sake- along those lines?

Same thing with the Schumer post. It is LUDICROUS to assert that Sen. Schumer has some "problem with powerful women" regarding Hillary. He was one of her first endorsements. So it's fucking ridiculous to say. But the poster immediately went there anyway, because that is the defacto response to ANY criticism, say, of Hillary's campaign, from some quarters. Oh, misogyny, obviously!

The problem with that- and I have no doubt that you will tell me in a full page essay what the "problem" is with me having the temerity to point out this problem, whee, herewego - is that it means there can be NO criticism whatsoever, say, of any actions Hillary took in her campaign, no way to learn, no way to do better. Misogyny and racism are real, but ascribing them to every piece of opinion or data you don't like diminishes arguments against the actual phenomenon.

Which, as near as I can tell, is what is being done to the OP, too.

Elsewhere on DU there is a poster saying "we can't run a woman for president ever again", essentially, because "America wont vote for one". Okay, to my ears, that's one of the most misogynistic ideas I've heard expressed on this board; that we should disqualify over half the population from the job. But if one accepts that Hillary's campaign was simply the epitiome of political precision, she was saintly in her overqualified perfection and only robbed of her rightful victory because of misogyny, nothing else, there can never be any room for improvement-- well, this is where that logic leads, isn't it?

The rest, whatever. I said something you didn't like and I didn't say the things you think I ought to say. Ma nishtanah halailah hazeh mikol haleilot?

[Not Ruth]

102. Simplifying the blame is simple and makes for a good title or tweet

Not everyone (on any side) is simple.

[Warren DeMontague]

103. That is certainly true.

I've noticed it's easier for people to battle, ideologically, against oversimplified constructs in their own heads, on a field of a single preferred narrative, than to really comprehend the levels of complexity contained in others and their opposing viewpoints.

I'm sure I'm guilty of that as well.

[BainsBane]

183. You won't read links

but you expect me to read what has been edited out?

The problem with that- and I have no doubt that you will tell me in a full page essay what the "problem" is with me having the temerity to point out this problem, whee, herewego - is that it means there can be NO criticism whatsoever, say, of any actions Hillary took in her campaign, no way to learn, no way to do better. Misogyny and racism are real, but ascribing them to every piece of opinion or data you don't like diminishes arguments against the actual phenomenon.

Which, as near as I can tell, is what is being done to the OP, too.

I can't follow your 35,000 tangents.

As for the OP, I didn't say he was a sexist or racist. Others may have, but I did not. I said I found his apology disingenuous because he continues to repeat the same behavior. That shouldn't require an endless array of tangents and misdirections to comprehend or, more accurately, to avoid comprehending.

[Warren DeMontague]

186. I read links. I wouldn't know you were linking to yourself if I hadn't at least bothered a little.

Brevity is the soul of wit, here, so I'll try to condense my thoughts as much as possible.


I give you props for honesty.

You've acknowledged that, essentially, you've got some form of algorithm through which all these interactions and conversations are filtered, via which you can determine that calling Tom Perez a corporatist is more offensive than calling Liz Warren a racist.

Not based upon the relative offensiveness of the actual statement in question, which would be the metric I would use- but instead as the sum of a formula involving a subjectively assigned relative weighted score of oppressed groups that Perez can be said to belong to, vs. any Warren can be said to belong to--- divided, of course, by the oppressed group membership score of the person making the comment in question.

I understand your trip, Bain, really I do. I even agree, more or less, with the goals you think you're working to achieve with this stuff.

But I think your methodology isn't terribly good, or logical.

[betsuni]

110. +1 (thank you)

[boston bean]

112. I would also like to say that the post he links to in one of my OP's was a comment/response and was

a random comment, that happened to not be what the OP was about.

but whatevs...

[Warren DeMontague]

135. You follow that comment thread, it's impossible not to conclude it's directed at Schumer.

Whatevs indeed.

[boston bean]

137. It wasn't calling him a sexist.. as you so imply with your direct link to a comment implying that.

so, whatevs indeed, indeed.

[Warren DeMontague]

138. No, that's not what I'm implying. But the post in question? Clearly aimed at Schumer

And like I said, it's a ridiculous assertion. Somehow he went from being one of her first endorsements to being unable to deal with "powerful women" or some such nonsense.

Couldn't possibly be that Senator Schumer had a valid critique or two, no.

[boston bean]

139. Oh no?? Then why did you pick a reply that said that?

Whatevs.

[Warren DeMontague]

140. because I was talking about the reply, not your OP?

Your OP is relevant because it is about Schumer, which dials into the reply being directed AT Schumer, even though the post itself doesn't specifically say "Schumer".

It's spelled "Schumer", btw. I had one hell of a time searching for that thread, you know?

[Ken Burch]

129. I have never sought to exclude marginalized peoples from power.

n/t.

[betsuni]

111. "the most wonderful and perfectly blameless overqualified candidate for president in human history"

Oh dear, what are you talking about? The last election's Democratic candidate for president? You do know this is Democratic Underground, don't you? OOPS! Why would you assume I'm obsessively in love with Hillary Clinton? That's weird. Don't forget to give your dog lots of water and vitamins!

[Warren DeMontague]

134. Yeah, none of this has anything to do with that, of course.

My bad.

[lapucelle]

109. ...indeed

[Ken Burch]

127. Somebody said Senator Harris would be the first female POC president

I pointed out, in ways that I now apologize for, that that fact, in and of itself, wouldn't automatically be transformative. It might be, it might not be.

The person I responded used the point about the senator endorsing HRC as part of the pointless effort to try to force the Sanders campaign to end before the primaries ended, thus depriving a lot of young Sanders people of the chance to vote for their principles and to give up on any future chances to work for what they cared about.

Why was there such an obsession with getting the Sanders campaign to end? What difference would it have made if it had ended earlier? What greater good would have been served if the campaign had stopped on Super Tuesday?

[lapucelle]

105. There was a direct link, but the post was removed.

[Warren DeMontague]

106. Ah.

Okay, fair enough.

[democratisphere]

63. You should be taken out to the DU woodshed and flogged with

surplus Bernie Banners, then given 20 demerits. Since you fessed up, you will be spared this time.

[RhodeIslandOne]

67. "I don't at this point have strong feelings about her."

I find that difficult to buy.

[Hekate]

78. Your lack of strong feelings about a woman you claimed was being anointed 3 years out for POTUS...

...is duly noted. And will be remembered next time you do it.

I also see you are getting considerable pushback this time around.

[Warren DeMontague]

93. IT IS GOING DOWN ON YOUR PERMANENT RECORD YOUNG MAN

seriously, I fucking swear, this place sometimes..

[Hekate]

96. There has been a real uptick lately in generalized...

...flame-baitery. It's like we don't have enough to worry about from the GOP and the Mad King? So people have to throw spitwads out of sheer boredom?

[Warren DeMontague]

97. i cant say for sure, but here, its the heat.

So much for "Portland nice"... not today!

[Hekate]

98. Yeah, it's over 80 degrees inside my house and it's 1:00 am. High humidity from some monsoonal...

...system, too. I should probably shower and go to bed, since I can't get any more work done.

[NurseJackie]

101. Because people are catching on.

I see that I'm not the only one who has a finite amount of goodwill and benefit-of-the-doubt to give.

[Ken Burch]

121. Catching on to what?

For once, for ONCE, just come right out and say what it is you believe I'm guilty of.

Do you think I'm a secret Green? I'm not.

Do you think I'm part of JPR? I'm not

Do you think I've somehow brought the imaginary "International Communist Conspiracy" to life for the first time in actual history? I'm not and nobody else ever was.

All I am is a person of good will whose politics are to the left of your personal comfort level.

[NurseJackie]

125. Others here have already explained it much better than I could ever hope to...

... and based on your replies to those individuals, it's pretty obvious that you understand what they're talking about. There's really no need for me to REPEAT the things that have already been stated by others. I merely offer my nod of approval to them in appreciation of their observations and their willingness to freely speak their minds. My words of agreement have been directed to, and were intended for, specific individuals. I really shouldn't have to justify or explain myself to someone else who barrels-in making various demands.

For once, for ONCE, just come right out and say what it is you believe I'm guilty of.

Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about. Beside, the word "guilt" is loaded and implies criminal activity. Nobody has ever accused you of being a criminal. NOBODY! So... I'm afraid I'll take a pass on that question. It looks like a trap to me.

All I am is a person of good will whose politics are to the left of your personal comfort level.

I think it's a mistake to try and pigeonhole and label individuals in such a way. It's very limiting, wouldn't you agree?

Aside from that, I believe "it serves no good purpose" to over-analyze it (if you know what I mean... and I think you do) So I shouldn't need to say anything further, lest I be falsely accused of "stalking", when I'm merely participating in a popular thread that keeps rising to the top of the forum. Why should I (or anyone else) be false accused of such things when so many others participate in the same thread?

[LexVegas]

107. ...

[LexVegas]

108. I don't think you are progressive as you think you are. nt

[boston bean]

113. That is one way of saying it.

[Ken Burch]

145. Are you saying I have to endorse this person just to prove I'm progressive?

I said I'd support her if she's nominated. I wouldn't say that if I was part of the hashtaggers.

I think those guys are demagogic jerks.

[boston bean]

147. I said what I said.

[Ken Burch]

128. The most progressive thing to do is always to take the most progressive stands on the issues

And always to support the nomination of the most progressive candidates.

It never serves a greater progressive good to nominate someone who is less progressive on the issues.

[NurseJackie]

133. That's just not very realistic. All these hard-left absolutes are a mistake.

It never serves a greater progressive good to nominate someone who is less progressive on the issues.

No it doesn't. One must examine the methods that the "greater progressive" might want to employ.

For example, the "no compromise" candidate gets us nowhere. Nominating the "greater progressive" in a place like WV means the GOP candidate wins, and we've got one less person caucusing on our side... which adds to the opposition's benefit.

These types of idealistic, pure, and theoretical philosophies really don't work in the real world. Such noble statements appear to be motivated solely by naivete, or vanity, or outright pride... perhaps anger is in there too... but it certainly doesn't represent any tactic that will be successful in the real world.

There's a list around here somewhere, I saw it recently... can't recall where... that shows how all of the "most progressive" candidates have LOST. So, what "greater good" can be accomplished by the LOSING candidate?

Actual PROGRESS (for those who are sincere about it) means more than just "stand-your-ground" and "no-compromise". The only advantage in being fringe or advocating for fringe candidates is one of pride, not one of actual progress.

I think we can all agree that progress is important and finding common ground is important.

[Ken Burch]

142. I haven't ever said "no compromise". Sometime compromise is needed.

It's more like "start with the strongest set of convictions and proposals possible, use and encourage the use of all effective and positive means to build popular support for those convictions and proposals, and then make the fewest compromises possible".

We don't ever have to start the process by announcing we'll settle for tiny increments.

And we don't ever need to discourage grassroots activists from mobilizing for as transformative. Real change, meaningful change, is always the result of mass pressure from below. Globally, it often takes the threat of a mass uprising to win even minor change.

The black freedom movement, for example, said "We Can't WAIT", not "We'll Take Whatever You Give Us".

[NurseJackie]

144. LOL!

"The most progressive thing to do is always to take the most progressive stands on the issues"

Your posts speak for themselves, Ken. The words "most" and "always" have very specific meanings.

We don't ever have to start the process by announcing we'll settle for tiny increments.

Nobody is doing that. NOBODY! Those are irrational fears that arise from inexperience with real world politics. NOBODY DOES THAT!!

[Ken Burch]

148. We take the stands, and then if we have to compromise,

we make the smallest compromises possible, while keeping the activists and the base in the loop at all times. Then, we use the promise of working as soon as possible to mobilize the base to get out and work to increase our majorities enough to undo the compromises.

And we really shouldn't ever fixate on not offending "the center", assuming it even exists-people who identify as centrists aren't literally demanding that we take positions exactly halfway between our party and the GOP, nor are they insistent that we make a big show of keeping activists out in the cold; they are mainly looking for proof that what we propose is practical and achievable. All we hhave to do is present the transformative as the pragmatic.

Finally, this party needs to start trying to do what it usually refuses to try and do in the fall-campaigning by trying to win the argument, campaigning on the assumption that it is actually possible that voters can agree with us on the merits of the argument.

[NurseJackie]

152. Real world politics just doesn't work that way.

we make the smallest compromises possible

It's not about the avoiding making compromise, it's about MAKING PROGRESS!! Give a little, get a LITTLE. Give some more, get some MORE!

The way of thinking that you're pushing has been rejected by the voters. It's gotten us nowhere. And the most "progressive" and approved candidates have all LOST their contests this year. What does that tell you?

There is NOT going to be this big "revolution" that you fantasize about. The progress we make will come in dribs and drabs, it will be incremental, it will require compromise and finding common ground. The other side will get some things and we'll get some things. The LESS you give (your plan) the LESS YOU GET, and that is the furthest thing from progress you'll ever see.

It may make you feel good about yourself... but in the end, it's not really about you, is it? It's about our nation, our people and doing what's best for them. It's not about "taking a stand" and having the fringe left get to boast about how they refused to give in. Whoopee. They get to boast, and in the real world, people go hungry and stay sick.

Some big bragging rights, huh?

[Ken Burch]

155. If the strategy you're talking about had been used by the black freedom movement

All that would've happened by now is that the drinking fountains would be desegregated on Tuesdays and Thursdays, with religious exemptions for the fountains at Bob Jones University.

They pushed for big change the whole time. So did labor, when unions were actually winning. So did feminists. So does the LGBTQ rights movement. All compromised, but none let go of the transformative vision-at least not when those movements were actually effective.

We have to push for big change to get ANY change-especially since next to nobody on the Right is ever willing to compromise(the GOP senators that joined our senators in defying Trump on healthcare did so only because of mass pressure from below.

Small changes, tiny increments, rarely if ever make any meaningful difference in anyone's lives.

BTW...since you've brought up West Virginia continually-for the record, I wasn't involved with the idea of primarying Manchin-the governor of West Virginia, the kind of Dem you keep insisting is the only kind that can win in a state like that, is switching parties today. Doesn't that suggest to you that there may be some flaws in the "it's enough to elect somebody who CALLS himself a Democrat" strategy? And is there any reason to believe Manchin won't do the same thing sometime soon?

[NurseJackie]

156. All of those things were incremental.

To pretend otherwise is just silly.

I wasn't involved with the idea of primarying Manchin-the governor of West Virginia,

Actually, he's the SENATOR from West Virginia. It's the opportunistic GOVERNOR who's switching BACK to being a Republican.

You should read up on it. It's in all the papers.

[Ken Burch]

157. I didn't say Manchin was the governor. That's why I put the punctuation there.

I referenced Manchin because you keep bringing him up. And it wasn't my idea to primary him, so I'm not sure why you keep acting like I came up with that or something.

Here's the point I was trying to make:

If the WV "Dem" governor has switched parties, is there any reason to think Manchin won't do the same thing fairly soon?

And is there any reason we shouldn't try to win votes in West Virginia by doing something to address poverty there?

[NurseJackie]

159. Is there any reason to think that he will?

It wasn't my idea to primary him.

So what? You still think it's a good idea (which it's not).

And is there any reason we shouldn't try to win votes in West Virginia by doing something to address poverty there?

Yes. They've rejected it. West Virginia isn't Vermont. They don't think the same. They don't vote the same. They don't have the same priorities. It may not make sense to you, but that's the way it is. That's reality.

[Ken Burch]

161. I never said it was a good idea to primary Manchin.

I'm neutral on it. I doubt it will actually happen, so why are you fixated on this?

As to the assertion that "they rejected it"...if that's the case, why did the candidate who called for an aggressive effort to defeat economic inequality-a crucial component of the fight against poverty-WIN West Virginia's presidential primary in a landslide.

People in WV voted for that candidate because they were ready to challenge the existing order-because they recognize that big changes are needed.

[NurseJackie]

162. Neutral? LOL! Seriously? You're "NEUTRAL"???

You don't care one way or the other if we have an extra Democrat in the Senate or not?

Jesus! Unbelievable!

I guess that's all I need to know.

[Ken Burch]

164. I simply don't think it will happen.

And it's not as though the only chance of holding that seat is to guarantee Manchin an uncontested primary,

Besides, I live in Washington state-nobody in West Virginia would care what I thought about the idea of primarying their senator.

It's not as though I could singlehandedly stop them from doing it.

[NurseJackie]

168. Doesn't matter. A true progressive would be OPPOSED to him losing his Senate seat...

... not "neutral" with this laissez faire attitude in anticipation of any opportunity indulge in pride and vanity told-ya-so's.

It's just not what a realistic person would do. We're talking real world politics and you're playing word games and gotcha games on an internet discussion forum.

It's very important that he keeps his seat rather than handing it over to the GOP by running a vanity Democrat who could win in Vermont, but who could never win in WV. As you like to say... "what good purpose would that serve?"

[Ken Burch]

174. You make it sound like I could stop it from happening.

Nobody in West Virginia would care what I had to say on this. I'm just one guy on the West Coast.

[NurseJackie]

179. No I don't.

[NurseJackie]

158. By the way, it's a BIG mistake to try and liken your "revolution" to AA and LGBT struggles.

Those groups were marginalized, victimized, oppressed, hunted, stalked, denied access, denied rights, murdered, assaulted, denied housing, fired, arrested, jailed, sent to prison, given shock therapy, given chemical castrations, oh dear god the list goes on and on...

AND YOU DARE TO TRY AND COMPARE YOURSELF (or your ''revolution'') to what those brave individuals had to endure and how they fought to move closer to something that resembles equality?

WHAT NERVE!!

No, Ken... the "struggles" of the far left and the fringe left DO NOT COMPARE! They're not being denied rights, they're not being lynched, or tied to fences or dragged behind pickup-trucks.

Your comparison is OFFENSIVE! I suggest you apologize. Apologize to all AA's and POC... to all LGBT's.

All I'm saying is that your rhetoric isn't very well considered or thought out. This is one of the times that you've crossed the line and people deserve an apology from you.

[Ken Burch]

160. I wasn't likening left activists to historically oppressed communities.

I was talking about how those movements, all of which included heavy left involvement, achieved what they achieved.

They were all driven by a radical, transformative vision.

And where did you ever get the idea that only straight white men are on the left?

Most people who are on the left are women, many are POC, many are LGBTQ.

[NurseJackie]

163. You're comparing this "revolution" thing to the struggles of AA's POC and LGBT citizens. It's not.

The far left and left fringe aren't oppressed. It's not the same. Your comparison is offensive.

I don't know how I can be any more clear than that.

[Ken Burch]

165. I was only talking about the vision of those movements.

Nothing in that equated to the claim that white male left activists are an oppressed group.

BTW...you do realize that none of those movements were left-free zones, right?

And the left was never the exclusive domain of white men.

[NurseJackie]

167. Yes you did.

Stop digging.

Apologize.

[Docreed2003]

170. FYI...someone alerted on this post....no clue why...

It was bogus and I agree, an apology should be forthcoming, at the very least, for the post you were responding to. Have a nice evening!

[Ken Burch]

173. Nothing in my post implied that white left activists were an oppressed group.

Such a claim would be absurd.

I simply said that the movements I listed, all of which were essentially part OF the left, had transformative visions of what life could be. They occasionally compromised, but they were all radical in spirit.

And most of the Left aren't straight white men-most leftists are women, many are people of color, many are LGBTQ.

I don't know why anyone would try to set up a dichotomy in which there's a supposedly all-white Left, on one hand, and a large community of historically oppressed communities in which, somehow, everybody is bitterly anti-Left.

That's not reality.

If you are on the Left, you are going to be a committed opponent of all forms of social oppression, just as much as you'd be against economic oppression. That's just part of the value system.

[NurseJackie]

176. Nice try, but it falls short and fails in all areas.

And most of the Left aren't straight white men-most leftists are women, many are people of color, many are LGBTQ.

That may be true, but it's irrelevant to the comparison you made. It's not a valid defense of your offensive statements and comparisons. The "struggle" of the alt-left, the far-left, the fringe-left DOES NOT COMPARE to the struggles of AA's POC and LGBT citizens. Stop it! It's offensive.

[Ken Burch]

177. I'm not part of the "alt-left".

Never have been. Never will be.

And I have nothing to do with the hashtag hate group.

[NurseJackie]

178. If you say so.

Everything else still stands. It's still a major fail and your comparison of your "revolution" to groups who TRULY are marginalized and denied is still offensive. It's inappropriate and it does nothing to help your cause.

I strongly you encourage you to apologize. Don't let it go for two years. Apologize now and put it behind you.

[Ken Burch]

182. I did not compare white leftists to oppressed communities.

All I said was that the causes I listed all had a radical, transformational vision. I praise those movements for that.

And my "cause" is a better world for all-I'm not fighting for white men AGAINST everybody else.

As part of it, I'm antiracist, pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ and pro-woman.

It's not white supremacist to be a radical. Nor is it selfish.

[NurseJackie]

190. Nope. That's not what you did at all.

Here it is. Here's what you did to. You tried to justify your hard-left "push" by comparing it to the struggles of AA/POC, women, and LGBT. The political "struggle" of the fringe-left doesn't compare, Ken. There's NO comparison. Stop it. It's offensive.

155. If the strategy you're talking about had been used by the black freedom movement

All that would've happened by now is that the drinking fountains would be desegregated on Tuesdays and Thursdays, with religious exemptions for the fountains at Bob Jones University.

They pushed for big change the whole time. So did labor, when unions were actually winning. So did feminists. So does the LGBTQ rights movement. All compromised, but none let go of the transformative vision-at least not when those movements were actually effective.

We have to push for big change to get ANY change-especially since next to nobody on the Right is ever willing to compromise(the GOP senators that joined our senators in defying Trump on healthcare did so only because of mass pressure from below.

Small changes, tiny increments, rarely if ever make any meaningful difference in anyone's lives.

Actually, that last sentence you wrote is wrong too.

182. I did not compare white leftists to oppressed communities.

Yes you did.

All I said was that the causes I listed all had a radical, transformational vision. I praise those movements for that.

No, that's not what you did.

And my "cause" is a better world for all-I'm not fighting for white men AGAINST everybody else.

That's nice.

As part of it, I'm antiracist, pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ and pro-woman.

That's nice.

It's not white supremacist to be a radical. Nor is it selfish.

Yawn. Nobody said that. Nobody accused you of that. NOBODY. Why bother to bring it up? It serves no good purpose to defend yourself against fabricated accusations that were never made in the first place. Why do it?

[betsuni]

191. +1

[Ken Burch]

194. I talked about the tactics and vision those groups used.

By "we", all I meant was the broader community of change and the Democratic Party-I was actually including you.

Nothing in that even remotely equated to comparing white male leftists to oppressed communities. I've never believed there was any equation and would not make it.

It's not equating white male leftists to oppressed communities to say anything that implies that the economic justice movement is politically and socially legitimate, or even that the Sanders campaign, now long ended, was something that had to happen.

And I'm not "hard left". Hard left is Maoism and the Khmer Rouge, not just too far to the left for your personal comfort. It's not "hard left" just to reject the idea that all we can ever get is half-loaves, quarter-loaves or sometimes just slices. All of us know that sometimes partial victories happen, but that doesn't mean there's an obligation to never even try for big victories or for social and economic transformation.

We don't have to check dreams at the door.

[NurseJackie]

195. Splitting hairs isn't helping your argument. (Just so you know.)

Defending yourself against accusations or insults that were never spoken doesn't help your argument either.

[Ken Burch]

196. I'm defending myself against your false claim that I equated white leftists

with the historically oppressed. I did no such thing.

Saying that movements of the historically oppressed and of labor had radical visions at their center, as all did, is NOT the same thing as saying white male leftists have it as bad as people of color, women, or LGBTQ people.

[NurseJackie]

197. Now you're exaggerating. That doesn't help your case either.

196. I'm defending myself against your false claim that I equated white leftists
with the historically oppressed. I did no such thing.

Nobody made any false claims like that.

Saying that movements of the historically oppressed and of labor had radical visions at their center, as all did, is NOT the same thing as saying white male leftists have it as bad as people of color, women, or LGBTQ people.

If that were true, then maybe you'd have a valid point. But it isn't, and you don't.

We've been through this already. This is getting repetitive and it "serves no good purpose".

[Docreed2003]

187. Ken, why do you feel the need to say "I didn't suggest that"???

My post was intended towards NJ, and I felt her post was within guidelines and wanted to inform her. No one is setting up a dichotomy like you speak of.

You can spare me the talk about "all white left" vs "x" crap....I don't need that lecture.

Let me ask you a question, ever heard of a guy by the name of Will Campbell?? Most haven't, he was a Baptist minister that grew up in rural Mississippi. I know you know about "Brown vs Board"...well Will helped escort those children to school on their first day. When the Southern Christian Leadership Conference was formed, guess who the only white minister present at its founding was? Will Campbell. When Nashville was in the throws of the civil rights movement, there was a young student from American Baptist Seminary by the name of John Lewis and young adults from other historically black schools in Nashville that were developing civil disobedience techniques and needed mentors...Will Campbell was one of them, a subtle voice helping and guiding from the background. He'd become known as a "bootleg minister" in his later life, which was highlighted by his fight to end capital punishment. Yet, no one remembers Will D Campbell. That always bothered me...will was my friend and my mentor. You have to dig further than Wikipedia to even know most of those facts. I ask him once, "Will, why aren't you pushing for greater historical acknowledgment??" His response hit me over the head and changed the way I view the world. "Son, it was never my desire to be a leader, I was merely supporting what I felt were just causes that Christ would support. It wasn't for me to lead those struggles or to be the focus. I provided my strength and energy and that was enough recognition for me."

Ken, I appreciate your intensity and your zeal for liberal/progressive issues. I would only say, take a deep breath, step back from the keyboard, and listen. The angrier and more emotional and the quicker you are to respond to any perceived or real slight, the less likely people are to take your messages seriously. Again, I admire your fight, but you don't have the only answers or path forward. Sometimes it's more effective to provide strength by supporting the cause from the background. Took me a long time to appreciate that message, but my mentor lived it and, if I could live half his life, I'd do so gladly, even if it meant no one would remember my name!

[Ken Burch]

188. Thanks for that post. I actually do know of and admire Will Campbell.

Look, I'm not seeking personal acknowledgment, I'm defending myself and people who share my views against false accusations. She accused my of comparing the Sanders movement to historically oppressed communities. I made no such comparison. And I especially never equated white male leftists with historically oppressed communities. I would never do anything even remotely like that.

And I know I don't have the only answers, but I've done nothing to deserve people here continually telling me to shut up or of having some sort of diabolical agenda. And the movement I've been part of doesn't deserve to be accused of being left-wing white supremacists.

[NurseJackie]

175. Typical.

[Ken Burch]

185. Typical truth.

You had no reason to accuse me of comparing the Sanders movement(let's be honest, that's what this is about)to historically oppressed community.

I said that anti-oppression movements, and the labor movement, arose out of radical transformative visions-that they weren't universally "centrist" and incremental. Well, they weren't. They sat-in. They picketed. They marched. They disrupted. They made demands and stayed with them. And that's how they won when they won, because power gives up nothing, even increments, without a demand.

Why is that offensive? You know it's the truth.

And the false accusation that the Sanders movement would be equated buy anyone to an oppressed community, something you know I would never do, looks as though it is born out of an obsession with anathemizing that movement and, if possible, destroying it.

Only conservatives and conservatism would benefit from that happening, or from this party moving any further to the right on any issues.

And a centrist Democratic Party wouldn't be able to fight racism, defend choice or protect anyone from social oppression.

[NurseJackie]

189. (Yawn.)

[Adrahil]

143. I disagree.

That's politically naivete, not progressive. A progressive person can certainly survey the political environment and support what is possible, not what they personally would prefer. In fact, I think supporting a candidate so "progressive" that either can't get elected, or couldn't govern isn't really very progressive it all.

[obamanut2012]

130. this